/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/180207.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, February 7, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 28 Headlines 48 WEST: Faces "Guillen" Suit in S.D. New York 272 SMITH: Faces "Caralampio" Suit in Eastern District New York 2293NMA LLC: Navases Sue over Chicago Rental Rules 2855 POWERCELL: "Cabrera" Suit Seeks OT, Spread-of-Hours Pay 7447 SOUTH SHORE: Covington Sues over Chicago Rental Rules 11TH HOUR INVESTMENTS: Plantation Spinal Care Sues over Junk Fax ADOBE SYSTEMS: "Benhayon" Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing SMS AETNA INC: Inzlicht-Sprei Seeks to Enjoin Merger with CVS AHOLD U.S.A.: Belizaire Sues over Illegal Delivery Charge Policy AIRGAS USA: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage, "Charles" Suit Says ALLEGHENY, PA: Russo Files Suit in W.D. Penn. ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: Surfside Sues over Ransomware Attack AMERICAN EXPRESS: Wilson Sues over Robocalls ANGELINI METAL: "Lopez" Action Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay APPLE INC: Faces "Miller" Class Action in Texas APPLE INC: "Davidson" Suit Transferred to District of Delaware ASHLEY BLACK CO: Faces "Dalton" Suit in C.D. of California ASSET RECOVERY: Vandehey & O'Laire Sue over Debt Collection ATOMIC WINGS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Anariba" Suit Says BANK OF AMERICA: Faces "Suarez" Wage-and-Hour Suit BARCEL USA: Faces "Morrison" Suit in Southern District New York BEHR PROCESS: Falsely Marketed DeckOver Products, Suit Claims BLINK HOLDINGS: Faces "Andrews" Suit in Eastern District New York BITCONNECT INT'L: Mengesha Sues over Cryptocurrency Plunge BITCONNECT INT'L: Paige Sues over Cryptocurrency Plunge BONANZA CREEK: "Feinstein" Suit Seeks to Halt Sandridge Merger BREAD AND SALT: Faces "Walker" Suit in District of Massachusetts CALIFORNIA: Magistrate Recommends Dismissal of "Acord" CALL-A-HEAD: Court Certifies Class of PTSTs in "Vargas" FLSA Suit CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS: "Shoemaker" Suit Dismissed CBV COLLECTIONS: Faces "Jackson" Suit in Mid. Dist. Ga. CELESTIAL PARTNERS: JPMorgan Seeks Action Re-assignment CHEVYS FRESH: Martinez Seeks Penalties Arising from Unpaid Wages CHICAGO PROPERTY: Faces "Muse" Suit over City Rental Rules CHOP'T CREATIVE: Accused of Misclassifying Non-Tipped Workers CIGNA CORP: Court Compels Admissions on TCPA Claims COEXIST NUTRITION: Faces "Ross" Suit in S.D. New York COLLECTION LLC: Perlman Alleges Invasion of Privacy, Harassment COMBE INC: Wins Bid to Dismiss Section 1981 Claim in "Stringer" COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL: Faces "Navas" Suit in E.D. New York CORECIVIC INC: Detainees Forced to Work, Claims Minimum Wages COSTCO WHOLESALE: Suit Over Underfilled Canned Chicken Dismissed CREDIT PAYMENT: 9th Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in "Kristensen" CUDLEY'S HOME: Ryazantseva Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Law CVS HEALTH: Transferred "Bewley" Class Suit to Dist. New Jersey DANELL CUSTOM: Hearing on "Rodriguez" Deal Approval Continued DENALI WATER: "Verdugo" Suit Moved to C.D. California DEREK LAM: "Guzman" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages under Labor Code DIAMOND RESORTS: Fails to Pay All Overtime Wages, Anderson Says DICK'S SPORTING: Bid to Stay "Greer" Denied DNC SERVICES: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Compensation, Torres Says EDDIE BAUER: Court Certifies Store Employees Class in "Heredia" EPIC LANDSCAPE: "Chevere" Seeks OT Pay, Hits Excessive Deductions EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Donnelly" Suit in N.D. Georgia ESURANCE PROPERTY: Faces Central Palm Beach Suit in S.D. Fla. FEDERAL NATIONAL: D. Best Can File 2nd Amended Complaint FINANCIAL RECOVERIES: Wakefield Sues over Collection Practices FLORIDA CARE ASSISTED LIVING: Baptiste Seeks Unpaid OT Wages FURNITURE HOME: "Taber" Suit Seeks OT Compensation under FLSA GARCES GROUP: Faces "Godino" Suit in S.D. Pennsylvania GENERAL NUTRITION: "Chevalier" Suit Brought Before Penn. S.C. HALSTED FINANCIAL: Tinker Sues over Debt Collection Practices HAMBLEN COUNTY, TN: "Wolfe" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages under FLSA HAYNES INVESTMENTS: Faces "Gibbs" Suit in E.D. Virginia HOST INTERNATIONAL: "Garcia" Suit Moved to S.D. California HYATT CORPORATION: Website Not Fully Accessible, Gomez Says ILLINOIS: Court Certifies Class in "Donegan" IMPERIAL TOWERS: Morris Sues over Use of Biometric Info INFUSION SOFTWARE: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Clark" Suit Says INTEL CORP: Kintz Sues over Defective Core Processor INTEL CORP: UFCW Local 1500 Sues over Computer Chip Security Flaw JEFFREY SACHS: "Adwar" Suit Seeks Dissolution of Partnership JHOS LOGISTICS: Fails to Pay Compensation, "Rivas" Suit Says JMJ INC: Fails to Pay Unpaid Wages, "Chapman" Suit Says KEMPER CASUALTY: Bid to Dismiss First Amended "Bhasker" Denied KINDRED HEALTHCARE: March 1 "Cashon" Settlement Hearing KIRA SUSHI 2: "Zhao" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages & OT under FLSA LE BERNARDIN INC: Faces "Avery" Suit in S.D. New York LELAND ENTERPRISES: Gilbert Seeks Unpaid OT Wages under FLSA LIFE GENERATIONS: "Laigo" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay LITTLECITY REALTY: Faces "Tejada" Suit in E.D. New York MACY'S INC: Court Narrows Claims in "Haley" Suit MDL 2695: Court Narrows Claims in Products Liability Litigation MDL 2800: "Tosco" Suit vs. Equifax Transferred to N.D. Georgia MERCHANTS BUILDING: Hernandez Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code METRO SECURITY: Smith Seeks Minimum Wage and OT Pay under FLSA MIDLAND FUNDING: "Battersby" Suit Moved to E.D. New York MITSIS BAKERY: Faces "Bonilla" Suit in E.D. New York MONSANTO COMPANY: Hudson Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Tingle et al. Sue over Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Williams Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Wolfe Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Whites Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MORTGAGE CAPITAL: Fails to Refund Loan Officers Costs, Leong Says MOXLEY & ASSOCIATES: Faces "Williams" Suit in S.D. Alabama MRI INT'L: Feb. 9 Deadline to File Approval Bid in "Takiguchi" NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Court Narrows Claims in "Smith" FDCPA Suit NAZARI ASSOCIATES: "Rivas" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Work NORTHSTAR LOCATIONS: Faces "Quinn" Suit in East. Dist. New York OCEAN STATE: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss "Stewart" Suit P&B CAPITAL: Thomas Sues over Debt Collections Practices PABCOR MANAGEMENT: Carey & Hudson Sue over Chicago Rental Rules PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS: Opposes "Rabin" Class Certification PROFESSIONAL BUREAU: Vallot Sues over Debt Collections Practices PROPHET MANASSEH: "Person" Suit Seeks OT Wages under FLSA PROTECT AMERICA: Wieseler-Myers Sues over Robocalls PVK INC: Faces "Jocelyn" Suit in Eastern District New York R. GROSS DAIRY: "Nunez" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage & OT under FLSA RITE AID: Court Dismisses FCRA Claims in "Moore" SANOFI AVENTIS: Court Dismisses Amended Lantus Antitrust Suit SCHREIBERCOHEN LLC: Reyes Sues over Debt Collections Practices SIDECAR BAR & GRILLE: Faces "Cuenca" Suit in E.D. New York SNYDER'S-LANCE INC: Shaev Seeks to Enjoin Merger with Campbell SPECIALTYCARE: Faces "Bosque" Class Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ST. THOMAS HEALTH: Faces "Ross" Suit in Middle District Tenn. SURFSIDE COFFEE: "Fernandez" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA SWAPP LAW: Loses Bid to Dismiss "Wilcox" DPPA Suit SWATCH LTD: Wohl Sues over Two-Year Warranty on Watch Purchase SYNEOS HEALTH: Share Prices Inflated, Vaitkuviene Claims TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL: Fails to Pay Earned Wages, Sharp Says TEXAS: Taylor Files Suit v. Parole Board Chair, et al. ULINE INC: Settlement in "Moncada" Suit Has Final Approval WELK RESORT: Court Allows Ashcraft to Amend FCRA Suit YURI SUSHI: Faces "Lin" Suit in Southern District of New York ZANKOU ENTERPRISES: Villalobos Sues over Wage & Hour Violation ********* 48 WEST: Faces "Guillen" Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 48 West 21st Street Corp. The case is styled Jose Luis Pastrana Guillen, on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 48 West 21st Street Corp. doing business as: Taj Lounge Restaurant, David Casey, Mark Philip Quilter and Matthew Knott, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv- 00642 (S.D N.Y., January 24, 2018). 48 West 21st Street Corp is engaged in the restaurant industry.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. 272 SMITH: Faces "Caralampio" Suit in Eastern District New York --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 272 Smith LLC. The case is styled Felipe Caralampio, Moises Cruz and Luisa Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. 272 Smith LLC, Sheeky Inc. d/b/a Cubana Cafe, Jointly and Severally, Danforth Houle, Armando Rueda and Jean-Luc Lopez, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00486 (E.D. N.Y., January 23, 2018). Cuban cuisine is served with mojitos at this bare-bones, cash- only Carroll Gardens cafe.[BN] The Plaintiffs appear PRO SE. 2293NMA LLC: Navases Sue over Chicago Rental Rules -------------------------------------------------- JOSE NAVAS & COURTNEY NAVAS, Individually And As Representatives of a Class of Similarly Situated Persons, the Plaintiffs, v. 2293NMA LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2018-CH-01081 (Ill. Cir., Cook County, Jan. 26, 2018), seeks to recover damages as result of Defendant's violation of the Chicago Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance. The Plaintiffs were tenants at 2733 W. Belden Avenue, Unit 404, Chicago, Illinois 60647 (The Belden Building). The Belden Building is one of two large residential apartment buildings in Chicago containing over 216 residential rental dwelling units managed by Defendant. The Belden Building and its twin counter- part building each managed by Defendant are referred to as "MiCA." 2293NMA LLC, was an owner, lessor, authorized management, and land lord of MiCA during Plaintiffs' tenancy. As part of their responsibilities with MiCA, Defendant prepared arid offered rental agreements and renewals to prospective tenants and tenants. Additionally, Defendant collected rent and fees directly from tenants and deposited rent received into their business account(s). Collecting and depositing monthly rent and deposits, and preparing, offering, and executing rental agreements and renewals to Chicago tenants, including required disclosures, is within the scope of Defendant's duties and responsibilities as building owner, management, and lessor at MiCA. On September 26, 2016, Defendant initially offered Plaintiffs a 12-page rental agreement for their dwelling unit at the Belden Building at MiCA. The Defendant has offered the same rental agreement with the same defective RLTO Summary and no RLTO Separate Summary to all of its Chicago tenants, within the last two years.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: AARON KROLIK LAW OFFICE, P.A. 225 W. Washington St. Suite 2200 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 924 0278 Facsimile: (312) 650 8241 - and - MARK SILVERMAN LAW OFFICE LTD. 225 W. Washington St. Suite 2200 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 775 1015 Facsimile: (312) 256 2055 2855 POWERCELL: "Cabrera" Suit Seeks OT, Spread-of-Hours Pay ------------------------------------------------------------ Victoria Cabrera, Omayra Colon, and Emely Turbides, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. 2855 Powercell, Inc., 2855 3rd Avenue, Inc., 327 E. 149th Street, Inc., 508A Willis Avenue, Inc., Mohammed Islam (a.k.a. Mohammed Batt) and Akiva "Doe," Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-10139, (S.D. N.Y., December 27, 2017), seeks compensation for wages paid at less than the statutory minimum wage required by the Fair Labor Standards Act, overtime premium pay, liquidated damages, unpaid "spread of hours" pay under New York Labor Law and New York Wage Theft Prevention Act. Defendants jointly owned and operated cellphone store in the Bronx under the names "Powercell," "2855," "327" and "Willis". Plaintiffs worked for Defendants as cellphone salespeople and customer service representatives who were responsible for selling cellphone products, activating the phones and dealing with any customer service issues. Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Samuel, Esq. SAMUEL & STEIN 38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110 New York, NY 10001 Tel: (212) 563-9884 7447 SOUTH SHORE: Covington Sues over Chicago Rental Rules ---------------------------------------------------------- JIMMIE COVINGTON, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. 7447 SOUTH SHORE, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2018-CH-01286 (Ill. Cir., Cook County, Jan. 31, 2018), seeks to recover damages against Defendant for violating the City of Chicago Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance, Municipal Code. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to provide Plaintiff and the class with a copy of the then current RLTO summaries required by Section 5-12-170 of the RLTO; and pay Plaintiff and the class interest on their security deposits in the manner and within the timeframe required by Section 5-12-0SO(c) of the RLTO. 7447 South Shore, LLC was founded in 2003. The company's line of business includes the operation of apartment buildings.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrev Sobek, Esq. JS Law 1 29 E. Madison Street, Suite 1000 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone (312) 756 1330 E-mail: jeffs@jsslawoffices.com 11TH HOUR INVESTMENTS: Plantation Spinal Care Sues over Junk Fax ---------------------------------------------------------------- PLANTATION SPINAL CARE CENTER, INC., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. 11TH HOUR INVESTMENTS, INC. d/b/a PROGRESSIVE BUSINESS FUNDING, a California corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 0:18-cv-60189-WPD (S.D. Fla., Jan. 29, 2018), seeks an injunction, requiring Defendant to cease all junk faxes and an award of statutory damages to Plaintiff and Class Members, together with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant has, from prior to the date of the filing of the Complaint through the present, systematically and under a uniform policy and procedure sent and/or arranged to be sent hundreds, or thousands, of fax advertisements, advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services, to fax machines and/or computers to fax machines throughout the United States, including those of Plaintiff and Class Members, without prior express written consent, and which did not contain an opt-out notice as required by the TCPA. The fax advertisements that Defendant causes to be sent contain preprinted, standardized text and format. The Defendant's advertising by fax was not sporadic or unorganized, but instead was part of a well-organized mass advertising tactic and campaign. Defendant appears to have a business model whereby it sends unsolicited "leads," via fax, to local businesses. As a result, the Plaintiff asserts that the fax ads at issue were "unsolicited advertisements" within the meaning of the TCPA. All of Defendant's fax ads whether "unsolicited advertisements" or not (because of prior invitation or permission), must have the required opt-out notice to be lawful under the TCPA, which uniformly they did not. Each fax advertisement sent to Plaintiff and to each Class Member routinely failed to include the opt-out notice required by the TCPA and its regulations.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff and the putative class: Seth M. Lehrman, Esq. EDWARDS POTTINGER LLC 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 524-2820 Facsimile: (954) 524-2822 E-mail: seth@eplllc.com - and - Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq. Michael J. Pascucci, Esq. EGGNATZ | PASCUCCI 5400 S. University Drive, Suite 417 Davie, FL 33328 Telephone: (954) 889 3359 Facsimile: (954) 889 5913 E-mail: JEggnatz@JusticeEarned.com Mpascucci@JusticeEarned.com ADOBE SYSTEMS: "Benhayon" Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing SMS ------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Benhayon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Adobe Systems, Inc., a Foreign for Profit Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 17-cv- 62566 (S.D. Fla., December 27, 2017), seeks damages and interest, reasonable costs, including attorneys' fees and equitable/injunctive or other relief for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Defendant is an American multinational computer software company headquartered in San Jose. In an effort to sell and advertise their computer software, Defendant regularly engages in unsolicited telemarketing directed towards prospective consumers. Adobe sent a telemarketing text message to Plaintiff's cellular telephone promoting Defendant's Adobe Scan software without prior consent and using an automatic telephone dialing system. Plaintiff is represented by: Scott A. Edelsberg, Esq. Jeff Ostrow, Esq. Avi R. Kaufman, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT 1 W. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 Facsimile: (954) 525-4300 Email: edelsberg@kolawyers.com ostrow@kolawyers.com kaufman@kolawyers.com - and - Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: 954-400-4713 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: 305-479-2299 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com AETNA INC: Inzlicht-Sprei Seeks to Enjoin Merger with CVS --------------------------------------------------------- The case, DR. ELI INZLICHT-SPREI, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. AETNA, INC., MARK T. BERTOLINI, FRANK M. CLARK, FERNANDO AGUIRRE, JOSEPH P. NEWHOUSE, ELLEN M. HANCOCK, EDWARD J. LUDWIG, MOLLY J. COYE, ROGER N. FARAH, BETSY Z. COHEN, JEFFREY E. GARTEN, RICHARD J. HARRINGTON, and OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00176 (D. Conn., Jan. 31, 2018), is a shareholder class action brought by Plaintiff on behalf of himself and all other public shareholders of Aetna, Inc. against Aetna and the members of Aetna's Board of Directors for their violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, pursuant to which Aetna will be acquired by CVS Health Corporation, through its wholly-owned subsidiary Hudson Merger Sub Corp. On December 3, 2017, Aetna and CVS issued a joint press release announcing they had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger under which CVS will acquire all outstanding shares of Aetna for $145.00 in cash and 0.8378 shares of CVS common stock per share, which would value Aetna at approximately $207.94 per share. Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will merge with and into the Company, with the Company surviving the merger as an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of CVS. The Proposed Transaction is valued at approximately $77 billion. On January 4, 2018, the Board authorized the filing of a materially misleading and incomplete Registration Statement on Form S-4 with the SEC. The Registration Statement, which recommends that Aetna shareholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, omits or misrepresents material information concerning, among other things: (i) Aetna's financial projections, relied upon by Aetna's financial advisor, Lazard Freres & Co. LLC and Lazard and Allen & Company, in its financial analyses; (ii) the data and inputs underlying the financial valuation analyses that support the fairness opinion provided by Lazard; (iii) the background process leading to the Proposed Transaction, including the terms and details surrounding any alternative indications of interest in the Company solicited or received from any other company; and (iv) the actual value of the Merger Consideration. The failure to adequately disclose such material information constitutes a violation of sections of the Exchange Act, as Aetna shareholders need such information to cast a fully-informed vote or make an appraisal decision in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Merger Consideration that Aetna stockholders stand to receive in connection with the Proposed Transaction and the process by which Defendants propose to consummate the Proposed Transaction are unfair to Plaintiff and the other common shareholders of the Company. In violation of the Exchange Act, Defendants are asking Plaintiff and Aetna's other public shareholders to vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction based on the materially incomplete and misleading Registration Statement. In short, unless remedied, Aetna's public shareholders will be forced to make a voting decision on the Proposed Transaction without receiving full disclosure of all material information concerning the Proposed Transaction. Aetna Inc. is an American managed health care company, which sells traditional and consumer directed health care insurance plans and related services, such as medical, pharmaceutical, dental, behavioral health, long-term care, and disability plans.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 733 Summer Street, Suite 3004 Stamford, CT 06901 Telephone: (203) 992 4523 Facsimile: (212) 363 7171 E-mail: shopkins@zlk.com - and - Melissa A. Fortunato, Esq. Todd H. Henderson BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C. 885 Third Avenue, Suite 3040 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 308 5858 Facsimile: (212) 214 0506 Email: fortunato@bespc.com henderson@bespc.com AHOLD U.S.A.: Belizaire Sues over Illegal Delivery Charge Policy ---------------------------------------------------------------- ANSY BELIZAIRE and ANTHONY McALLISTER, on behalf of themselves and all other employees similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AHOLD U.S.A., AHOLD DELIIAIZE USA, INC, PEAPOD, LLC and THE STOP & SHOP SUPERMARKET COMPANY LLC, INC, the Defendants, Case No. 650411/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Jan. 25, 2018), contends that the Defendants have a policy of charging their customers a delivery fee for the delivery performed by Defendants' delivery drivers. Defendants retain the entire charge for delivery and do not remit or pass any portion of it to their delivery drivers. When Defendants' customers place delivery orders using Defendants' website, the above-mentioned sendee charge is represented as a charge for delivery. Customers' receipts for the delivery orders do not include a disclaimer that the deliver fee is not distributed to delivery drivers. It is not Defendants' policy to routinely inform customers that the delivery charge is retained by Defendants and not paid full or in part to Defendants' delivery drivers. Defendants' customers can reasonably believe that the sendee charge for delivery is a gratuity paid to Defendants' delivery drivers and that they therefore do not have to tip the drivers. As a result of Defendants' illegal delivery charge policy, Named Plaintiffs and the Class are owed the gratuities illegally retained by Defendants. Ansy Belizaire worked as a delivery driver at the South Setauket, New York and Watertown, Abington, Framingham, and Allston, Massachusetts locations. Belizaire worked in New York from approximately February 2015 until 2017, and in Massachusetts from approximately March 2008 until February 2015. Anthony McAllister works as a delivery driver at the New Hyde Park and Farmingdale, New York locations. Named Plaintiff McAllister began working as a delivery driver in approximately 2012 and last worked in approximately April 2015 due to an injury while at work. The Plaintiffs and the Class are employees under applicable state law. The Defendants own and operate an online grocery delivery company that serves various markets, including areas in Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana, Maryland, Virginia, Massachusetts, and New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: J. Nelson Thomas, Esq. Michael J. Lingle, Esq. Sarah E. Cressman, Esq. Jessica L. Lukasiewicz, Esq. THOMAS & SOLOMON LLP 693 East Avenue Rochester, NY 14607 Telephone: (585) 272 0540 E-mail: nthomas@theemploymentattorneys.com mlingle@theemploymentattorneys.com scressman@theemploymentatorneys.com jlukasiewicz@theemploymentattorneys.com AIRGAS USA: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage, "Charles" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------- ANDRE CHARLES, individually, on behalf of all others similarly situated, and as representatives of other aggrieved employees, the Plaintiff, v. AIRGAS USA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 19 250, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC691347 (Cal. Super. Ct., Jan. 25, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid rest period premiums, and minimum wage under the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff allege that Defendants were advised by skilled lawyers and other professionals, employees and advisors knowledgeable about California labor and wage law, employment and personnel practices, and about the requirements of California Labor Code, which provides: "The maximum hours of work and the standard conditions of labor fixed by the commission shall be the maximum hours of work and the standard conditions of labor for employees. The employment of any employee for longer hours than those fixed by the order or under conditions of labor prohibited by the order is unlawful." In accordance with its power under section 1198, the Industrial Welfare Commission adopted Wage Orders prescribing the minimum wages, maximum hours, and standard conditions of employment for employees in this state. The Plaintiff and Class members were repeatedly prevented from taking their meal periods and rest breaks including, but not limited to, that drivers were required to remain in their trucks during their entire shift, preventing them from taking breaks, and were forced to work through meal periods and rest breaks due to, among other things, Defendant's demanding schedule. Yet Defendant still deducted for meal periods that were not taken, depriving Plaintiff and Class members of wages for hours that they worked. As such, they are also owed minimum wage for these times that they were working through meal periods but that time was still deducted from their pay. Plaintiff and Class members were not authorized or permitted lawful meal periods and rest breaks, and were not provided with one hour's wages in lieu thereof in violation of, among others, Labor Code sections 226.7, 512, and applicable IWC Wage Orders. Airgas is a company that states it is the nation's leading single-source supplier of gases, welding equipment and supplies, and safety products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary R. Carlin, Esq. Brent S. Buchsbaum, Esq. Laurel N. Haag, Esq. Ian M. Silvers, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CARLIN & BUCHSBAUM LLP 555 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 818 Long Beach, CA 90802 Tel: (562) 432-8933 Fax: (562) 435-1656 E-mail: gary@carlinbuchsbaum.com brent@carlinbuchsbaum.com laurel@carlinbuchsbaum.com ian@carlinbuchsbaum.com ALLEGHENY, PA: Russo Files Suit in W.D. Penn. --------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The County of Allegheny. The case is styled Leo Russo both individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The County of Allegheny, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00097-MRH (W.D. Penn., January 22, 2018). The County of Allegheny is a government agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elmer R. Keach, III, Esq. Law Offices of Elmer R. Keach, III 1 Pine West Plaza, Suite 109 Albany, NY 12205 Tel: (518) 434-1718 Email: bobkeach@keachlawfirm.com ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: Surfside Sues over Ransomware Attack ----------------------------------------------------------- SURFSIDE NON-SURGICAL ORTHOPEDICS, P.A., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00566 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 25, 2018), seeks to recover equitable relief compelling Allscripts to utilize appropriate methods and policies with respect to ransomware protection. The Plaintiff brings this class action against Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc. for failing to secure its systems and data from cyberattacks, including ransomware attacks. According to the complaint, on January 18, 2018, Allscripts did suffer a ransomware attack, which prevented Allscripts' clients from conducting their routine and ordinary business. As a result of the ransomware attack experienced by Allscripts, Plaintiff could not access its patients' records or electronically prescribe medications, forcing Plaintiff to cancel appointments, thereby causing significant business interruption and disruption, and lost revenues. Additionally, Plaintiff has expended significant time and effort resolving these issues resulting from the breach, including communicating with patients to reschedule appointments. Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc. is a publicly traded American company that provides physician practices, hospitals, and other healthcare providers with practice management and electronic health record technology.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff and Putative Classes: Steven W. Teppler, Esq. Brittany Ford, Esq. ABBOTT LAW GROUP, P.A. 2929 Plummer Cove Road Jacksonville, FL 32223 Telephone: (904) 292 1111 Facsimile: (904) 292 1220 E-mail: steppler@abbottlawpa.com - and - John A. Yanchunis, Esq. Marisa Glassman, Esq. Patrick A. Barthle, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 Facsimile: (813) 223-5402 E-mail: jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com mglassman@ForThePeople.com pbarthle@ForThePeople.com - and - Joel R. Rhine, Esq. RHINE LAW FIRM, PC 1612 Military Cutoff Road, Suite 300 Wilmington, NC 28403 Telephone: (910) 772 9960 Facsimile: (910) 772 9062 E-mail: jrr@rhinelawfirm.com - and - Robert A. Clifford, Esq. Shannon M. Mcnulty, Esq. CLIFFORD LAW OFFICES 120 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 3100 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 899 9090 E-mail: rac@cliffordlaw.com smm@cliffordlaw.com AMERICAN EXPRESS: Wilson Sues over Robocalls -------------------------------------------- Jacob Wilson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. American Express Company, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00672 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 25, 2018), seeks damages resulting from the illegal actions of American Express Company, in negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully placed automated and prerecorded calls to Plaintiff's cellular phone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. AMEX is credit card company that is the "world's largest card issuer by purchase volume" and "provides millions of transactions daily as the premium network for high-spending cardmembers" http://about.americanexpress.com/oc/whoweare/(last visited Jan. 24, 2018). As part of its collections operation, AMEX operates an aggressive contact schedule which bombards unsuspecting consumers, with whom it has no relationship, with robocalls and prerecorded messages. The Plaintiff is such a consumer. He is not an AMEX customer yet has been bombarded with autodialed and pre-recorded calls made without his consent and over his explicit objection.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sergei Lemberg, Esq. LEMBERG LAW, L.L.C. 43 Danbury Road, 3rd Floor Wilton, CT 06897 Telephone: (203) 653 2250 Facsimile: (203) 653 3424 ANGELINI METAL: "Lopez" Action Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay -------------------------------------------------------- Cesar Fernando Ordonez Lopez, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), Plaintiff, vs. Angelini Metal Works Corp., Roberto Carlos Angelini and Marcela A. Dufau Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-24694 (S.D. Fla., December 27, 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. Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a welder from on or about August 1, 2007 through on or about December 27, 2017. Lopez worked an average of 70 hours per week, all without overtime pay for those hours above 40 per week. [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 APPLE INC: Faces "Miller" Class Action in Texas ----------------------------------------------- Mark Miller, Chris Spearman and Craig Stanford, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Apple Inc., Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-00889, (E.D. Tex., December 27, 2017), seeks injunctive relief and damages arising from Defendant's unlawful failure to inform consumers that updating their iPhone 6, 6S, SE or 7 to iOS 10.2.1 (and/or later to iOS 11.2) would dramatically and artificially reduce the performance of these devices. The Plaintiff seeks restitution of illegally acquired money, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, as well as prejudgment and post-judgment interest and such other and further relief resulting from negligent misrepresentation and/or fraudulent omission. Apple also failed to inform consumers that phone performance would be restored by simply replacing the phone's lithium-ion battery, a much cheaper solution than buying a new phone, says the complaint.. Defendant is a manufacturer of smartphones under the trade name "iPhone." [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth C. Johnston, Esq. Robert W. Gifford, Esq. 1717 Main Street, Suite 3000 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 974-8000 Facsimile: (972) 474-1750 Email: kjohnston@johnstonpratt.com rgifford@johnstonpratt.com APPLE INC: "Davidson" Suit Transferred to District of Delaware -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Thomas Davidson, Todd Cleary Eric Siegal, Michael Pajaro, John Borzymowski, Brooke Corbett Taylor Brown, Justin Bauer, Heirloom Estate Services, Inc., Kathleen Baker, Matt Muilenberg, William Bon, and Jason Petty, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, and Jun Bai, Non-Party, the Petitioners, v. Apple Inc., the Respondent, Case No. 5:16-cv-4942-LHK, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (Wilmington) on Jan. 25, 2018. The Delaware District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-mc-00033-UNA to the proceeding. Apple Inc. is an American multinational technology company headquartered in Cupertino, California that designs, develops, and sells consumer electronics, computer software, and online services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Page Simon, Esq. CROSS & SIMON, LLC 1105 North Market Street, Suite 901 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 777 4200 E-mail: csimon@crosslaw.com ASHLEY BLACK CO: Faces "Dalton" Suit in C.D. of California ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ashley Black Company. The case is styled Sharon Dalton, Allyson McCarthy, Sheila Smith, Mary Dennis, Kelli Frederick and Joey Campbell, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Ashley Black Company, Ashley Black, ADB Innovations, LLC, Ashley Black Guru, Ashley Diana Black International Holdings, LLC, Ashley Black Fasciology LLC, ADB Interests, LLC and Does 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00582 (C.D. Cal., January 23, 2018). Ashley Black Company is a Health & Fitness Program Consultant.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Thomas S Alch, Esq. Shoop APLC 350 South Beverly Drive Suite 330 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Tel: (310) 277-1700 Fax: (310) 277-8500 Email: thomas.alch@shooplaw.com ASSET RECOVERY: Vandehey & O'Laire Sue over Debt Collection ----------------------------------------------------------- JACQUELYN A. VANDEHEY, and MICHELLE L. O'LAIRE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. ASSET RECOVERY SOLUTIONS, LLC, an Illinois limited liability company; VELOCITY INVESTMENTS LLC, a New Jersey limited liability company; and, JOHN AND JANE DOES NUMBERS 1 THROUGH 25, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00144 (E.D. Wisc., Jan. 26, 2018), seeks to recover statutory damages, attorney fees, costs, and all other relief, equitable or legal in nature, pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. According to the complaint, O'Laire received a letter dated October 3, 2017. The O'Laire Letter described an alleged defaulted past-due balance ("O'Laire Debt") regarding a personal loan originally owed to Prosper Funding LLC. The O'Laire Debt is alleged by Defendants to be a financial obligation arising out of one or more transactions the subject(s) of which were primarily for personal, family, and household purposes. As inferred from the O'Laire Letter, Velocity purchased the O'Laire Debt after it was in default and charged-off by the original creditor. Creditors charge-off defaulted debts in accordance with federal regulations that require the creditor to remove the debt from their financial statements as assets. These charged-off accounts are treated as a loss and the creditor receives a tax deduction under the Internal Revenue Code. On advice of counsel, O'Laire alleges that the O'Laire Letter is a computer-generated from a template or form that Asset Recovery uses to collect defaulted debts on behalf of Velocity.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq. Philip D. Stern, Esq. STERN THOMASSON LLP 150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor Springfield, NJ 07081 1315 Telephone: (973) 379 7500 Facsimile: (973) 532 5868 E-Mail: andrew@sternthomasson.com philip@sternthomasson.com ATOMIC WINGS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Anariba" Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Ivan Vladimir Garcia Anariba, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Atomic Wings Franchisor Inc., Mirabi Inc., Adam Lippin and Mitchell Banchik, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-10104 (S.D. N.Y., December 27, 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 "Down the Hatch" and "Atomic Wings" franchise bar and chicken wing restaurant, located at 179 West Fourth Street, in New York, New York, where Anariba was employed as a porter and ostensibly as a busboy, regularly working in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate overtime compensation. [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 BANK OF AMERICA: Faces "Suarez" Wage-and-Hour Suit -------------------------------------------------- Arianna Suarez, on behalf of herself: all others similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiffs, v. Bank of America Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. RG18890674 (Cal. Super. Ct., Jan. 25, 2018), seeks to recover compensation for all hours worked under California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff began her employment with Defendants in 2003. The Plaintiff was performing her job duties satisfactorily and received positive performance reviews. The Plaintiff was consistently denied the opportunity to take her lunch break or other rest breaks by her immediate supervisor managing her banking center. She was often reprimanded by her supervisor when she would attempt to take a break or use the restroom. She almost never received an uninterrupted meal period or rest break while working at the Albany banking center. When Plaintiff would try to indicate on her records that she had not been able to take a meal period for the day, her supervisor barred that indication. Subsequently, Plaintiff was never compensated in the form of a meal premium for missing her meal periods. In May 2017, Plaintiff discovered that she was pregnant. In July 2017, Plaintiff discovered that she had developed Gestational Diabetes in association with her pregnancy. This condition necessitated that she take breaks to check and regulate her blood glucose levels, often requiring the use of a glucose monitor as well as a light snack or meal to control sugar spikes and drops. Plaintiff was issued a doctor's note explaining that Plaintiff needed to take her meal periods and eat in order to regulate her blood sugar levels and passed that note along to Defendant in a timely manner. Defendant disregarded the doctor's note and continued its policy of denying Plaintiff meal periods and rest periods. Because of this policy, Plaintiff was often forced to interrupt business to check her blood glucose levels, in spaces with limited-to-no privacy. Consequently, co-workers and customers often witnessed Plaintiff drawing blood to check her blood glucose levels. After reporting her pregnancy, Plaintiff was frequently asked inappropriate questions about her health and her ability to continue working in a condescending manner. Plaintiffs supervisor asked questions about her future with the company, and once expressed that "this isn't the right banking center for you," to the Plaintiff. Multiple times, Plaintiff was forced to work overtime hours for which she was compensated, though she had no choice as to whether or not she took the overtime. Plaintiff complained about this policy because she had a son at home with a genetic illness that needed regular transfusions, requiring her to take her son to the doctor's office for treatment. When she requested time off for these instances, they were denied. In one instance, Plaintiff's son was rushed to the hospital for a transfusion and Plaintiff was barred from taking a personal or sick day to visit him. When Plaintiff complained that she had a right to visit her son and use her accrued paid time off, her supervisor became cross and told her she needed to stay to run the banking center. Unsatisfied, Plaintiff called her supervisor's supervisor to complain about her supervisor's policies of barring usage of paid time off Plaintiff was allowed to go visit her son in the hospital on that day, but no further corrective or disciplinary action was taken with regard to Plaintiff's direct supervisor's policy of preventing paid time off usage. Defendants failed to provide meal and rest periods and failed to make premium payments to Plaintiff and Class Members for missed meal and rest breaks. Defendants' failure to record all breaks and failure to pay applicable premiums, resulted in part from Defendants' failure to record all hours worked. Defendants' failure to record all breaks and failure to pay applicable premiums resulted in payroll records such as wage statements that were not accurate or legally compliant, in violation of California Labor Code.[BN] Bank of America Corporation is a multinational banking and financial services corporation headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina, United States. It is ranked 2nd on the list of largest banks in the United States by assets. The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen Noel Ilg, Esq. Tracy T. Scanlan, Esq. Frank J. Zeccola, Esq. ILG LEGAL OFFICE, P.C. 505 14th Street, Ninth Floor Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415)580 2574 Facsimile: (415)735 3454 E-mail: silg@ilglegal.com tscanlan@ilglegal.com fzeccola@ilglegal.com BARCEL USA: Faces "Morrison" Suit in Southern District New York --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Barcel USA, LLC. The case is styled as Aurora Morrison, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Barcel USA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 7:18-cv-00531-VB (S.D. N.Y., January 22, 2018). Barcel USA, LLC manufactures, distributes, and sells candies, cookies, and snacks.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Lee Litigation Group, PLLC 30 East 39th Street 2nd Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 465-1188 Fax: (212) 465-1181 Email: cklee@leelitigation.com BEHR PROCESS: Falsely Marketed DeckOver Products, Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Joan Edwards, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BEHR Process Corp.; BEHR Paint Corp.; MASCO Corp.; The Home Depot, Inc.; and Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 3:17- cv-00683-FDW (W.D.N.C., November 27, 2017), is brought on behalf of all persons who purchased a Behr Premium DeckOver product in the United States, that was falsely marked as "durable" and "long-lasting", when in fact, DeckOver is not capable of reliably coating wood and concrete surfaces for more than a short period of time. It routinely peels, bubbles, and degrades within months of application, says the complaint. BEHR Process Corp. and BEHR Paint Corp. are suppliers of architectural paint and exterior wood care products to the United States. MASCO Corp. is a manufacturer of products for the home improvement and new home construction markets. The Home Depot, Inc. and Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. operates approximately 2,000 home improvement retail stores under the brand name "The Home Depot" in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel K. Bryson, Esq. Scott C. Harris, Esq. Patrick M. Wallace, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 600-5000 E-mail: dan@wbmllp.com scott@wbmllp.com pat@wbmllp.com BLINK HOLDINGS: Faces "Andrews" Suit in Eastern District New York ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blink Holdings, Inc. The case is styled as Victor Andrews, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Blink Holdings, Inc. doing business as: Blink Fitness, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00467 (E.D. N.Y., January 23, 2018). Blink Holdings, Inc., doing business as Blink Fitness, operates fitness clubs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. Shaked Law Group, P.C. 44 Court Street, Suite 1217 Brooklyn, NY 11217 Tel: (917) 373-9128 Fax: (718) 504-7555 Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com BITCONNECT INT'L: Mengesha Sues over Cryptocurrency Plunge ---------------------------------------------------------- PATRICIA MENGESHA individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Bitconnect International PLC, Bitconnect LTD, and Bitconnect Trading LTD, the Defendants, Case No. 0:18-cv-00279 (D. Minn., Jan. 31, 2018), alleges Bitconnect scammed thousands of Minnesotans and hundreds of thousands of Americans out of millions and millions of dollars through a website called bitconnect.co. Bitconnect took advantage of the increased attention, interest and success of cryptocurrencies and legitimate companies and technology to convince Plaintiff and the class that they would make money on their investment in Bitconnect's product. Bitconnect was both a pyramid scheme and a Ponzi scheme, the lawsuit says. Bitconnect relied on new money from new users, who were in turn expected to get more new users to produce more new money, while not actually engaging in any real activity that would produce income, profits or benefit to investors. In its scheme, Bitconnect required Plaintiff and the Class to provide Bitconnect with Bitcoin, which it would exchange for Bitconnect Coins. With this transaction, Bitconnect promised to Plaintiff and the Class fixed returns as well as a guarantee that the principal investment/loan amount would be paid in full on date certain. Instead, Bitconnect shut down its platform, took all of Plaintiff and the Class's money, and left them with BCC, which is either entirely worthless or has significantly less value than Bitconnect promised. The Plaintiff and the Class were damaged and Bitconnect has profited handsomely at the expense of Plaintiff and the Class.[BN] Attorneys For Plaintiff: Robert K. Shelquist, Esq. Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. 100 South Washington Avenue, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339 6900 E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com rapeterson@locklaw.com - and - Genevieve Zimmerman, Esq. MESHBESHER & SPENCE LTD. 1616 Park Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55404 Telephone: (612) 339 9121 E-mail: gzimmerman@meshbesher.com BITCONNECT INT'L: Paige Sues over Cryptocurrency Plunge ------------------------------------------------------- BRIAN PAIGE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Bitconnect International PLC, Bitconnect LTD, Bitconnect Trading LTD, and Ryan Maasen, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00058-JHM-DW (W.D. Ky., Jan. 29, 2018), seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief, in the form of specific enforcement and/or rescission of the contract between Bitconnect and Plaintiff and the Class; return of all money and/or cryptocurrencies given to Bitconnect by Plaintiff and the Class; disgorgement of all monies earned by Defendants due to their conduct; and/or immediate order enjoining Bitconnect and its owners, members and Board of Directors from transferring, selling, spending or otherwise dissipating any assets so that Plaintiff and the Class can recover the money owed to them. According to the complaint, Bitconnect scammed thousands of Kentuckians and hundreds of thousands of Americans out of millions and millions of dollars through a website called bitconnect.co. Bitconnect took advantage of the increased attention, interest and success of cryptocurrencies and legitimate companies and technology to convince Plaintiff and the class that they would make money on their investment in Bitconnect's product. As part of their scam, Bitconnect relied upon, communicated with and otherwise benefited from people like Maasen. Maasen created YouTube videos that marketed Bitconnect and convinced people to deposit money onto Bitconnect's website. But Bitconnect was both a pyramid scheme and a Ponzi scheme. That is, it relied on new money from new users, who were in turn expected to get more new users to produce more new money, while not actually engaging in any real activity that would produce income, profits or benefit to investors. In its scheme, Bitconnect required Plaintiff and the Class to provide Bitconnect with Bitcoin, which it would exchange for Bitconnect Coins ("BCC"). With this transaction, Bitconnect promised to Plaintiff and the Class fixed returns as well as a guarantee that the principal investment/loan amount would be paid in full on date certain. Instead, Bitconnect shut down its platform, took all of Plaintiff and the Class's money, and left them with BCC, which is either entirely worthless or has significantly less value than Bitconnect promised. The Plaintiff and the Class were damaged and Bitconnect and Maasen have profited handsomely at the expense of Plaintiff and the Class.[BN] Counsel for Plaintiff and the Class: Jasper D. Ward IV, Esq. Alex C. Davis, Esq. JONES WARD PLC The Pointe 1205 E. Washington Street, Suite 111 Louisville, Kentucky 40206 Telephone: (502) 882 6000 E-mail: jasper@jonesward.com alex@jonesward.com - and - Abigale Rhodes Green, Esq. ABIGALE RHODES GREEN INJURY LAW, PLLC 1800 Kentucky Home Life Building 239 S. Fifth Street Louisville, KY 40202 Telephone: (502) 736 8159 E-mail: agreen@arglawfirm.com BONANZA CREEK: "Feinstein" Suit Seeks to Halt Sandridge Merger -------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Feinstein, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Bonanza Creek Energy, Inc., Jack E. Vaughn, Paul Keglevic, Brian Steck, Thomas B. Tyree, Jr., Scott D. Vogel and Jeffrey E. Wojahn, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv- 01864 (D. Del., December 27, 2017), seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating, or closing the proposed merger between Bonanza Creek and a subsidiary of SandRidge Energy, Inc., rescinding it and setting it aside or awarding rescissory damages in the event defendants consummate the merger. The Plaintiff also seeks costs of this action, including reasonable allowance for attorneys' and experts' fees and such other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Bonanza Creek shareholders stand to receive $36.00 in cash and stock for each share they own, a deal valued at $746 million. The complaint says the parties' merger statement fails to include financial forecasts for Bonanza Creek and SandRidge, material information that is necessary for the company shareholders to make an informed decision concerning whether to vote in favor of the merger. Bonanza Creek Energy is an exploration and production company focused on the extraction of oil and associated liquids-rich natural gas in the United States. Bonanza Creek's operations are focused in the Wattenberg Field in the DJ Basin of Colorado and the Cotton Valley sands of southern Arkansas. [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 BREAD AND SALT: Faces "Walker" Suit in District of Massachusetts ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bread and Salt Hospitality, LLC. The case is styled as Ricardo Walker, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bread and Salt Hospitality, LLC doing business as: Juliet, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10128 (D. Mass., January 23, 2018). Bread and Salt Hospitality, LLC is in the food and beverage business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Lee Litigation Group, PLLC 30 East 39th Street 2nd Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 465-1188 Fax: (212) 465-1181 Email: cklee@leelitigation.com CALIFORNIA: Magistrate Recommends Dismissal of "Acord" ------------------------------------------------------ In the case, RICHARD ACORD, et al., Petitioners, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent, Case No. 1:17-cv-01089-MJS (HC) (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California has entered (i) an order directing the Clerk's office to assign a district judge to the matter; and (ii) recommendations to dismiss the petition for writ of habeas corpus without prejudice. The petition for writ of habeas corpus was brought, purportedly as a class action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2254 by Acord, Leandro Angel Gonzales, Anthony J. Ruiz, Thomas Camarillo, Jeff Brown, and Joseph E. Gambler. At the time of filing, the Petitioners all were incarcerated at the Kings County Jail in Hanford, California pursuant to judgments of the State Court of California. Acord since has been released from custody. The Petitioners claim they are serving AB109 felony class sentences, which require them to serve 50% of their imposed sentences, while other "half-time" offenders receive an additional seventeen percent reduction in the time they are required to serve. They contend that this distinction is based merely on the fact that they are serving their sentences in county facilities, rather than state prison. They allege this discrepancy violates their rights to due process and equal protection as well as the prohibition against double jeopardy. They seek to have any future percentage change in sentencing or required time to be served extended to those subject to AB 109. On Oct. 19, 2017, the Magistrate Judge conducted an initial review of the petition and issued an order to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed. There, he noted that the Petitioners, proceeding pro se, could not proceed with a class action. Furthermore, there is no authority for permitting multiple petitioners to file a single habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. Section 2254, and doing so generally is not permitted. However, because it appeared that the petition was wholly unexhausted, the Magistrate Judge ordered the Petitioners to show cause why it should proceed. He stated that, if any Petitioner responded with information indicating the claims had been exhausted, the Court would sever each Petitioner's claims and require the Petitioners to proceed in individual actions. The order to show cause was served on each of the Petitioners. The orders served on Gambler and Camarillo were returned as undeliverable on Oct. 31, 2017. The remaining Petitioners did not respond to the order to show cause. Magistrate Judge Seg finds that more than 63 days have passed since mail to Petitioners Gambler and Camarillo was returned, and they have not notified the Court of their new addresses. Because of their failure to provide a current address, it is impossible for the Court to communicate with the Petitioners or to explore any alternatives short of dismissal of the case. Accordingly, he will recommend that the petition as to Gambler and Camarillo be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute based on the Petitioners' failure to provide a current address. The Magistrate Judge also finds that there is no allegation that any of the Petitioners have presented any of the claims to the highest state court, the California Supreme Court. They were ordered to inform the Court if, in fact, their claims had been presented to the California Supreme Court, and if possible, to provide the Court with a copy of the petition or petitions filed in the California Supreme Court along with a copy of any ruling made by the California Supreme Court. They did not respond. The Court is therefore unable to address the merits of the petition. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge will recommend that the petition be dismissed on exhaustion grounds as to Acord, Gonzales, Ruiz, and Brown. Because all parties have not consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(c), the Clerk of Court is directly to randomly assign the matter to a District Judge. Based on the foregoing analysis, Magistrate Judge Seng recommended that the petition as to Gambler and Camarillo be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute based on their failure to provide a current address; and the petition as to Acord, Gonzales, Ruiz, and Brown be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies. The findings and recommendations are submitted to the assigned United States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the U.S. States District Court for the Eastern District of California. Within 30 days after being served with a copy, the parties may file written objections with the Court. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Any reply to the objections will be served and filed within 14 days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 10, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/eqZ5rF from Leagle.com. Richard Acord, Petitioner, Pro Se. Leandro Angel Gonzales, Petitioner, Pro Se. Anthony J. Ruiz, Petitioner, Pro Se. Thomas Camarillo, Petitioner, Pro Se. Jeff Brown, Petitioner, Pro Se. Joseph E. Gamber, Petitioner, Pro Se. CALL-A-HEAD: Court Certifies Class of PTSTs in "Vargas" FLSA Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned JUAN VARGAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CHARLES W. HOWARD and CALL-A-HEAD CORP., Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-5101-GHW (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Gregory H. Woods of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Call-A-Head is a portable toilet rental and service company. The company's portable toilet service technicians ("PTSTs") performed manual labor cleaning portable toilets at worksites in New York City, Westchester, and Long Island. As if their job cleaning toilets was not challenging enough on its own, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants forced them to work overtime hours for which they were not paid, in violation of both federal and state labor laws. On June 30, 2015, Mr. Vargas brought the lawsuit against Defendants Call-A-Head and Charles Howard. He amended his complaint in August 2015. The answered the amended complaint and asserted counterclaims against Mr. Vargas and all other opt-in Plaintiffs for breach of fiduciary duty and conversion, alleging that the employees would steal time from the Defendants by not performing work while driving and by idling on their route, effectively, in the Defendants' view, stealing their gasoline. The Defendants also asserted a counterclaim against Mr. Vargas for defamation because of statements made by him to a newspaper. The Plaintiffs moved the Court to conditionally certify the action as a Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") collective action on behalf of a class of current and former non-exempt employees who worked for Defendants since June 30, 2009. On Feb. 1, 2016, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification, and authorized the mailing of a notice of pendency to potential class members. Since then, 96 current and former PTSTs have opted in to the FLSA collective action. The Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification of their New York Labor Law claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 on March 22, 2017, seeking to certify a class of PTSTs dating back to 2009. They also seek to certify a subclass of all members employed after April 9, 2011, when the Wage Theft Prevention Act ("WTPA")'s notification requirement came into effect ("WTPA subclass"). The Defendants filed their opposition on April 27, 2017 and the Plaintiffs filed their reply on May 12, 2017. Judge Woods holds that the requirements are easily satisfied for the Plaintiffs' proposed class of PTSTs and for the WTPA subclass. The Defendants have produced a list of all PTSTs employed after June 30, 2009; membership of both the class and the WTPA subclass of PTSTs employed after April 9, 2011 can be ascertained from that list. Thus, the proposed class therefore satisfies all of the prerequisites for class certification. Because the statutory prerequisites for class certification are readily satisfied, Judge Woods granted the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. He directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion pending at Dkt. No. 201. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 10, 2018 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/3eYf3v from Leagle.com. Juan Vargas, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Marlborough -- chris@marlboroughlawfirm.com -- The Marlborugh Law Firm, P.C., Adam Paul Slater, Slater Slater Schulman LLP, Christopher L. Van De Water, Phillips & Associates, PLLC, Jonathan Eric Schulman, Slater Slater Schulman LLP & Anthony R. Portesy, Slater Slater Schulman LLP. Clinton Kwaak, Kengman Friedrich, Peter Fowler, Keith T Houck, Eddie Hawkins, Joseph Abreu, Christopher Kennedy, Edward Kubinski, John Lenihan, Matthew Jones, Jesus Flores, Michael Olfano, Joseph Caslino, Edwin Davila, Frederick Gilbert, Michael Louiselle, Alexis Nunez, Joseph Schatzle, James Bowers, James Autlet, Juan Blandon, Raymond Budney, Lawrence Cornerfold, Michael Keohane, Jeffrey Miranda, Peter Venditto, Milton Rivera, Rafael Baez, Alvin Quiles, Michael Petikas, Chris Pedretti, Matthew Ultsh, Vincent Chieffo, Joel Lopez, Heribeto Baretto, Joseph Mazzeo, Greg Romero, Christopher Samolis, Curtis Stoltz, Lenny Santiago, Greggory Bittle, Alexander Colon, Jonathan Ruiz, Joseph Arcese, Shaban Xhema, Johnny Colon, Timothy Bonduvic, James Curley, Anthony Miola, Holdermar Cruz, Juan Ramos, Frank Castro, Brian Fedor, Nicholas Lamm, Frank Marrazzo, Christian Rivera, Angel Soto, John Tyz, David Martinez, Christopher Vera, Joseph Cerrone, Joseph Zaffuto, Delfin Rosario, Joseph Schneck, Massimo Colamarino, Jose Castaneda, Robert Tiangco, Roy Torres Gutierrez, Peter Judice, Francisco Mazzeo, Alexis R. Quezada, Ricardo Whittaker, Robert mcCleary, Jorge Ramos, Steven Ribisi, Gerolamo Genova & Joseph Grano, Plaintiffs, represented by Anthony R. Portesy, Slater Slater Schulman LLP. Jeury Marte, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony R. Portesy, Slater Slater Schulman LLP & Jonathan Eric Schulman, Slater Slater Schulman LLP. Charles W. Howard & Call-A-Head Corp., Defendants, represented by Austin Reis Graff, The Scher Law Firm, LLP. Dennis Regan, Defendant, represented by Anthony R. Portesy, Slater Slater Schulman LLP. Cristian Techiu, Gary Pellegrino, Jerry vega, Christian Broker & Juan E. Mitchell, ADR Providers, represented by Anthony R. Portesy, Slater Slater Schulman LLP. Charles W. Howard & Call-A-Head Corp., Counter Claimants, represented by Austin Reis Graff, The Scher Law Firm, LLP. Juan Vargas, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated, Counter Defendant, represented by Christopher Marlborough, The Marlborugh Law Firm, P.C., Adam Paul Slater, Slater Slater Schulman LLP, Jonathan Eric Schulman, Slater Slater Schulman LLP, Anthony R. Portesy, Slater Slater Schulman LLP & Christopher L. Van De Water, Phillips & Associates, PLLC. CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS: "Shoemaker" Suit Dismissed -------------------------------------------------- Judge Donovan W. Frank of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the case, Sandra K. Shoemaker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Cardiovascular Systems, Inc., and Laurence L. Betterley, Defendants, Civil No. 16-568 (DWF/KMM) (D. Minn.). Around 88% of CSI's business comes from the sale of devices used to treat peripheral arterial disease ("PAD"). Medical devices are heavily regulated, including under the federal Anti-Kickback Statute ("AKS"). A violation of the AKS requires: (1) a remuneration to a person or entity in a position either to purchase goods subject to reimbursement by a federal health care program or to refer a patient whose care will be reimbursed by a federal health care program; and (2) that the remuneration could reasonably induce such referral or such purchase. Courts and the OIG have concluded that a "remuneration" is "virtually anything of value." A person guilty of violating the AKS faces up to five years in prison and a fine up to $25,000. A violation of the AKS may also be a violation of the federal False Claims Act ("FCA") where a claim submitted to the government includes items or services resulting from a violation of the AKS. CSI is a publicly traded company that primarily develops and manufactures medical devices for the treatment of peripheral arterial disease and coronary artery disease. Defendant Betterley has been CSI's Chief Financial Officer since April 2008. David L. Martin, recently deceased, was CSI's CEO and one of its directors during the relevant time period. The Plaintiffs are shareholders of CSI who allege that the Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making material misstatements regarding illegal kickbacks paid to doctors. They seek to represent a class of shareholders who "purchased or otherwise acquired" CSI's common stock between Sept. 12, 2011 and Jan. 21, 2016. In the Plaintiffs' consolidated complaint, they claimed that in early 2012, Kevin Kenny (Executive Vice President of Sales and Marketing) and Jim Breidenstein (Vice President of Sales) implemented a scheme whereby CSI began violating the AKS and the FCA by: (1) providing kickbacks to physicians for using PAD devices, which took the form of either referrals, discounted products, or assistance in establishing office-based laboratories; (2) encouraging physicians to use PAD devices when they were not medically necessary; (3) hiding products so they would be reordered or channel stuffing;5 and (4) promoting the product for off-label uses. The scheme was allegedly in place from when Breidenstein joined CSI in 2012 until May 9, 2014, when CSI received notice of the Qui Tam Complaint. The consolidated complaint included statements from fourteen confidential witnesses allegedly corroborating Plaintiffs' complaint. On Aug. 29, 2016, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the Court granted with leave to amend. In the Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint, they adopt an entirely new theory of misconduct: CSI provided marketing services for doctors in exchange for referring others who will purchase CSI devices. They draw their new theory from an employee whistleblower case in California ("Babyak Action"). In the Babyak Action, the employee was allegedly retaliated against for complaining of illegal and unsafe conduct, including illegal kickbacks for referrals. The Plaintiffs allege that CSI made various misstatements and omissions each premised on the same factual predicate: CSI engaged in widespread illegal activity. Broadly, they allege six categories of misstatements: i. Statements about past sales growth that Defendants falsely attributed to legitimate practices; ii. Statements about future sales growth that were falsely attributed to legitimate practices; iii. Statements about CSI's revenues made while omitting the truth about the Company's illegal referral marketing scheme; iv. Statements about CSI's legal and regulatory compliance; v. Falsely signed Sarbanes-Oxley Act ("SOX") certifications guaranteeing the accuracy of the Company's financial statements; and vi. Statements and omissions about losses that CSI suffered after discontinuing its illegal referral marketing schemes, as well as costs incurred from sales-force reorganizations necessitated by ending the illegal activities. These include both affirmative falsehoods as to the causes of those losses as well as omissions as to their true causes. On July 15, 2013, a former district sales manager, who worked for CSI from 2012 until February 2013, filed a qui tam action against CSI, alleging that CSI had illegally promoted its PAD devices for off-label purposes and had given illegal kickbacks to physicians for prescribing the PAD devices. On June 29, 2016, CSI settled the Qui Tam Complaint in exchange for $8 million and agreeing to a Corporate Integrity Agreement. CSI did not admit any wrongdoing as part of the settlement. The Defendants move to dismiss. Judge Frank holds that the Plaintiffs' allegations amount to a patchwork of alleged misconduct. There is the Qui Tam Complaint that alleges trips and speaking fees for referrals; the Babyak action that alleges the Triangle Offense; and the Arizona DSM allegations of leaving referral sheets of doctors who used CSI products. The competing inferences are either that these were isolated incidents or part of more widespread misconduct. The Judge concludes that the more plausible explanation is that the conduct was isolated. The Plaintiffs have therefore failed to state a claim because they cannot show that the Defendants knew about the AKS violations or were severely reckless in not discovering them. Thus, he will dismiss the Plaintiffs' Section 10(b) claim. The Judge further concludes that a claim under Section 20(a) for control person liability is derivative of a primary claim, and therefore the failure to satisfactorily plead a Section 10(b)/Rule 10b-5 claim also precludes a Section 20(a) claim. Because the he dismisses the Plaintiffs' primary claim, he likewise will dismiss the Plaintiffs' Section 20(a) claim. For these reasons, Judge Frank granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Class Action Complaint, and dismissed with prejudice the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 10, 2018 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/VgZiu0 from Leagle.com. Sandra K. Shoemaker, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Bryan L. Bleichner -- bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com -- Chestnut Cambronne PA, Jeffrey D. Bores -- jbores@chestnutcambronne.com -- Chestnut Cambronne, PA, Naumon A. Amjed -- namjed@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP & Ryan T. Degnan -- rdegnan@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP. City of Miami Fire Fighters' & Police Officers' Retirement Trust, Co-Lead Plaintiff, Plaintiff, represented by Alfred L. Fatale, III -- afatale@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP, pro hac vice, Angus Ni -- angus.ni@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice, David A. Goodwin -- dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com -- Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Gregg M. Fishbein -- gmfishbein@locklaw.com -- Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP, Jeremy Robinson -- jeremy@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice, Kate M. Baxter-Kauf -- kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com -- Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP, Richard A. Lockridge -- ralockridge@locklaw.com -- Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP & Ross M. Kamhi -- rkamhi@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP, pro hac vice. Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. & Laurence L. Betterley, Defendants, represented by Daniel Streim, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, David R. Marshall -- dmarshall@fredlaw.com -- Fredrikson & Byron, PA, Leah C. Janus -- ljanus@fredlaw.com -- Fredrikson & Byron, PA, Michael C. Tu -- mtu@orrick.com -- Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, pro hac vice & Robert M. Stern -- rstern@orrick.com -- Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, pro hac vice. Norfolk County Retirement System, Movant, represented by Alfred L. Fatale, III, Labaton Sucharow LLP, pro hac vice, Christopher Joseph Keller, Labaton Sucharow LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel E. Gustafson, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Daniel C. Hedlund, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Daniel J. Nordin, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, David J. Goldsmith, Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP, pro hac vice, David A. Goodwin, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Francis Paul McConville, Labaton Sucharow LLP, pro hac vice, Joel H. Bernstein, Labaton Sucharow LLP, pro hac vice, Michael W. Stocker, Labaton Sucharow LLP, pro hac vice, Ross M. Kamhi, Labaton Sucharow LLP, pro hac vice & Seth M. Jessee, Labaton Sucharow LLP, pro hac vice. Wayne County Employees' Retirement System, Movant, represented by Alfred L. Fatale, III, Labaton Sucharow LLP, pro hac vice, Christopher Joseph Keller, Labaton Sucharow LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel E. Gustafson, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Daniel C. Hedlund, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Daniel J. Nordin, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, David J. Goldsmith, Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP, pro hac vice, David A. Goodwin, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Francis Paul McConville, Labaton Sucharow LLP, pro hac vice, Joel H. Bernstein, Labaton Sucharow LLP, pro hac vice, Michael W. Stocker, Labaton Sucharow LLP, pro hac vice, Ross M. Kamhi, Labaton Sucharow LLP, pro hac vice & Seth M. Jessee, Labaton Sucharow LLP, pro hac vice. Pompano Beach General Employees' Retirement System & Luzerne County Retirement System, Movants, represented by Bryan L. Bleichner, Chestnut Cambronne PA. CBV COLLECTIONS: Faces "Jackson" Suit in Mid. Dist. Ga. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against CBV Collections, Inc. The case is styled as Porchea Jackson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CBV Collections, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00019-WLS (M.D. Ga., January 22, 2018). CBV Collections, Inc. is a collection agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: SHIMSHON ELIOT WEXLER, Esq. 1411 DALEWOOD DR NE ATLANTA, GA 30329 Tel: (212) 760-2400 Email: swexleresq@gmail.com CELESTIAL PARTNERS: JPMorgan Seeks Action Re-assignment ------------------------------------------------------- JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Claudio Ballard, Keith DeLucia, Gary Knutsen, Shephard Lane, Peter Lupoli, Ira Leemon, John Kidd, Celestial Partners, LLC, and DataTreasury Corporation (a nominal defendant), Defendants, Case No. 2017-0923 (Del. Ch., December 27, 2017), seeks a re-assignment to a Master in Chancery, on behalf of plaintiff and other similarly situated creditors, against the individual defendants for the full amount and value of unlawful dividends under the Delaware Constitution and that this action should proceed directly before the Chancellor or a Vice Chancellor of this Court. Plaintiff seeks to hold the directors of the nominal defendant liable for a previously entered judgment against the nominal defendant on the basis that the director defendants willfully or negligently approved the distribution of dividends while Data Treasury Corporation lacked sufficient surplus or net profits, or was otherwise insolvent or rendered insolvent by the payment of dividends. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Raymond J. DiCamillo, Esq. RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, P.A. One Rodney Square 920 North King Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Tel: (302) 651-7700 - and - Zachary G. Newman Annie P. Kubic Steven R. Aquino HAHN & HESSEN LLP 488 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10022 Tel.: (212) 478-7200 CHEVYS FRESH: Martinez Seeks Penalties Arising from Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- FILIBERTO MARTINEZ, an individual, and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CHEVYS FRESH MEX, a business form unknown; RM HQ, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; RM CHEVYS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; RM OPCO, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; RM HOLDCO, LLC, an Oklahoma limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC691738 (Cal. Super. Ct., Jan. 25, 2018), seeks to recover penalties arising from unpaid wages earned and due, including but not limited to unpaid and illegally calculated overtime compensation, illegal meal and rest period policies, failure to pay all wages due to discharged or quitting employees, failure to maintain required records, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to timely pay wages during employment, failure to indemnify employees for necessary expenditures and/or losses incurred in discharging their duties. The Plaintiff alleges that each and every one of the acts and omissions alleged were performed by, and/or attributable to, all Defendants, each acting as agents and/or employees, and/or under the direction and control of, each of the other Defendants, and that acts and failures to act were within the course and scope of the agency, employment and/or direction and control. As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful actions of Defendants, Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, from loss of earnings in amounts as yet unascertained, but subject to proof at trial, and within the jurisdiction of this Court. Chevys Fresh Mex is an American chain of Mexican-style casual dining restaurants located in the United States. The chain was founded in 1986 by Warren Simmons in Alameda, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Matem, Esq. Tagore 0. Subramaniam, Esq. Daniel J. Bass, Esq. MATERN LAW GROUP, PC 1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Telephone: (310) 531 1900 Facsimile: (310) 531 1901 E-mail: mmatem@matemlawgroup.com tagore@matemlawgroup.com dbass@matemlawgroup.com CHICAGO PROPERTY: Faces "Muse" Suit over City Rental Rules ---------------------------------------------------------- ANDRE MUSE, Individually and on behalf all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CHICAGO PROPERTY MANAGEMENT & INVESTMENT INC. d/b/a REAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT CHICAGO GROUP, MICKELSON BROTHERS II LLC and RA VEN FLOWERS, the Defendants, Case No. 2018-CH-01029 (Ill. Cir., Cook County, Jan. 25, 2018), seeks to recover damages as a result of Defendants' violation of the City of Chicago Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance, Municipal Code Title 5, Chapter 12, et seq. ("RLTO"). According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to (i) provide Plaintiff and the class with a copy of the then current RLTO summary required by Section 5-12-170 of the RLTO (the "RLTO Summary"), (ii) pay Plaintiff and the class interest on their security deposits in the manner and within the timeframe required by Section 5-12-080(c) of the RLTO and (iii) return Plaintiff's and the class' security deposits in the manner and timeframe required by Section 5-12-080( d) of the RLTO.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Sobek, Esq. JS LAW 29 E. Madison Street, Suite 1000 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone (312) 756 1330 E-mail: jeffs@jsslawoffices.com CHOP'T CREATIVE: Accused of Misclassifying Non-Tipped Workers ------------------------------------------------------------- Alejandro Grajales Rincon, Andres Fuentes-Tapia, Damian Reyes- Munoz, Eduardo Velasquez Candia, Esteban Morales, Fausto Mendez- Camano, Alejandro Garcia, Ismael Matias Valdez, Javier Chanez- Ruiz, Javier Velasquez, Jose Antonio Catarino Mondragon, Luis Angel Ramos Ponce, Margarito Basurto de Jesus, Mario Valdez, Misael Leon Sanchez, Noel Monroy Alonso, Pablo Rivera Lorenzo, Reginaldo Anibal Rojas, Reynaldo Martinez Aguilar, Rigoberto Sebastian Rivera, Salvador Dircio Nava (a.k.a. Carlos Nava), Salvador Rojas, Saul Dircio, Teofilo Barrera Leon, Eulalio Alecxander Ventura Tuluxan, Freddy Orlando Jacinto, Ricardo Robles Ramirez, Brigido Mejia Aldana, Guillermo Fernandez Galindo, Rafael Rojas Ramos, Joaquin Luna-Gomez, Freddy Anzures, Jacinto Francisco Sapon Ajche, Juan Victor Martinez Mendez, David Conde and Hugo Cuanalo Chapulin, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Chop't Creative Salad Company LLC (d/b/a Chop't Creative Salad), Chop't Soho LLC. (d/b/a Chop't Soho), Chop't 100 Park LLC (d/b/a Chop't 100 Park), Chop't Creative Salad Co. Union Square LLC (d/b/a Chop't Union Square), Chop't Astor LLC (d/b/a Chop't Astor), Chop't 42nd Street LLC (d/b/a Chop't 42 Street), Chop't Creative Salad Company 52nd Street, LLC (d/b/a Chop't 52nd Street), Chop't 80 Pine LLC (d/b/a Chop't 80 Pine), Chop't 23rd Street LLC (d/b/a Chop't 23rd Street), Chop't WFC LLC (d/b/a Chop't WFC), Chop't NYP LLC (d/b/a Chop't NYP), Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-10128 (S.D. N.Y., December 27, 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 "Chop't" salad restaurants in New York where Plaintiffs are/were) employed as cleaners and food preparers and ostensibly as delivery workers. Defendants have allegedly disguised Plaintiffs' actual duties in payroll records by designating them as a delivery workers instead of non-tipped employees, thus allowing them to avoid paying the minimum wage rate and enabled them to pay them at the lower tip-credited rate. [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 CIGNA CORP: Court Compels Admissions on TCPA Claims --------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, issued an Order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery in the case captioned CRYSTAL DEJESUS, Plaintiff, v. CIGNA CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 6:17-cv-1208-Orl-41TBS (M.D. Fla.). This putative class action comes before the Court without a hearing on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery. Plaintiff Crystal DeJesus complains that Defendant Cigna Corporation used an automated telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice to phone her repeatedly in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). She alleges that Defendant made these calls without her consent, and that she was not the person Defendant intended to call. Defendant reports that after it received Plaintiff's complaint it discovered apparent systematic data entry errors which resulted in the incorrect linking of 29 different people to Plaintiff's telephone number. Plaintiff served requests for admissions, interrogatories and requests for production on Defendant and after several agreed extensions, Defendant responded to this discovery. Plaintiff was not satisfied with Defendant's responses and counsel met and conferred. Defendant agreed to supplement its responses but failed to do so. Requests for admission ask a party to admit, for purposes of the pending action only, the truth of any matters within the scope of Rule 26(b)(1) relating to the facts of the case. In response to Plaintiff's requests for admissions numbered 1-3 Defendant answered: "Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny this request. Discovery is ongoing." The Court finds that Defendant's response does not comply with Rule 36(a)(4), and now it says that it has agreed to supplement its responses to these requests. Accordingly, the motion to compel Plaintiff's requests for admissions numbered 1-3 is granted. Interrogatories 2 and 3 ask Defendant to identify every person in the United States who may qualify as a member of the putative class or subclass. Defendant objects to these interrogatories on the ground that they are premature because a class has not been certified. Interrogatories 4, 6 and 12 ask Defendant to: (1) describe the purpose of calling Plaintiff's cellular telephone number; (2) identify all software and equipment by vendor, model/version, and dates in operation, that were used to make any phone call to" Plaintiff's phone number; and (3) identify the vendors Defendant used to phone Plaintiff on its behalf. Defendant's boilerplate objections that this discovery is overly broad, vague, unduly burdensome, not relevant, and not proportional to the needs of the case are overruled. Defendant also objects to interrogatory number 12 on the ground that it is not limited to calls made to Plaintiff. The Court disagrees. Interrogatory 12 only concerns calls made to Plaintiff. To establish liability under the TCPA, Plaintiff must establish that an automated telephone dialing system or artificial/pre- recorded voice was used to facilitate the calls by the defendant or an entity acting on the defendant's behalf. Defendant's seventh affirmative defense alleges that if it violated the TCPA, which it denies, that it has established and implemented, with due care, reasonable practices and procedures to effectively prevent violations of the TCPA. Defendant's ninth interrogatory asks Defendant to identify and explain the policies, practices and procedures it had in place during the relevant time period to avoid violating the TCPA. Interrogatory number 13 asks Defendant to explain how, from whom, and when it obtained Plaintiff's telephone number. Defendant answered that it obtained Plaintiff's number from a client employer for health care insurance related purposes. This is not a full or complete answer to the interrogatory. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to compel interrogatory 13 is granted. Plaintiff's complaint was served on Defendant and it has alleged consent as an affirmative defense. Defendant has had more than enough time to investigate this defense and determine whether it received "prior express consent" from Plaintiff. Therefore, Defendant's objection is overruled and Plaintiff's motion to compel a full response to interrogatory 14 is granted. Parties can ask each other to produce information within the scope of FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b). FED. R. CIV. P. 34(a). A party objecting to a request for production must: (1) state with specificity the grounds for objecting to the request, including the reasons; (2) state whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of that objection; and (3) an objection to part of a request must specify the part and permit inspection of the rest. Plaintiff asked Defendant to produce the following information and Defendant objected to all but number 20: 1. All documents that refer or pertain to Plaintiff or telephone number (XXX) XXX-9790, including, but not limited to, all information indexed, filed or retrievable under Plaintiff's telephone number or any other number, datum, symbol, designation or code (such as an account number or Social Security number) assigned to her or telephone number. 3. All documents that discuss or relate to policies, practices or procedures associated with calling (XXX) XXX-9790, including any document explaining the reason or purpose for calling said number. 4. All contracts or manuals regarding all telephone and/or communications systems(s), equipment and/or software used by you or on your behalf to place calls to Plaintiff at any time from June 29, 2013 to the present. 6. Documents sufficient to identify all vendors you used to place calls on your behalf, or assist you in connection with placing calls using the system which called (XXX) XXX-9790 or, using an automated telephone dialing system or an artificial or pre-recorded voice at any time between June 29, 2013 and the present, as well as all contracts with the vendors, all instructions and other communications between you and the vendors regarding the requirements, policies or procedures for making such calls, the numbers to be called, skip-tracing or otherwise obtaining numbers third parties for the persons to be called, determining whether the calls were made to cellular numbers, and handling do-not-call requests. 7. Documents describing any method used by you or on your behalf to identify whether a telephone number is assigned to a cellular telephone service, such as a scrubbing procedure. 10. Copies of any documents filed in connection with any judicial or administrative proceedings that mention you and the TCPA. 20. All insurance policies that could possibly afford coverage with respect to the matters complained of in this case together with all correspondence accepting or declining coverage or reserving rights with respect thereto. Defendant objects to producing the information described in requests 3, 4, 6 and 7 on the grounds that it is privileged, confidential and proprietary. These conclusory objections are not supported by facts and are therefore, overruled. Plaintiff's motion to compel requests 3, 4, 6 and 7 are granted. Discovery requests should focus on the actual claims and defenses involved in the action. In discovery, requiring relevance to a claim or defense signals to the court that it has the authority to confine discovery to the claims and defenses asserted in the pleadings, and signals to the parties that they have no entitlement to discovery to develop new claims or defenses that are not already identified in the pleadings. On this basis, Plaintiff's motion to compel a better response to request for production 10 is denied. Defendant did not object to request number 20 but, when the motion to compel was filed, the information still had not been produced Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to compel request number 20 is granted. A full-text copy of the District Court's December 21, 2017 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yalgkjfz from Leagle.com. Crystal Dejesus, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Eric Kem -- ekem@kemlawfirm.com -- The Law Offices of Eric W. Kem, P.A., Scott David Owens -- scott@ScottDOwens.com -- Scott D. Owens, P.A., Patrick Christopher Crotty -- Patrick@ScottDOwens.com -- Scott D. Owens, P.A. & Sean Martin Holas, Scott D. Owens, P.A., 3800 S. Ocean Drive. Suite 235. Hollywood, FL 33019 Cigna Corporation, a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by Barbara Fernandez -- bfernandez@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson, LLP & West Allan Holden -- wholden@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson, LLP. COEXIST NUTRITION: Faces "Ross" Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Coexist Nutrition, LLC. The case is styled as Courtney Ross, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Coexist Nutrition, LLC and Co.Exist Nutrition Corp., Defendants, Case No. 7:18-cv- 00587-NSR (S.D. N.Y., January 23, 2018). Co.Exist Nutrition Corporation, doing business as 22 Days Nutrition, produces organic protein bars and powders, and provides vegan food delivery services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Lee Litigation Group, PLLC 30 East 39th Street 2nd Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 465-1188 Fax: (212) 465-1181 Email: cklee@leelitigation.com COLLECTION LLC: Perlman Alleges Invasion of Privacy, Harassment --------------------------------------------------------------- ALEX PERLMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. THE COLLECTION, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-20377- UU (S.D. Fla., Jan. 31, 2018), seeks to recover injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily lives of thousands of individuals, and also seeks statutory damages on behalf of herself and members of the Class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. The case is a putative class action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, arising from Defendant's knowing and willful violations of the TCPA. The Defendant owns and operates a luxury vehicle dealership in Coral Gables, Florida. Defendant's luxury vehicle inventory includes Porsche, Ferrari, Maserati, and McLaren. This case arises from the transmission of text messages to the cellular telephones of Plaintiff and members of the class for the purpose of promoting Defendant's dealership. The Collection is a factory authorized car dealership specializing in new and used Audi, Porsche, Ferrari, Maserati, Alfa Romeo, McLaren, Aston Martin and Jaguar cars serving the Miami, Florida community including Brickell, Coral Gables, North Miami, Aventura, and surrounding Florida areas.[BN] Counsel for Plaintiff: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Telephone: (954) 400 4713 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com COMBE INC: Wins Bid to Dismiss Section 1981 Claim in "Stringer" --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued an order granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Section 1981 Claim in the case captioned JOHN STRINGER, Plaintiff, v. COMBE, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv- 03192-WHO (N.D. Cal.). The primary issue addressed in this Order is whether plaintiff John Stringer is able to state a cause of action for violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1981, which guarantees that all persons shall have the same rights to make and enforce contracts as white citizens. Stringer, an African American, purchased Just For Men Mustache and Beard kit in the Jet Black color shade and, after applying the product, suffered a severe physical reaction that required emergency medical treatment. He contends that (i) Just for Men Jet Black color shade products contain 17 times more of the chemical compound, p- Phenylenediamine (PPD), than the lighter shade products, (ii) PPD is a hazardous chemical that is designated as a strong sensitizer, (iii) African Americans males are five times more sensitized to PPD than other races and (iv) despite those facts, the Jet Black color products were marketed to African Americans. He brings a class action against defendants on behalf of similarly situated African American males who "purchased, used, and were injured by Just For Men Jet Black color shade products." Defendants move to dismiss Stringer's three causes of action for violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1981, the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and the California Unfair Competition Law. Because, Stringer agrees that the CLRA and UCL claims should be stayed pending resolution of the San Diego Action, the Court will address only the sufficiency of the Section 1981 claim. Section 1981 prohibits discrimination in the making and enforcement of contracts by reason of race, including color or national origin differences. 42 U.S.C. Section 1981. To state a claim under Section 1981: (1) the plaintiff must be a member of a racial minority; (2) the defendant intended to discriminate on the basis of race; and (3) the discrimination concerns one of the activities enumerated in the statute which includes the right to make and enforce contracts. Stringer argues that Philip Morris Brown v. Philip Morris, Inc,. 250 F.3d at 798 and Roper, Roper v. Edwards, 815 F.2d 1474 (11th Cir. 1987), acknowledge that a Section 1981 claim is available if a customer is sold a defective product because of their race. Jet Black shade had 17 times greater amount of PPD than the lighter color shades; overwhelming majority of customers who purchased and used the Jet Black shade are African American, in spite of numerous complaints from African American males and liability releases sought by Combe from injured customers, Combe continued marketing the Jet Black shade to African American males. Stringer contends that Combe is aggressively target-marketing the Jet Black shade to the African American community and that the levels of PPD in the shade exposes African Americans, who are more likely to suffer adverse reactions to PPD, to more danger, which is evidence of disparate treatment and intentional discrimination. In fact, as Combe argues, Philip Morris confirms that Stringer has no Section 1981 claim. Combe points out that given the allegations that the Jet Black color shade products are overwhelmingly" but not exclusively or nearly exclusively bought by African Americans and that the marketing is targeted to, but not exclusively targeted to African Americans, the only plausible inference is that Jet Black shade products are purchased by and marketed to some extent to other ethnicities. There are also no allegations that the Jet Black shade is sold to African American consumers at the different prices or on different terms than other races. Accordingly, this is the exact situation addressed in Philip Morris. If Stringer is able to amend to allege that Jet Black was marketed or sold exclusively to African Americans or that the product was sold to African Americans on different terms than to other ethnic groups, then he might state a Section 1981 claim. As currently alleged, he does not. The Section 1981 claim is dismissed with leave to amend. A full-text copy of the District Court's December 21, 2017 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y76sd6cf from Leagle.com. John Stringer, Plaintiff, represented by Elise Rochelle Sanguinetti -- elise@aswtlawyers.com -- Arias, Sanguinetti, Wang & Torrijos, LLP, Alfredo Torrijos -- alfredo@aswtlawyers.com -- Arias Sanguinetti Wang & Torrijos LLP & Jay A. Urban -- jurban@wisconsininjury.com -- Urban Taylor s.c., pro hac vice. Combe, Inc., Combe Products, Inc., Combe Laboratories, Inc. & Combe International, Ltd., Defendants, represented by Dennis S. Ellis -- dennisellis@paulhastings.com -- Paul Hastings LLP, Katherine Frenck Murray -- katherinemurray@paulhastings.com -- Paul Hastings LLP, Kenneth Lee Marshall -- klmarshall@bryancave.com -- Bryan Cave LLP & Courtney Turco DeThomas -- courtneydethomas@paulhastings.com -- Paul Hastings LLP. COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL: Faces "Navas" Suit in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Commonwealth Financial System, Inc. The case is styled as Diane Navas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Commonwealth Financial System, Inc. and Pendrick Capital Partners II, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00492 (E.D. N.Y., January 23, 2018). Commonwealth Financial Systems, doing business as NCC, operates as a collection agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. Sanders Law, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Tel: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com CORECIVIC INC: Detainees Forced to Work, Claims Minimum Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Carlos Gonzalez, Juan Jose Merino-Rodas, Maribel Gutierrez- Canchola, Gladys Carrera-Duarte, and Jennye Pagoada-Lopez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Corecivic, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 17-cv- 02573, (S.D. Cal., December 27, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages, and to remedy the Defendant's unjust enrichment resulting from unlawful failure to pay its detainee workforce legal wages under the California Minimum Wage Act and California Unfair Competition Law. CoreCivic is a corporation that owns and operates detention facilities across the United States. It pays detainees $1 or $1.50 per day -- or nothing at all -- to maintain and operate their facilities, says the complaint. Plaintiffs are detainees at Defendant's Otay Mesa Facility where they worked as kitchen workers and janitors. They claim to receive only $1-1.50/per day. Plaintiff is represented by: Warren T. Burns, Esq. Daniel H. Charest, Esq. Will Thompson, Esq. BURNS CHAREST, LLP 900 Jackson Street, Suite 500 Dallas, TX 75202 Tel: (469) 904-4550 Fax: (469) 444-5002 Email: wburns@burnscharest.com dcharest@burnscharest.com wthompson@burnscharest.com - and - Korey A. Nelson, Esq. Amanda Klevorn, Esq. BURNS CHAREST, LLP 365 Canal Street, Suite 1170 New Orleans, LA 70130 Tel: (504) 799-2845 Fax: (504) 881-1765 Email: knelson@burnscharest.com aklevorn@burnscharest.com - and - R. Andrew Free, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF R. ANDREW FREE P.O. Box 90568 Nashville, TN 37209 Telephone: (844) 321-3221 Facsimile: (615) 829-8959 Email: andrew@immigrantcivilrights.com - and - Nicole Ramos, Esq. AL OTRO LADO 511 E. San Ysidro Blvd., # 333 San Ysidro, CA 92173 Telephone: (619) 786-4866 Email: nicole@alotrolado.org - and - Robert R. Ahdoot, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, APC 8424 Santa Monica Blvd., Ste. 575 West Hollywood, CA 90069 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 Email: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com COSTCO WHOLESALE: Suit Over Underfilled Canned Chicken Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MARY LA VIGNE, KRISTEN HESSLER, and KATHLEEN HOGAN on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 16-CV-07924 (NSR) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Nelson S. Roman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's amended class action complaint. Plaintiffs La Vigne, Hessler and Hogan filed the proposed class action against Costco alleging violations of New York, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts statutes that prohibit deceptive marketing practices in the sale of consumer goods. The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant has engaged in deceptive acts in connection with the marketing and sale of its Kirkland Signature Premium Chunk Chicken Breast. The Defendant is a Washington corporation that, together with its subsidiaries, operates membership warehouses throughout the country offering a range of branded and private-label products, including its house brand, Kirkland Signature. It sells Kirkland Canned Chicken in its membership warehouse stores. The Defendant provides members of its warehouse stores with a calculation of the unit price for its Kirkland Canned Chicken, which allegedly allows customers to compare the price of its product with a competitor's chicken on a per pound basis. The unit price provided by it is calculated using the gross weight of the contents, which includes chicken and water. An opened can of Kirkland Canned Chicken reveals chicken covered by a layer of water. If the consumer drains the 2/3 of a cup of water that the can contains, she is left with between seven and eight ounces of meat, meaning that as much as 44% of the weight of the can's contents is water. According to the Amended Complaint, the consumer receives little benefit from the water in the can and the Defendant does not intend for consumers to use the water, as evidenced by the recipes it includes with each bulk package, which direct consumers to drain the chicken before using it in a dish. Plaintiffs La Vigne, Hessler, and Hogan purchased Kirkland Canned Chicken from the Defendant at warehouse locations in New York, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts, respectively, for between $10.99 and $11.99 per bulk package. They allege that they reasonably believed that they were purchasing a package that contained an adequate amount of chicken in each can because of the misrepresentations on the label, the packaging, the price label on the shelf, the unit pricing, the other materials included with the package, and the size of the can. The Plaintiffs support their claim that Kirkland Canned Chicken, as labeled, contains too much water and not enough chicken largely through their invocation of federal standards for the marketing of chicken products. Put simply, Plaintiffs allege, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, that Defendant's conduct violates the PPIA and misleads the consumers into believing that they are being charged "a reasonable price to pay for chicken" when they buy cans of Kirkland Canned Chicken, even though almost half of the contents of each can is water, and that such conduct constitutes an unconscionable and deceptive commercial practice in violation of consumer protection laws in New York, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts. The Defendant moves to dismiss the Amended Complaint in its entirety. First, it argues that the Plaintiffs' state law claims are preempted by the PPIA. Second, it argues that the Plaintiffs' claims are precluded to the extent they are predicated on violations of the PPIA, which lacks a private right of action. Finally, the Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs' claims fail as a matter of law because no reasonable consumer would be misled by Kirkland Canned Chicken's packaging and label. Judge Roman holds that preemption does not bar the Plaintiffs' state law claims to the extent that they are not based on labeling-related allegations. While the Plaintiffs devote much of their attention in the pleadings to Kirkland Canned Chicken's labeling deficiencies, they also incorporate assertions related to the packaging, the price label on the shelf, the unit pricing on a separate shelf label showing the price per ounce of the product], the other materials included with the package, and the size of the can. Insofar as their challenges to these aspects of the Defendant's marketing practices do not implicate the FSIS- approved labeling, the Plaintiffs are not preempted and survive at this stage of the Court's analysis. The Judge then holds that as the Plaintiffs' labeling-related claims are disposed of on other grounds, he needs not address the merits of the Defendant's argument that because the Plaintiffs' claims are predicated on violations of the labeling regulations promulgated pursuant to the PPIA, those claims thwart Congress's intent in enacting the PPIA, where it purposefully refused to provide a private right of action. Finally, the Judge concludes that the Defendant's alleged conduct has not risen to the level of being "unfair" under Massachusetts law because its FSIS-approved labeling and packaging complied with applicable federal laws and did not misrepresent the contents of Kirkland Canned Chicken. He does not find that this amounts to an immoral, unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous trade practice. Likewise, the Plaintiffs fail to establish that Kirkland Canned Chicken's packaging and unit pricing label would deceive a reasonable consumer. Accordingly, Plaintiff Hogan's Chapter 93 A claims fail. For the reasons he stated, Judge Roman granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss. He directed the Clerk of the Court to terminate the motion at ECF No. 18 and to close the case. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 10, 2018 Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/zaH5gh from Leagle.com. Mary La Vigne, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated & Kristen Hessler, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Matthew Tucker Insley-Pruit -- MInsley-Pruitt@wolfpopper.com -- Wolf Popper LLP, Robert Scott Plosky -- rplosky@wolfpopper.com -- Wolf Popper LLP & Patricia I. Avery -- pavery@wolfpopper.com -- Wolf Popper LLP. Kathleen Hogan, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Patricia I. Avery, Wolf Popper LLP. Costco Wholesale Corporation, Defendant, represented by Richard P. O'Leary -- richard.oleary@troutman.com -- Troutman Sanders LLP, Lindsey B. Mann -- lindsey.mann@troutman.com -- Troutman Sanders, LLP & William N. Withrow, Jr. -- bill.withrow@troutman.com -- Troutman Sanders, LLP. CREDIT PAYMENT: 9th Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in "Kristensen" ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, LEMMING KRISTENSEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CREDIT PAYMENT SERVICES INC., FKA mycashnow.com Inc.; ENOVA INTERNATIONAL, INC.; PIONEER FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.; LEADPILE, LLC; CLICK MEDIA, LLC, DBA ClickMedia 1240 Johnson Ferry Place, Ste. B75 Marietta, GA 30068, DBA Net1Promotions LLC, DBA Net 1 Promotions, LLC, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 16-15823 (9th Cir.), Judge Sandra S. Ikuta of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of ClickMedia. On Dec. 6, 2011, Flemming Kristensen received an unwanted text message which was generated as an indirect result of marketing campaigns undertaken by three payday lenders, Enova, Pioneer, and Credit Payment. The lenders entered into separate agreements with LeadPile, LLC, a company that buys and sells customer leads. In order to obtain leads, LeadPile in turn contracted with Click Media, LLC. Click Media uses leads from thousands of "publishers" who generate leads. If these leads lead to loans, the loan providers pay Click Media and Click Media pays the publishers, like AC Referral, a portion of that fee. Click Media and AC Referral entered into a contract that contemplated using text messages as one method of generating leads, and stated that AC Referral must comply with the TCPA. AC Referral had no contact with LeadPile, Enova, Pioneer Services, or Credit Payment Services; its representatives had not even heard of these companies before the lawsuit was filed. In performing its contract with Click Media, AC Referral purchased lists of consumer phone numbers from other lead generating companies, and uploaded those phone numbers into a program that sent out advertisements. This program sent the text message that Kristensen received. A consumer who clicked on the link in the text message would be redirected to a loan application website controlled by Click Media. If the consumer filled out an application, the website would redirect the consumer to the website of an appropriate lender. Kristensen did not click on the link nor apply for a loan. Instead, he filed a putative class action complaint against Credit Payment Services, Pioneer Services, Enova, LeadPile, and Click Media on behalf of himself and all other persons who received an unauthorized text message advertisement, alleging that the Defendants were vicariously liable for sending the text messages in violation of the TCPA. The district court certified a class of all individuals who were sent a text message from various telephone numbers from Dec. 5, 2011 through Jan. 11, 2012. The lenders and LeadPile moved for summary judgment, and the district court granted the motion. It rejected each of Kristensen's theories of vicarious liability, including his theory that the defendants ratified AC Referral's texting campaign by accepting leads while knowing that AC Referral was using texts to generate those leads. The court subsequently held that ClickMedia was entitled to summary judgment on the same grounds as the lenders and entered a stipulated summary judgment in its favor. On appeal, Kristensen argues only that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the Defendants ratified AC Referral's unlawful texting by accepting the benefits of the text messages sent by AC Referral while unreasonably failing to investigate its texting methods. Judge Ikuta holds that the district court did not err in concluding that Kristensen failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Credit Payment Services, Pioneer Services, Enova, or LeadPile ratified AC Referral's unlawful text messaging. It is undisputed that AC Referral did not enter into a contract with any of the lenders or with LeadPile. It is also undisputed that AC Referral did not communicate with or even know of the lenders or LeadPile before the lawsuit was filed. Because AC Referral was neither an agent nor a purported agent of the lenders or LeadPile, AC Referral's actions do not qualify as ratifiable acts. Accordingly, the lenders and LeadPile cannot be held vicariously liable for AC Referral's unlawful text messages under a ratification theory. Nor did Kristensen raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Click Media ratified AC Referral's unlawful text messages. Although AC Referral was an agent of Click Media, Kristensen presented no evidence that Click Media had actual knowledge that AC Referral was sending text messages in violation of TCPA. Nor is there any basis to infer that Click Media assumed the risk of lack of knowledge, because Kristensen did not present evidence that Click Media "had knowledge of facts that would have led a reasonable person to investigate further," but ratified AC Referral's acts anyway without investigation. Because Click Media had no knowledge of facts that would have led a reasonable person to investigate further, Click Media cannot be deemed to have ratified AC Referral's actions and therefore is not vicariously liable. For these reasons, Judge Ikuta affirmed. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 10, 2018 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/ntuRWH from Leagle.com. Alexander G. Tievsky -- atievsky@edelson.com -- (argued), Roger Perlstadt -- rperlstadt@edelson.com -- and Ryan D. Andrews -- randrews@edelson.com -- Edelson PC, Chicago, Illinois, for Plaintiff-Appellant. James M. Lord -- jlord@gvlslaw.com -- (argued) and Asher M.B. Ritmiller -- aritmiller@gvlslaw.com -- Inman Flynn Biesterfeld & Brentlinger P.C., Denver, Colorado, for Defendants-Appellees Credit Payment Services Inc. and Leadpile LLC. Enova International, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brian Patrick O'Meara, Forde Law Offices LLP, Dan R Waite, Esq. -- DWaite@LRRLaw.com -- Lewis Roca Rothgerber, LLP, John E. Bragonje, Esq. -- JBragonje@LRRLaw.com -- Lewis Roca Rothgerber, LLP & Steven Martin Aaron, Dentons US LLP. Pioneer Financial Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Chad R. Fears, Esq. -- cfears@swlaw.com -- Snell & Wilmer, LLP, James M. Humphrey, IV, Esq. -- jhumphrey@polsinelli.com -- Polsinelli PC, Robert V Spake, Esq. -- rspake@polsinelli.com -- Polsinelli, Russell S. Jones, Jr., Esq. -- rjones@polsinelli.com -- Polsinelli P.C. & Steven Martin Aaron, Dentons US LLP. John H. Gutke -- jgutke@foxrothschild.com -- and Tara H. Popova, Fox Rothschild LLP, Las Vegas, Nevada, for Defendant-Appellant Click Media LLC. CUDLEY'S HOME: Ryazantseva Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Law ------------------------------------------------------------- ELENA RYAZANTSEVA, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated who were employed by CUDLEY'S HOME CARE SERVICE, INC., the Plaintiffs, v. CUDLEY'S HOME CARE SERVICE, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 150754/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Jan. 25, 2018), seeks to recover wages and benefits which Plaintiffs were statutorily and contractually entitled to receive pursuant to New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiffs to regularly work in excess of ten hours per day, without providing the proper hourly compensation for all hours worked, overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in any given week, and "spread of hours" compensation. The Defendant offers home health care service in Bronx, New York.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the Putative Class: Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq. LaDonna M. Lusher, Esq. Milana Dostanitch, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP 40 Broad Street, Seventh Floor New York, New York 10004 Telephone: (212) 943 9080 Facsimile: (212) 943 9082 E-mail: llusher@vandallp.com - and - Gennadiy Naydenskiy, Esq. NAYDENSKIY LAW GROUP,P.C. 1517 Voohies Ave, 2nd Fl Brooklyn, NY 11235 Telephone: (212) 808 2224 Facsimile: (866) 261 5478 E-mail: naydenskiylaw@gmail.com CVS HEALTH: Transferred "Bewley" Class Suit to Dist. New Jersey --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit filed on May 24, 2017 styled Michael Bewley, Julia Boss, and Type 1 Diabetes Defense Foundation, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CVS Health Corporation, Caremark RX, L.L.C., Caremark RX, Inc., Express Scripts Holding Company, Express Scripts, Inc., Unitedhealth Group, Inc., Optumrx, Inc., Eli Lilly and Company, and Novo Nordisk Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-00802 was transferred on November 17, 2017, from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington to the U.S. District Court District of New Jersey. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-12031- BRM-TJB to the proceeding. The case seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of inflating the list prices for their glucagon products. The Defendants own and operate a pharmaceutical company in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Derek W. Loeser, Esq. Gretchen S. Obrist, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-1900 E-mail: dloeser@kellerrohrback.com gobrist@kellerrohrback.com The Defendant is represented by: Steven L. Penaro, Esq. ALSTON & BIRD LLP 90 Park Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 210-9400 E-mail: steve.penaro@alston.com - and - Thomas P. Scrivo, Esq. O'TOOLE SCRIVO FERNANDEZ WEINER VAN LIEU, LLC 14 Village Park Road Cedar Grove, NJ 07009 Telephone: (973) 239-5700 Facsimile: (973) 239-3400 E-mail: tscrivo@oslaw.com DANELL CUSTOM: Hearing on "Rodriguez" Deal Approval Continued ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, FRANCISCO RODRIGUEZ, JESUS HERNANDEZ INFANTE, MARCO GARCIA, JUAN MANUEL BRABO, ESTELA PATI•O, JOSE F. OROZCO, and ANTONIO ORTIZ, on behalf of themselves and other members of the general public generally situated, Plaintiffs, v. DANELL CUSTOM HARVESTING, LLC, a California company, RANCE DANELL, ERIC DANELL, DAVID DANELL, and JUSTIN DANELL, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv- 01848-SAB (E.D. Cal.), Judge of the U.S. District Court, E.D. California continued the hearing on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval from Jan. 17, 2018 to Jan. 24, 2018 at 10:00 a.m., and set the due on the Plaintiffs' supplemental briefing for Jan. 17, 2018. The Plaintiffs request a brief continuance for completing the supplemental briefing regarding preliminary approval ordered by the Court, and the Defendants have no objection, as long as the Court has no objection. The parties request and Magistrate Judge Boone approved that the hearing on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval be continued from Jan. 17, 2018 to Jan. 24, 2018 at 10:00 a.m., and that the Plaintiffs' supplemental briefing be due on Jan. 17, 2018. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 10, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/z9UieB from Leagle.com. Francisco Rodriguez, Jesus Hernandez Infante, Marco Garcia, Juan Manuel Bravo, Estela Patino, Jose F. Orozco & Antonio Ortiz, Plaintiffs, represented by Enrique Martinez, Law Offices of John E. Hill. Danell Custom Harvesting, LLC, a California Company, Rance Danell, Eric Danell, David Danell & Justin Danell, Defendants, represented by Howard A. Sagaser -- has@sw2law.com -- Sagaser, Watkins & Wieland, PC, Ian Blade Wieland -- ian@sw2law.com -- Sagaser, Watkins & Wieland, PC & William M. Woolman -- bill@sw2law.com -- Sagaser, Watkins & Wieland PC. DENALI WATER: "Verdugo" Suit Moved to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Enrique Verdugo, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Denali Water Solutions, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. CIVDS1725423, was removed from the San Bernardino County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District Of California (Eastern Division - Riverside) on Jan. 25, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:18-cv-00170-CAS-SHK to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Christina A. Snyder. Denali Water Solutions LLC was founded in 2008. The company's line of business includes the collection and disposal of refuse systems.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alvin B Lindsay, Esq. David Yeremian, Esq. DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 535 N Brand Blvd, Ste 705 Glendale, CA 91203-1989 Telephone: (818) 230 8380 Facsimile: (818) 230 0308 E-mail: alvin@yeremianlaw.com david@yeremianlaw.com Attorneys for Defendant: Kimberly Marie Shappley, Esq. Alaya B Meyers, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON PC 2050 Main Street Suite 900 Irvine, CA 92614 Telephone: (949) 705 3000 Facsimile: (949) 724 1201 E-mail: kshappley@littler.com ameyers@littler.com DEREK LAM: "Guzman" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages under Labor Code --------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Guzman, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Derek Lam 115 Mercer LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 701454/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Jan. 31, 2018), seeks to recover maximum liquidated damages (for the period after April 9, 2011) and interest for being paid overtime wages and non-overtime wages later than weekly; and costs and attorneys' fees, pursuant to the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff complains on behalf of himself and a class of other similarly situated current and former hourly employees who worked for the Defendant within the State of New York as manual workers. The Defendant had a policy and practice of deducting from the wages of Plaintiff, the costs of health insurance. For example, Defendant deducted the amount of about $400 from the wages of Plaintiff from health insurance coverage but at all times relevant herein, Plaintiff did not receive such health insurance coverage and was never reimbursed for such unlawful wage deductions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abdul K. Hassan, Esq. HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC 215-28 Hillside Avenue Queens Village, NY 11427 Telephone: (718) 740 1000 Facsimile: (718) 740 2000 E-mail: abdul@abdulhassan.com DIAMOND RESORTS: Fails to Pay All Overtime Wages, Anderson Says --------------------------------------------------------------- SUSAN ANDERSON as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DIAMOND RESORTS INTERNATIONAL MARKETING, INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, the Defendants, Case No. BC691344 (Cal. Super. Ct., Jan. 25, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff routinely works in excess of 8 hours per workday and/or more than 40 hours per workweek, but does not receive overtime compensation equal to one and one-half times her regular rate of pay for working overtime hours. Specifically, Defendants paid Plaintiff non-discretionary bonuses, commissions, spiffs and other forms of non-discretionary pay that are not excludable from the regular rate of pay. The Defendants fail to accurately calculate Plaintiffs regular rate of pay as a result of receiving Incentive Pay, as Plaintiff is only paid one-and-a-half times her base rate of pay for overtime hours, thereby causing Plaintiff to be underpaid for all her required overtime wages.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul K. Haines, Esq. Tuvia Korobkin, Esq. Stacey M. Shim, Esq. HAINES LAW GROUP, APC 222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (424) 292 2350 Facsimile: (424) 292 2355 E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com tkorobkin@haineslawgroup.com sshim@haineslawgroup.com DICK'S SPORTING: Bid to Stay "Greer" Denied ------------------------------------------- In the case, JIMMY GREER, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DICK'S SPORTING GOODS, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-01063-KJM-CKD (E.D. Cal.), Judge Kimberly J. Mueller of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California denied without prejudice the Defendant's motion to stay the certified class action, pending the California Supreme Court's answers to two questions certified by the Ninth Circuit. Greer filed a class action complaint on March 19, 2015, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Sacramento, alleging that the Defendant violated several provisions of the California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code Section 17200. DSG removed the action to the Court on May 15, 2015. On Oct. 1, 2015, the Plaintiff filed the operative first amended complaint. On April 13, 2017, the Court granted the Plaintiff's motion to certify two subclasses: (1) a "Security Check Class" arising from the Plaintiff's claim that DSG employees were required to wait, while off the clock, for inspection of their personal belongings before exiting the store; and (2) a "Business Reimbursement Class," arising from the Plaintiff's claim that DSG employees were required to purchase apparel but were not reimbursed for their purchases. DSG now seeks to stay the action pending the California Supreme Court's decisions in two cases. In the first case, Troester v. Starbucks Corp., the state Court agreed to decide the following question certified to it by the Ninth Circuit on whether the federal Fair Labor Standards Act's de minimis doctrine, as stated in Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., and Lindow v. United States, applies to claims for unpaid wages under the California Labor Code sections 510, 1194, and 1197. The Court, in its certification order, noted the law is unclear as to whether the federal de minimis doctrine applies to California labor cases, and cited the question certified in Troester. It found that even if the doctrine applies, there would be common questions regarding whether the class satisfied the doctrine's requirements. In the second case, Frlekin v. Apple, the state Court agreed to decide the Ninth Circuit's certified question on whether the time spent on the employer's premises waiting for, and undergoing, required exit searches of packages or bags voluntarily brought to work purely for personal convenience by employees is compensable as hours worked within the meaning of California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 7. DSG argues the decisions to be rendered in Troester and Frlekin will be "potentially dispositive" with respect to the Plaintiff's Security Check Class claims, and thus urges the court to stay this action until those cases are decided. Judge Mueller is not persuaded that DSG has shown a clear case of hardship that outweighs the risk of harm posed by a stay. Rather, it is well established that being required to defend a suit, without more, does not constitute a clear case of hardship or inequity within the meaning of Landis. Thus, she says, DSG's anticipated defense expenses do not necessarily tip the Landis balance in favor of a stay. Moreover, to the extent unnecessary discovery and motion practice may pose a hardship to DSG, DSG has not met its burden in articulating that hardship with sufficient particularity. In addition, the Judge finds that DSG provides no indication whatsoever of the expected magnitude or cost of anticipated discovery on issues that may be narrowed or mooted by the California Supreme Court's decisions in Troester and Frlekin. Instead, DSG simply argues its discovery expenses may be for naught and notes that moving for summary judgment involves extensive depositions, expert studies and reports, all at great cost to the parties. If DSG plans to file a motion for summary judgment that turns on the de minimis doctrine or the voluntariness issue, DSG may renew its motion to stay with more supporting detail than currently provided. Finally, the Judge agrees that the California Supreme Court's decisions may bear on the Security Check Class claims and could potentially limit the scope of discovery and issues of law to be adjudicated in the case. Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of a stay but does not outweigh the other factors for which DSG has failed to meet its burden. For these reasons, Judge Mueller concludes that DSG has not shown a stay is warranted. Accordingly, its motion to stay is denied without prejudice. The parties should be prepared to discuss future scheduling at the conclusion of the motion hearing on Jan. 12, 2018, including whether discovery and dispositive motion practice might be timed to achieve efficiencies in light of Troester and Frlekin. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 10, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/gZ9EII from Leagle.com. Jimmy Greer, Plaintiff, represented by Melissa Grant, Capstone Law APC, Robert J. Drexler -- Robert.Drexler@Capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC, Bevin Elaine Allen Pike -- Bevin.Pike@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC & Jonathan Sing Lee -- Jonathan.Lee@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC. Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc., Defendant, represented by Paul S. Cowie -- pcowie@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin, Caryn F. Horner -- chorner@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Cassidy Mariko English -- cenglish@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richler & Hampton, Michael Thomas Campbell -- mcampbell@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Stephen Luther Taeusch -- staeusch@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP. DNC SERVICES: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Compensation, Torres Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTIAN TORRES, on behalf of himself and all those similarly situated, 1343 E 9th St. Tucson, AZ 85719, the Plaintiff, v. DNC SERVICES CORPORATION d/b/a DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE 430 South Capitol St. Southeast Washington, DC 20003 and ARIZONA DEMOCRATIC PARTY 2910 North Central Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85012, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00321-JAT (D. Ariz., Jan. 31, 2018), seeks compensation on behalf of all Organizers and/or Field Organizers who worked for Defendants tirelessly while being denied minimum wage and overtime compensation guaranteed by federal and state law. Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that he and other Organizers and/or Field Organizers were employed in non-exempt positions to assist in nationally coordinated Democratic "ground game" which sought to increase the Democratic vote. Even while Defendants campaigned to enhance and expand the ability of low and middle income people to be paid a fair salary, minimum wage, and overtime, those same principles were ignored in denying their own Organizers and/or Field Organizers overtime pay for the extremely long hours required by campaign work. Organizers and/or Field Organizers are dedicated people who worked for Defendants because they were and remain committed to Defendants' platform, program, and ideals; they bring this lawsuit not to challenge those ideals but to vindicate them, and in so doing, do their part to ensure the continued viability of the rights created by and enshrined in the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The Organizers' and/or Field Organizers' job duties consisted of assisting in voter registration, handing out paperwork and forms to potential voters in person, reminding potential voters of deadlines, and soliciting volunteers. Organizers and/or Field Organizers were expected and did work long hours and weekends, and regularly worked in excess of 80 to 90 hours per workweek. Rather than hiring additional staff to reduce the extraordinary workload assigned to Organizers and/or Field Organizers, and rather than paying overtime and minimum wage as required by the FLSA and state law, Defendants instead willfully engaged in a course of conduct in violation of federal law by requiring Organizers and/or Field Organizers to work long hours without providing any overtime compensation to Organizers and/or Field Organizers. Defendants unlawfully and erroneously treated Organizers and/or Field Organizers as exempt employees under state and federal law. Named Plaintiff seeks relief on behalf of all Organizers and/or Field Organizers nationwide who were denied the benefits guaranteed by law. Democratic National Committee is the formal governing body for the United States Democratic Party. The committee coordinates strategy to support Democratic Party candidates throughout the country for local, state, and national office.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin L. Swidler, Esq. Joshua S. Boyette, Esq. SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC 1101 Kings Highway North, Suite 402 Cherry Hill, NJ 08034 Telephone: (856) 685 7420 Facsimile: (856) 685 7417 E-mail: jswidler@swartz-legal.com jboyette@swartz-legal.com EDDIE BAUER: Court Certifies Store Employees Class in "Heredia" --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case styled STEPHANIE HEREDIA, Plaintiff, v. EDDIE BAUER LLC, Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-06236-BLF (N.D. Cal.), Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, granted Heredia's motion to certify the class. The well-known outdoor lifestyle brand Eddie Bauer is one of the latest retailers facing allegations that the company failed to compensate its employees for time spent undergoing off-the-clock "exit inspections" before leaving the store. Heredia worked as a sales associate at an Eddie Bauer retail store in Gilroy, California from November 2013 to March 2016. During that time, she alleges that she was required to undergo inspections of her personal belongings -- otherwise known as "bag checks" or "security inspections" -- whenever she left the store. It was Heredia's understanding from conversations with her managers that Eddie Bauer's security inspection policies required such bag checks to occur after she clocked out. On Sept. 28, 2016, Heredia sued Eddie Bauer in Santa Clara Superior Court on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, asserting causes of action for (1) failure to pay minimum wages in violation of Cal. Labor Code Section 1194, 1197, and 1197.1; (2) failure to pay overtime wages in violation of Cal. Labor Code Sections 510, 558; (3) failure to provide proper meal breaks in violation of Cal. Labor Code Sections 226.7 and 512; (4) failure to provide proper rest breaks in violation of Cal. Labor Code Sections 226.7; (5) failure to provide accurate wage statements in violation of Cal. Labor Code Sections 226(a); (6) violation of Cal. Labor Code Section 2698, Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"); and (7) unfair business practices in violation of Cal. Bus. Prof. Code Section 17200, et seq. She sues her former employer for failing to compensate her for the time spent waiting for, or undergoing, these security inspections. Eddie Bauer removed the action to the Court on Oct. 27, 2016. Heredia now moves under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) for the Court to certify a class of all current and former non- exempt retail store employees who were employed by the Defendant in the State of California at any time from Sept. 28, 2012, through the present. She only moves to certify the First Cause of Action (unpaid minimum wages), Second Cause of Action (unpaid overtime compensation), Fifth Cause of Action (wage statement violations) and Seventh Cause of Action (UCL violation). Eddie Bauer opposes the motion for class certification, arguing that Heredia has not met her burden to establish the requirements of Rule 23(a) or Rule 23(b)(3). It argues that its employees are only subject to security inspections if they carry a bag or parcel that can be used to steal store merchandise. Moreover, it asserts that such bag checks are to be conducted on-the-clock pursuant to its policies and practices. Heredia responds that Eddie Bauer's arguments are either misleading or irrelevant to the issue of class certification. The Court held a hearing on Heredia's motion for class certification on Oct. 12, 2017. Having considered the arguments presented at oral argument and in the briefing, as well as the submitted evidence and applicable law, Judge Freeman finds that despite the parties' disputes regarding the legality of Eddie Bauer's security inspection policy, the proposed class meets the requirements of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3). Accordingly, the Judge granted Heredia's motion for class certification. He thus certified the class of all current and former non-exempt retail store employees who were employed by Defendant in the State of California at any time from Sept. 28, 2012, through the present. The Judge certified as appropriate for class treatment only Heredia's First Cause of Action (unpaid minimum wages), Second Cause of Action (unpaid overtime compensation), Fifth Cause of Action (wage statement violations), and Seventh Cause of Action (UCL violation), as alleged in the Complaint. He also certified Heredia as the class representative and her counsel of record as the class counsel. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 10, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/TkVgjF from Leagle.com. Stephanie Heredia, as an individual and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Kristen Michelle Agnew -- kagnew@diversitylaw.com -- Diversity Law Group, APC, Larry W. Lee -- lwlee@diversitylaw.com -- Diversity Law Group, P.C. & William Lucas Marder -- bill@polarislawgroup.com -- Polaris Law Group, LLP. Eddie Bauer LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant, represented by Jonathan Douglas Meer -- jmeer@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP & Michael Afar -- mafar@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP. EPIC LANDSCAPE: "Chevere" Seeks OT Pay, Hits Excessive Deductions ----------------------------------------------------------------- Issokarm Rodriguez Chevere on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Epic Landscape Productions, L.C., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-02733 (D. Kan., December 27, 2017), seeks damages and other relief for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Kansas Wage Payment Act for having rental payments deducted from their paychecks. The plaintiff further seeks overtime premium for all hours worked over forty during a workweek. Epic is a company that provides landscape, irrigation and lighting design and construction for homes and businesses where Plaintiff worked as landscape laborers, doing irrigation digging and installation, dirt movement, loading and hauling landscape materials, building retaining walls, mulching, moving rocks, building waterfalls, building pools and pool maintenance. Plaintiff also allege excessive rental deductions for the staff house that they rented from Epic during the tenure of their work. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Brendan J. Donelon, Esq. DONELON PC 420 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Tel: (816) 221-7100 Fax: (816) 709-1044 Email: brendan@donelonpc.com - and - Ashley Atwell-Soler, Esq. HOLMAN SCHIAVONE, LLC 4600 Madison Ave., Suite 810 Kansas City, MO 64112 Tel: (816) 285-1224 Email: AAtwell@hslawllc.com EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Donnelly" Suit in N.D. Georgia -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax Inc. The case is styled John Donnelly, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Equifax Inc. and Equifax Information Sercices, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00361-TWT (N.D. Ga., January 24, 2018). Equifax Inc. operates a global credit reporting agency that collects, stores, organizes, analyzes and disseminates data on millions of consumers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Hunter Sharp, Esq. Sanford Heisler Sharp, LLP 611 Commerce Street, Suite 3100 Nashville, TN 37203 Tel: (615) 434-7001 Fax: (615) 434-7020 Email: ksharp@sanfordheisler.com ESURANCE PROPERTY: Faces Central Palm Beach Suit in S.D. Fla. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Esurance Property and Casualty Insurance Company. The case is styled as Central Palm Beach Physicians & Urgent Care, Inc. doing business as: Total MD a Florida corporation, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated other Lanre Mawudzro, Plaintiff v. Esurance Property and Casualty Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No. 0:18-cv-60136-KMM (S.D. Fla., January 22, 2018). Esurance Property and Casualty Insurance Company operates as a subsidiary of The Allstate Corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Barbara Perez, Esq. Aronovitz Law 2 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 3700 Miami, FL 33131 Tel: (305) 372-2772 Fax: (305) 397-1886 Email: bp@aronovitzlaw.com - and - Theophilos George Poulopoulos, Esq. Corredor, Husseini and Snedaker, P.A. 9130 South Dadeland Blvd Datran II Center, Suite 1902 Miami, FL 33156 Tel: (978) 621-4636 Email: theo.poulopoulos@gmail.com - and - Tod N. Aronovitz, Esq. Aronovitz Law One Biscayne Tower 2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 3700 Miami, FL 33131 Tel: (305) 372-2772 Fax: (305) 397-1886 Email: ta@aronovitzlaw.com FEDERAL NATIONAL: D. Best Can File 2nd Amended Complaint -------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of Maryland, Southern Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion granting Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint in the case captioned DAWUD J. BEST, Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. GJH-17-314 (C.D. Md.). Pro Se Plaintiff Dawud J. Best brings this action against Defendants Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), Capital One, Nat'l Assoc. (Capital One), and Brock & Scott, PLLC (Defendants) related to Defendants' attempt to collect a debt and foreclose upon Plaintiffs property in Cheverly, Maryland. Plaintiff filed his initial Complaint on February 2, 2017, bringing claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (Count One), Maryland Consumer Debt Collection and Maryland Consumer Protection Acts (Count Two), and the Truth in Lending Act (Count Three) on behalf of himself and a class. Defendants contend that Thomas Alston, a non-attorney, was the true author of Plaintiff's filings and point to a number of facts highly suggestive of Alston's involvement in this matter. For example, Plaintiff was previously a pro se plaintiff in a lawsuit filed by Kimberly Alston, Thomas Alston's sister, Bey, et al. v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., et al.,8:15-cv-1329-GJH (D. Md.), and his Complaint herein has many of the hallmarks of prior complaints filed by Alston, including the threat of a class action brought by a pro se plaintiff, which is impermissible. Plaintiff maintains that while he did review a number of publicly-available complaints filed by Thomas Alston before judges in this District, Plaintiff affirmatively stated to the Court that Thomas Alston neither advised nor assisted him at any time. Plaintiff further maintains that the residential sale contract signed by Thomas Alston was the product of an arms- length transaction. Based on the facts presented to the Court at this time, the Court, while concerned, cannot conclude that Thomas Alston engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, and Defendants' motion to strike and stay is therefore denied. Defendants argue that Plaintiff lacks standing to bring this action because the claims are part of Plaintiffs bankruptcy estate and can only be raised by the bankruptcy trustee. Defendants do not suggest that Plaintiffs disclosure of his pre- petition claims lacked the requisite detail necessary to enable the bankruptcy trustee to bring the claims on behalf of the estate if it chose to do so. Nor do Defendants argue that Plaintiff may not re-open his bankruptcy action to amend his schedule of property for the express purpose of retaining standing to bring these pre-petition claims on his own. Therefore, because the amended schedule included the prepetition claims, and the bankruptcy case was closed without any objection or action by the trustee, the claims were both exempt and properly abandoned, and the Court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear them now. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B), a plaintiff may amend his complaint once as a matter of course within 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b)/ As an initial matter, because Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint was timely filed, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is denied as moot. The Corrected First Amended Complaint did not raise additional causes of action or legal theories not otherwise presented in the First Amended Complaint and the fact that it was filed five days after the First Amended Complaint suggests Plaintiff's representation regarding an inadvertent filing is credible. More importantly, however, concerns regarding the First Amended Complaint, corrected or not, are mooted by Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. Defendants" Opposition to that motion focuses entirely on claims that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and that Plaintiff is operating in bad faith due to Thomas Alston's alleged involvement. As the Court has already addressed these issues, Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint is Granted. The Second Amended Complaint is now the operative complaint. A full-text copy of the District Court's December 21, 2017 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/yctapopq from Leagle.com. Dawud J. Best, Plaintiff, Pro Se. Federal National Mortgage Association, also known as Fannie Mae & Capital One, Nat'l Assoc., Defendants, represented by Syed Mohsin Reza -- mohsin.reza@troutman.com -- Troutman Sanders LLP. Brock & Scott, PLLC, Defendant, represented by Christine Nicole Johnson Christine.Johnson@brockandscott.com -- Brock & Scott, PLLC & Syed Mohsin Reza -- mohsin.reza@troutman.com -- Troutman Sanders LLP. FINANCIAL RECOVERIES: Wakefield Sues over Collection Practices -------------------------------------------------------------- GLENN WAKEFIELD and RAVYN WAKEFIELD, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. FINANCIAL RECOVERIES, INC. d/b/a OSHKOSH COLLECTION & RECOVERY, a Wisconsin Corporation; and, JOHN AND JANE DOES NUMBERS 1 THROUGH 25, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00173 (E.D. Wisc., Jan. 31, 2018), seeks to recover statutory damages, attorney fees, costs, and all other relief, equitable or legal in nature, as deemed appropriate, pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Accoridng to the compliant, Financial Recoveries used false, deceptive, and misleading practices, and other illegal practices, in connection with its attempts to collect alleged debts from the Plaintiffs and others. The Plaintiffs allege Financial Recoveries's collection practices violate the FDCPA. The collection practices include, inter alia, sending consumers written communications to collect debts, which falsely state the consumers' alleged defaulted medical debts are accruing interest, late charges, and other charges that vary from day to day. Plaintiffs seek trial by jury. Financial Recoveries offers traditional collection services, account monitoring and day one collection, pre-collection services, and skip tracing.[BN] Attorneys for Glenn Wakefield and Ravyn Wakefield: Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq. Philip D. Stern, Esq. STERN THOMASSON LLP 150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor Springfield, NJ 07081-1315 Telephone: (973) 379 7500 Facsimile: (973) 532 5868 E-Mail: philip@sternthomasson.com andrew@sternthomasson.com FLORIDA CARE ASSISTED LIVING: Baptiste Seeks Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Marie Marthe Jean Baptiste, on her own behalf and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Florida Care Assisted Living, Inc. (d/b/a Victoria Gardens ALF) and Collette Burgess, individually, Case No. 17-cv-81398, (S.D. Fla., December 27, 2017), seeks overtime compensation and minimum wage compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Baptiste was employed as a housekeeper and home health aide at Victoria Gardens ALF. Plaintiff assisted the residents with bathing, toileting assistance, dressing, hygiene, and self- administration of medication, performed housekeeping and laundry services, provided companionship, and assisted residents with feeding at the assisted living facility in Riviera Beach, Florida. She would average between five to ten hours of overtime per week without being paid overtime premium, notes the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Maguene D. Cadet, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DIEUDONNE CADET, P.A. 2500 Quantum Lakes Drive, Suite 203 Boynton Beach, FL 33426 Telephone: (561) 853-2212 Facsimile: (561) 853-2213 Email: Maguene@DieudonneLaw.com FURNITURE HOME: "Taber" Suit Seeks OT Compensation under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- The case, RAYMOND TABER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated the Plaintiff, v. FURNITURE HOME STORES OF ARKANSAS, INC., and ASHLEY FURNITURE INDUSTRIES, INC., each d/b/a ASHLEY FURNITURE HOMESTORE, the Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv- 00089-BSM (E.D. Ark., Jan. 31, 2018), is a hybrid class and collective action brought on behalf of hourly-paid Delivery Employees employed by Defendants at any time within a three-year period preceding the filing of this Complaint. According to the complaint, for at least three years prior to the filing of this Complaint, Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and other hourly-paid delivery employees proper overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week, the lawsuit claims. Ashley Furniture is a privately held company in Bryant, Arkansas and is a single location business. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Ford, Esq. Chris Burks, Esq. Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221 0088 Facsimile: (888) 787 2040 E-mail: daniel@sanfordlawfirm.com chris@sanfordlawfirm.com josh@sanfordlawfirm.com GARCES GROUP: Faces "Godino" Suit in S.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Garces Group LLC. The case is styled as Michael Godino, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Garces Group LLC doing business as: The Olde Bar, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv- 00273-BMS (S.D. Penn., January 22, 2018). Garces is a Philadelphia-based hospitality group specializing in personal dining experiences rooted in the rich cultural traditions and culinary vision of James Beard Award-winning Latin-American Chef Jose Garces.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C. K. LEE, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 EAST 39TH STREET SECOND FLOOR NEW YORK, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 465-1188 Email: cklee@leelitigation.com GENERAL NUTRITION: "Chevalier" Suit Brought Before Penn. S.C. ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Tawny L. Chevalier and Andrew Hiller, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs/Respondents v. General Nutrition Centers, Inc., and General Nutrition Corporation, Defendants/Petitioners, Case No. 33-WAL-2018, was brought before the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania on January 22, 2018. GNC Holdings Inc. (General Nutrition Centers) is a Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania-based American company selling health and nutrition related products, including vitamins, supplements, minerals, herbs, sports nutrition, diet, and energy products.[BN] The Petitioners/Defendants are represented by: Simon, Michael, Esq. Roe & Simon LLC 2520 Mosside Blvd Monroeville, PA 15146-3539 Tel: (412) 856-8107, ext. 7628 - and - Pritchard, Robert William, Esq. Littler Mendelson, P.C. 625 Liberty Ave 26th Fl Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Tel: (412) 201-7600, ext. 7628 The Respondents/Plaintiffs are represented by: Adrian Nathaniel, Roe, Esq. Roe & Simon LLC 428 Blvd of the Allies 5th Fl Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Tel: (412) 434-8187, ext. 7628 HALSTED FINANCIAL: Tinker Sues over Debt Collection Practices ------------------------------------------------------------- Deborah Tinker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Halsted Financial Services, LLC, an Illinois limited liability company, and Cavalry SPV I, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00596 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 26, 2018), seeks to recover damages under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Halsted is an Illinois limited liability company that acts as a debt collector. It operates a nationwide debt collection business and attempts to collect defaulted debts from consumers in virtually every state, including consumers in the State of Illinois. Halsted was acting as a debt collector as to the defaulted consumer debt it attempted to collect from Plaintiff. According to the complaint, many years ago, Ms. Tinker fell behind on paying her bills, including a debt she allegedly owed for a Capital One account. Sometime after that debt became defaulted, the debt was allegedly acquired by Cavalry. Cavalry tried to collect upon the debt by having Halsted send Ms. Tinker a form collection letter, dated April 13, 2017. This letter urged her to pay the debt, via a "50% Discount Offer". The letter belatedly stated, "The law limits how long you can be sued on a debt. Because of the age of your debt, Halsted Financial Services, LLC will not sue you for it. If you do not pay the debt Cavalry SPV I, LLC may report it to the credit reporting agencies as unpaid for as long as the law permits this reporting." The Defendants' letter, however, failed to state that Cavalry could not also sue on the debt; moreover, by stating that Halsted "will not" sue, rather than it "cannot" sue, the letter implied that Halsted still had the option to take those actions, and that it was simply choosing not to do so. Moreover, by stating that "[I]f you do not pay the debt, Cavalry SPV I, LLC may report it to the credit reporting agencies as unpaid for as long as the law permits this reporting", Defendants clearly threatened Ms. Tinker with negative consequences if she did not pay the debt, which rendered any message about a decision not to sue ineffective. Despite Defendant's "50% Discount Offer", there was, in fact, no discount to be had. Neither Defendant could actually sue to collect the debt at issue because it was time-barred by the statute of limitations in the State of Alabama. Thus, their offer to settle would not save Ms. Tinker any money whatsoever. The failure of Defendants to disclose effectively that both Defendants could not sue or credit report is material. This lack of proper disclosure would leave the consumer without enough information to make a decision as to what to do about the collection of the debt at issue and cause them to believe Defendants that the debt needed to be paid.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David J. Philipps Mary E. Philipps Carissa K. Rasch PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD. 9760 S. Roberts Road Suite One Palos Hills, IL 60465 Telephone: (708) 974 2900 Facsimile: (708) 974 2907 E-mail: davephilipps@aol.com mephilipps@aol.com - and - Ronald C. Sykstus, Esq. BOND, BOTES, SYKSTUS, TANNER & EZZELL, P.C. 225 Pratt Avenue Huntsville, AL 35801 Telephone: (256) 539 9899 Facsimile: (256) 713 0237 E-mail: Rsykstus@bondnbotes.com HAMBLEN COUNTY, TN: "Wolfe" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- GARY E. WOLFE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. HAMBLEN COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00013 (E.D. Tenn., Jan. 31, 2018), alleges violations of Plaintiff's rights under the Fair labor Standards Act of 1938 and seeks to remedy violations of the wage provisions of the FLSA which have deprived Plaintiff, as well as others similarly situated, of their lawful wages. The Plaintiff also seeks to redress the unlawful termination of his employment for complaining to Defendant and/or their agents or employees about their failure to pay wages, including overtime to him and others in violation of Sec. 215(a)(3) of the FLSA as well as their retaliation for failing to re-hire the Plaintiff into additional custodial positions for which he was qualified following his complaint under the FLSA. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's actions, the Plaintiff and others similarly situated have suffered loss of wages and seek compensatory damages in an amount according to proof including unpaid overtime wages as well as Social Security and Medicare contributions. Hamblen County Department of Education is governed by Hamblen County Board of Education, the public school district for Hamblen County, Tennessee, having its Central Office at 210 East Morris Boulevard, Morristown, Tennessee 37813. HCBOE operates several schools within the district, including Union Heights Elementary School, the school where the Plaintiff was employed. Service of process may be made on the Board with Hamblen County Department of Education's Director of Schools, Dr. Jeff Perry, at its Central Office.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Link A. Gibbons, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF LINK A. GIBBONS P. O. Box 2428 Morristown, Tennessee 37816 Telephone: (423) 839 0990 Facsimile: (423) 839 1306 E-mail: link@linkgibbonslaw.com HAYNES INVESTMENTS: Faces "Gibbs" Suit in E.D. Virginia ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Haynes Investments, LLC. The case is styled Darlene Gibbs, Stephanie Edwards, Lula Williams, Patrick Inscho and Lawrence Mwethuku, on behalf of themselves and all individuals similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Haynes Investments, LLC, L. Stephen Haynes, Sovereign Business Solutions, LLC, Victory Park Capital Advisors, LLC, Victory Park Management, LLC, Scott Zemnick, Jeffrey Schneider and Thomas Welch, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00048-MHL (E.D. Va., January 22, 2018). The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq. Kelly & Crandall PLC 3925 Chain Bridge Rd, Suite 202 Fairfax, VA 22030 Tel: (703) 424-7570 Fax: (703) 591-9285 Email: kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com - and - Andrew Joseph Guzzo, Esq. Kelly & Crandall PLC 3925 Chain Bridge Rd, Suite 202 Fairfax, VA 22030 Tel: (703) 424-7576 Fax: (703) 591-0167 Email: aguzzo@kellyandcrandall.com - and - Casey Shannon Nash, Esq. Kelly & Crandall PLC 3925 Chain Bridge Rd, Suite 202 Fairfax, VA 22030 Tel: (703) 640-3334 Fax: (703) 591-0167 Email: casey@kellyandcrandall.com - and - Craig Carley Marchiando, Esq. Consumer Litigation Associates 763 J Clyde Morris Boulevard, Suite 1A Newport News, VA 23601 Tel: (757) 930-3660 Fax: (757) 930-3662 Email: craig@clalegal.com - and - Elizabeth W. Hanes, Esq. Consumer Litigation Associates 763 J Clyde Morris Boulevard, Suite 1A Newport News, VA 23601 Tel: (757) 930-3660 Fax: (757) 930-3662 Email: elizabeth@clalegal.com - and - James Wilson Speer, Esq. Virginia Proverty Law Center 919 E Main Street, Suite 610 Richmond, VA 23219 Tel: (804) 782-9430 Fax: (804) 649-0974 Email: jay@vplc.org - and - Leonard Anthony Bennett, Esq. Consumer Litigation Associates 763 J Clyde Morris Boulevard, Suite 1A Newport News, VA 23601 Tel: (757) 930-3660 Fax: (757) 930-3662 Email: lenbennett@clalegal.com HOST INTERNATIONAL: "Garcia" Suit Moved to S.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Sera Garcia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Host International, Inc., a Delaware Corporation; HMS Host USA, Inc., a Delaware Corporation; and Does 1 through 20, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 37-02017-00046403-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (San Diego). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-00173- GPC-BLM to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel. Host International, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates food, beverage, and merchandise concessions at airports, on toll roads, and at other travel and entertainment venues in the United States. The company operates gift and news retail outlets in off- airport locations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Simon Kwak, Esq. AEGIS LAW FIRM 9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 379 6250 Facsimile: (949) 379 -6251 E-mail: skwak@aegislawfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Vartan S. Madoyan, Esq. BAKER AND HOSTETLER LLP 11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 820 8800 Facsimile: (310) 820 -8859 E-mail: vmadoyan@bakerlaw.com HYATT CORPORATION: Website Not Fully Accessible, Gomez Says ----------------------------------------------------------- ANDRES GOMEZ, the Plaintiff, v. HYATT CORPORATION and HYATT HOTELS CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-20403- JLK (S.D. Fla., Jan. 31, 2018), seeks to require Defendants to modify their website, to include third party vendors, so that it is fully accessible to, and independently usable by blind or visually impaired individuals, under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff is a blind individual. He brings this civil rights class action against Defendants for offering and maintaining an internet website that is not fully accessible and independently usable by visually impaired individuals. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has visited Defendants' website (www.hyatt.com). The Defendants offer their hotel-related website to the general public and as such, have subjected themselves to the ADA. Defendants' website is offered as a tool to view available hotel rooms, amenities, make reservations, address customer service issues securities and locating brick and mortar hotel locations. As a result, the website must interact with Defendants' services, brick and mortar hotel locations, etc., and in doing so must comply with the ADA, which means it must not discriminate against individuals with disabilities and may not deny full and equal enjoyment of services afforded to the general public. Blind and visually impaired consumers use screen reading software or other assistive technologies in order to access website content. Defendants' website, however, contains digital barriers, limiting the ability of blind and visually impaired consumers to access their content. Defendants' website does not properly interact with screen reader software in a manner that will allow the blind and visually impaired to enjoy the website, nor does the site provide other means to accommodate the blind and visually impaired. The Plaintiff has visited Defendants' website in the past in conjunction with hotel rooms, amenities, making reservations, addressing customer service issues securities and locating brick and mortar hotel locations, and intends to visit the website in conjunction with visit(s) to their brick and mortar hotel locations in the future. However, unless Defendants are required to eliminate the access barriers at issue, and required to change their policies so that access barriers do not reoccur on Defendants' website, Plaintiff will continue to be denied full and equal access to the website and related brick and mortar hotel locations as described, and will be deterred from fully using Defendants' website in conjunction with its physical locations. Hyatt Hotels Corporation is an American multinational owner, operator, and franchiser of hotels, resorts, and vacation properties.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. Alfredo Garcia-Menocal, Esq. GARCIA-MENOCAL & PEREZ, P.L. 4937 S.W. 74th Court Miami, FL 33155 Telephone: (305) 553-3464 Facsimile: (305) 553-3031 E-Mail: ajperez@lawgmp.com mpomares@lawgmp.com ILLINOIS: Court Certifies Class in "Donegan" -------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Amended Class Certification in the case captioned BLAKE DONEGAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FELICIA NORWOOD, as Director of the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services, Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-11178 (N.D. Ill.). The Plaintiffs in this case are disabled persons who receive funding for in-home shift nursing services from the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services (HFS) through its non-waiver Medicaid program commonly known as the Nursing and Personal Care Services (NPCS) program. The NPCS program restricts enrollment in the program to persons under the age of 21. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of approximately 411 medically fragile disabled individuals who have been found eligible by Defendant for in-home shift nursing services through the NPCS program, but who are not entitled to receive such services through the NPCS program after they reach the age of 21. Instead, Plaintiffs and the putative class may seek services through the Home Services Program (HSP). Plaintiffs bring claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Rehabilitation Act (RA), and 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, raising two theories. First, Plaintiffs argue that they are at risk of being institutionalized or suffering serious harm as a result of Defendant's policy of restricting enrollment in the NPCS program to individuals under the age of 21. This theory of discrimination stems from the Supreme Court's decision in Olmstead v. L.C., which held that developmentally disabled individuals should be placed in community settings when [1] the state's treatment professionals have determined that community placement is appropriate, [2] the transfer from institutional care to a less restrictive setting is not opposed by the affected individual, and [3] the placement can be reasonably accommodated, taking into account the resources available to the State and the needs of others with mental disabilities. Second, Plaintiffs argue that Defendant is discriminating between disabled persons aging out of the NPCS program and disabled persons aging out of the State of Illinois' Medically Fragile, Technology Dependent (MFTD) program, as disabled persons in the MFTD program continue to receive in-home shift nursing services based on medical necessity after they reach the age of 21 while disabled persons in the NPCS program do not. This theory of discrimination stems from language in Amundson ex rel. Amundson v. Wisconsin Department of Health Services, which indicates that individuals with disabilities can establish intra-class claims of discrimination by showing that they are being treated worse than persons with other disabilities. Plaintiffs seek to certify a Rule 23(b)(2) class of: All Medicaid-enrolled children under the age of 21 in the State of Illinois who receive in-home shift nursing or had received in-home shift nursing services, and when they obtain the age of 21 years are subjected to reduced Medicaid funding which reduced the medical level of care which they had been receiving prior to obtaining 21 years. This class definition does not include those persons who are enrolled in the State of Illinois' Medically Fragile Technology Dependent (MFTD) Medicaid Waiver program. Defendant argues that Plaintiffs' proposed class fails to satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2). Rule 23(b)(2) permits class certification where the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole. The Court finds that by including individuals who no longer receive in-home shift nursing services through the NPCS program in their proposed class definition, Plaintiffs are essentially asking the Court to issue an injunction requiring Defendant to reinstate benefits to those who no longer receive these services. This is not permitted under Rule 23(b)(2). Chicago Teachers Union, Local No. 1 v. Bd. of Educ. of City of Chicago, 797 F.3d 426, 441 (7th Cir. 2015), indicated that a 23(b)(2) class would be inappropriate where plaintiffs sought individual relief such as reinstatement or individually calculated damages in the form of back pay and front pay. Accordingly, the Court finds it necessary to alter the class definition, which the Court can do in its discretion. Because the Court would be required to order individualized relief for claims brought on behalf of disabled persons not currently receiving benefits through the NPCS program, the Court will alter Plaintiffs' proposed class to include only those currently receiving in-home shift nursing services through the NPCS program. Defendant argues that Plaintiffs' proposed class definition does not satisfy the ascertainability requirement because (1) the class includes all individuals who were ever enrolled in the NPCS without any time limitation, and (2) the class includes individuals that did not receive in-home shift nursing services after turning 21 yet were not now or ever faced with the risk of institutionalization. The Court finds that a more precise class definition is necessary to identify who will receive notice, who will share in any recovery, and who will be bound by a judgment. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the following class definition best comports with the nature of Plaintiffs' claims and the requirements of Rule 23: All persons in the state of Illinois who have been approved by Defendant for in-home shift nursing services when they were Medicaid-eligible children under the age of 21 through the nonwaiver Medicaid program, formerly known as the Nursing and Personal Care Services (NPCS) program, and who are currently receiving such services. This class definition does not include those persons who are enrolled in the State of Illinois' Medically Fragile Technology Dependent (MFTD) Medicaid Waiver program. The first requirement under Rule 23(a) is that the putative class be so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. Here, Plaintiffs have submitted evidence indicating that as of April 1, 2016, there were 411 children receiving services from the NPCS program. Most if not all of these individuals would fall within the Court's altered class definition. This is sufficient to satisfy Rule 23(a)'s numerosity requirement. For a class to be certified, questions of law or fact must exist common to the class. Here, Plaintiffs set forth a list of common questions that they contend are each sufficient to satisfy Rule 23(a)'s commonality requirement, inter alia: a) Whether the Defendant violated the ADA and Rehabilitation Act by reducing the level of funding for persons receiving in- home shift nursing services through Defendant's program commonly referred to as the Nursing and Personal Care Services (NPCS) program which resulted in a reduction of medical services. b) Whether the Defendant discriminates against the Plaintiffs and putative Class by treating them worse than person with other disabilities. Plaintiffs have likewise failed to provide any evidence indicating that any significant portion of the putative class are at risk of being institutionalized. Plaintiffs only identified one putative class member Matthew Kaye who they claim is at risk of being institutionalized as a result of Defendant's policy. Plaintiffs offer a doctor's affidavit substantiating this claim. Defendant contests this conclusion, pointing to the fact that even though Mr. Kaye may not be entitled to receive the same number of in-home shift nursing hours after reaching the age of 21, he will be able to receive the assistance of a Home Health Aide who will be able to provide the services Mr. Kaye needs. Given that Plaintiffs have only presented evidence indicating that one putative class member is at risk of institutionalization, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to show the kind of systemic failure or illegal policy necessary to establish commonality under Rule 23(a) with respect to Plaintiffs' Olmstead theory. The Court finds that Plaintiffs have satisfied Rule 23(a)'s typicality requirement with respect to their Amundson theory, but not with respect to their Olmstead theory. Claims of the class representatives and class members are typical if they arise from the same practice or course of conduct and are based on the same legal theory. With respect to Plaintiffs' theory of discrimination based on Olmstead, however, Defendant's argument is well taken. In determining whether Plaintiffs are at risk of institutionalization, the factual differences relating to the type of care needed by each Plaintiff, the amount of care each Plaintiff is entitled to receive through other programs such as HSP, and the efforts (or lack thereof) that each Plaintiff has made to ensure that he or she receives care though other programs such as HSP all become relevant. Based on these factual differences, it cannot be said that as go the claims of named plaintiffs, so go the claims of the class. Furthermore, it is possible (or even likely based on the evidence before the Court) that none of the named Plaintiffs are at risk of institutionalization, yet members of the class are at risk of institutionalization and can establish an Olmstead claim. It cannot be said that named Plaintiffs' claims are typical of the class in that situation. The Court therefore finds that Plaintiffs fail to satisfy Rule 23(a)'s typicality requirement with respect to their Olmstead theory. Finally, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have satisfied Rule 23(a)'s adequacy of representation argument with respect to their Amundson theory, but not with respect to their Olmstead theory. Before a class will be certified, Rule 23(a)(4) requires that named plaintiffs show that "the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class." The Court finds that none of the named Plaintiffs will be able to serve as adequate class representatives for discrimination claims based on the risk of institutionalization. As discussed above, there is no evidence before this Court indicating that named Plaintiffs are at risk of institutionalization. Again, the Court notes that this determination is closely tied to the merits of Plaintiffs claims. Nonetheless, it cannot be said that named Plaintiffs have a sufficient interest in pursuing discrimination claims under Olmstead when they are not themselves at risk of institutionalization. The Court therefore finds that named Plaintiffs cannot adequately represent class members who might be able to establish discrimination based on the risk of institutionalization. The Court also finds it problematic that some named Plaintiffs failed to complete the paperwork required by HSP. It is not apparent at this time, however, that this failure presents any conflict of interest between these named Plaintiffs and the class. It therefore is premature to deny certification on that basis. The Court grants Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in part. The Court certifies the following class of individuals with respect to Plaintiffs' Amundson theory of discrimination: All persons in the state of Illinois who have been approved by Defendant for in-home shift nursing services when they were Medicaid-eligible children under the age of 21 through the non- waiver Medicaid program, formerly known as the Nursing and Personal Care Services (NPCS) program, and who are currently receiving such services. This class definition does not include those persons who are enrolled in the State of Illinois' Medically Fragile Technology Dependent (MFTD) Medicaid Waiver program. A full-text copy of the District Court's December 21, 2017 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9382z96 from Leagle.com. Blake Donegan, by and through his mother, Angela Donegan, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Hugh Farley, Jr. -- farleylaw@aol.com -- Robert H. Farley, Jr., Ltd. & Mary Denise Cahill -- mdcahill@sbcglobal.net -- Cahill and Associates. Kina Wines, by and through her mother, Sharon Quinn, individually and on behalf of a class, Antonio Campbell, by and through his mother, Shaneatha Rolling, Janelle Eaton, by and through her mother, Jacqueline Eaton & Derek Tan, by and through his mother, Audrey Tan, Plaintiffs, represented by Robert Hugh Farley, Jr., Robert H. Farley, Jr., Ltd.. Felicia F. Norwood, in her official capacity as Director of the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services, Defendant, represented by Michael D. Arnold, Illinois Attorney General's Office & Brian Franklin Kolp, Office of the Illinois Attorney General Law Bureau, Civil Rights Unit. IMPERIAL TOWERS: Morris Sues over Use of Biometric Info ------------------------------------------------------- JASON MORRIS, IND1VIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. IMPERIAL TOWERS CONDOMINIUM ASSN., the Defendant, Case No. 2018-CH-00989 (Ill. Cir., Cook County, Jan. 25, 2018), seeks to recover damages as a result of Defendant's violation of Biometric Information Privacy Act. The Plaintiff has worked for Defendant in Illinois, including in Cook County, Illinois. While most retail establishments use conventional methods for tracking time worked (such as ID badge swipes or punch clocks), Defendant mandated and required that its employees have their hands scanned by a biometric timekeeping device. Unlike ID badges or time cards - which can be changed or replaced if stolen or compromised - hand biometrics are unique, permanent biometric identifiers associated with each employee. This exposes Defendant's employees to serious and irreversible privacy risks. For example, if a biometric database is hacked, breached, or otherwise exposed - such as in the recent Equifax data breach - employees have no means by which to prevent identity theft, unauthorized tracking, and other improper or unlawful use of this information. As an employee of Defendant, Plaintiff has been required to "clock in" and "clock out" of work shifts by having his hand scanned by a biometric time clock which then identified each employee, including Plaintiff. The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act expressly obligates Defendant to obtain an executed, written release from an individual, as a , condition of employment, in order to capture, collect, and store an individual's biometric identifiers or biometric information, especially a fingerprint, handprint, or hand geometry scan, and biometric information derived from it. According to the complaint, the Defendant captured, collected, received through trade, and/ or otherwise obtained and biometric identifiers or biometric information of their Illinois employees, like Plaintiff, without properly obtaining the above-described written executed release, and without making the required disclosures concerning the collection, storage, use, or destruction of biometric identifiers or information. Additionally, the Plaintiff and the Class members are aggrieved because Defendant improperly discloses employees' biometric data to out-of-state third-party vendors in violation of BIPA. Imperial Towers stands on a three acre site, nine minutes and 5.5 miles north of downtown along Chicago's storied lakefront. Its twin towers are located in the heart of Buena Park, one of the city's premier historic districts with block after block of unique homes designed by such noted Chicago architects.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class: Brandon M. Wise Paul A Lesko PEIFFER ROSCA WOLF ABDULL, CARR & KANE, APLC 818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2 St. Louis, MO 63104 Telephone: 314 833 4825 E-mail: bwise@prwlega1.com plesko@gmail.com INFUSION SOFTWARE: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Clark" Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Elliott E. Clark, and Amit Kumar, and Steven M. Roncal, Jr., and Ryan R. Parks, and Tyler J. Wright, the foregoing persons individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Infusion Software, Inc., d/b/a Infusionsoft, Clate Mask and Charisse Mask, Scott Martineau and Andee Martineau, Curtis Smith and Jane Doe Smith, Hal Halladay and Gina Caldwell Halladay, Keith Reed and Jane Doe Reed, Case No. 2:17-cv-04314-JZB (D. Ariz., November 27, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for all time worked in excess of 40 hours in a given workweek. Infusion Software, Inc. offers an e-mail marketing and sales platform for small businesses, including products to streamline the customer lifecycle, customer relationship management, marketing automation, lead capture, and e-commerce. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roger A. Wright, Esq. WRIGHT LAW FIRM, PLC 1013 S. Stapley Drive Mesa, AR 85204 Telephone: (480) 558-1700 E-mail: office@wrightlawaz.com INTEL CORP: Kintz Sues over Defective Core Processor ---------------------------------------------------- LUCAS KINTZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. INTEL CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00211-BR (D. Oreg., Jan. 31, 2018), seeks to recover damages as a result of Defendant's conduct in designing, manufacturing, distributing, and selling defective CPUs. The Plaintiffs bring this action against defendant Intel on behalf of all persons who purchased a defective Intel core processor. Defendant Intel's x86-64x CPUs suffer from a security defect that exposes the CPUs to troubling security vulnerabilities by allowing potential access to extremely sensitive kernel data and program data. The only way to "patch" these vulnerabilities requires extensive changes to the root levels of the Operating System which dramatically reduces CPU performance, and does not fully address the vulnerabilities. The Defect renders the Intel x86-64x CPUs unfit for their intended use and purpose. The Defect exists in all Intel x86-64x CPUs manufactured since at least 2008. The x86-64x CPU is, and was, utilized in the majority of all desktop, laptop computers, and servers in the United States. To date, Defendant has been unable or unwilling to repair the Defect or offer Plaintiffs and Class members a non-defective Intel CPU or reimbursement for the cost of such CPU and the consequential damages arising from the purchase and use of such CPUs. Indeed, there does not appear to be a true "fix" for the Defect. The security "patch," while expected to cure some of the security vulnerabilities, will dramatically degrade the CPU's performance. Therefore, the only "fix" would be to exchange the defective x86-64x processor with a device containing a processor not subject to this security vulnerability. In essence, Intel x86-64x CPU owners are left with the unappealing choice of either purchasing a new computer containing a CPU that does not contain the Defect, or continuing to use a computer with massive security vulnerabilities or one with significant performance degradation. The CPUs Defendant manufactured and sold to Plaintiffs and Class members were not merchantable and were not fit for the ordinary and particular purposes for which such goods are used in that the CPUs suffer from a critical security defect, requiring software patches that will degrade the performance of the CPU. Intel has failed to remedy this harm, and has earned and continues to earn substantial profit from selling defective CPUs. Intel Corporation is an American multinational corporation and technology company headquartered in Santa Clara, California, in the Silicon Valley.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Daniel P. Mensher, Esq. T. David Copley, Esq. Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq. Cari Campen Laufenberg, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623 1900 Facsimile: (206) 623 3384 E-mail: dmensher@kellerrohrback.com dcopley@kellerrohrback.com gcappio@kellerrohrback.com claufenberg@kellerrohrback.com INTEL CORP: UFCW Local 1500 Sues over Computer Chip Security Flaw ----------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL 1500, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. INTEL CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00574 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 26, 2018), alleges that, to increase the speed and performance of its computer chips, Intel designed them to rely heavily on a process known as "speculative execution." Speculative execution improves a chip's efficiency because the process enables a computer to perform a number of different tasks out of order and ahead of time in anticipation that the results of one of those tasks will be needed in the future. Although speculative execution increases speed and performance, it also compromises the security of a computer. Indeed, since as early as 1995, unbeknownst to the public, Intel has been selling computer chips that suffer from two significant security flaws, both of which take advantage of Intel's aggressive reliance on speculative execution to improve the performance of its chips. Details of the security vulnerabilities became public on January 2, 2018, when it was revealed that Google researchers identified two security flaws -- known as Meltdown and Spectre -- that affect all computers containing Intel chips -- i.e., nearly every computer in the world. Meltdown and Spectre allow a non- privileged user (i.e., a hacker) to access information on a computer that the hacker should not be able to access, such as secret keys, usernames, passwords, and any other sensitive information a user enters into a computer. The flaws are so significant that one of the researchers who discovered them referred to Meltdown specifically as "probably one of the worst CPU bugs ever found." Although the details of Meltdown and Spectre first became public on January 2, 2018, Intel reportedly first learned about the defects by as early as June 2017, and yet Intel continued to manufacture, market, and sell defective chips in the interim. Only a complete redesign of Intel chips can completely resolve the Meltdown and Spectre security flaws. Installing a software "patch" or update can potentially resolve the Meltdown flaw (Spectre can only be completely fixed by replacing the hardware), but these software patches dramatically slow down computer performance. One such patch has been shown to slow down a computer by up to 30%, and Microsoft has reported that a patch for Windows operating systems results in significant slowdowns. Intel itself has acknowledged that computers that are patched have shown a decrease in performance of between 2% and 25%, and are rebooting more than usual. The reboot problem became so significant that on January 22, 2018, Intel announced that the patches it had released were faulty and advised customers not to install them until a new patch it is developing becomes available. The decrease in performance of Intel's chips is especially damaging to Plaintiff and Class members because Intel's products are sold specifically on performance and are priced accordingly. Intel's chips would have been sold at a much lower price had they been priced to reflect the speed at which they perform when patched. Now, Plaintiff and Class members are forced to either use a chip that is vulnerable to a dangerous security flaw or install a patch that significantly reduces performance (and yet still remains vulnerable to future attacks). Plaintiff and the Class, who paid a premium for Intel-designed chips, have suffered ascertainable injuries and loss of money or property as a result of Defendant's wrongful security patch that would slow performance, they would not have purchased Intel chips (or devices containing them) or would have paid substantially less for them.[BN] Intel is the world's most prolific and well-known manufacturer of computer chips. More than 90 percent of all computers in the world include Intel chips. Intel's success is driven in large party by its ability to regularly improve the speed and performance of its computer chips. Intel's co-founder, Gordon Moore, accurately predicted that Intel would decrease the size of its computer chips every two years -- a rate now known as Moore's Law -- and Moore's contemporaries further predicted that overall performance of a chip would double every 18 months. This dramatic improvement of performance is reflected in the price of Intel's computer chips: the faster the speed, the higher the price. Attorneys for Plaintiff: Michael P. Canty, Esq. Ross M. Kamhi, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: 212 907 0700 Facsimile: 212 818 0477 E-mail: mcanty@labaton.com rkamhi@labaton.com JEFFREY SACHS: "Adwar" Suit Seeks Dissolution of Partnership ----------------------------------------------------------- RYAN ADWAR, individually, and derivatively on behalf of MISSION CAPITAL, LLC, and all members of said company similarly situated as him, the Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY SACHS, the Defendants, Case No. 650422/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Jan. 26, 2018), seeks a declaration that the Partnership has been dissolved pursuant to Section 62 of the Partnership Law. This action arises from the business activities and transactions of the plaintiff and defendant regarding the formation and business operations of the Company, and defendant's illegal actions in removing plaintiff from the Company. Plaintiff and defendant were equal co-owners of the Company, an internet business loan originator. From the Company's inception, the plaintiff and defendant agreed to share the Company's assets and liabilities as equal co-owners. In January of 2018, despite the parties' equal co-ownership of the Company, defendant took illegal control of the Company, terminating the plaintiff's access to the Company's assets, accounts, and operations. According to the complaint, in the unlikely event that a judicial determination is made that plaintiff is not a member of the Company, the parties nevertheless agreed in action, deed and understanding, to be equal partners in an internet loan business operated under the unincorporated and unregistered trade name, SBG Funding. Since the Partnership was not formed by written partnership agreement, it exists and is governed in accordance with the Partnership Law of the State of New York (the "Partnership Law"). As alleged, defendant has abused his position and authority in the Partnership, has diverted and converted Partnership property and assets, breached his fiduciary duties to his partner, engaged in self-dealing to the detriment of his partner, and otherwise acted in a manner disloyal to his partner, all in contravention of Partnership Law. The defendant diverted and converted the property and assets belonging not only to himself but also his co-members of the Company, breached his fiduciary duties to his co-members, engaged in self-dealing to the detriment of his comembers, and otherwise acted in a manner disloyal to same, all in contravention of New York Law.[BN] Attorney for Plaintiff: Howard J. Stem, Esq. STERN & SZPIGIEL LLP 170 Old Country Road, Suite 308 Mineola, NY 11501 Telephone: (516) 873 1683 E-mail: hstem@sandsesq.com JHOS LOGISTICS: Fails to Pay Compensation, "Rivas" Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------ CARLOS RIVAS, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated and On Behalf of the General Public as Private Attorneys, the Plaintiff, v. JHOS LOGISTICS & TRANSPORTATION, INC. a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 250, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC691671 (Cal. Super. Ct., Jan. 31, 2018), seeks declaratory relief, restitution and compensation for work performed and money due to Plaintiff and the similarly situated employees/staff. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff seeks to serve as representatives of the general public to enforce and uphold California's wage and hour laws as private attorneys' general as expressly permitted by Labor Code section 2698 et seq., pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004. The Plaintiff has complied with all notice provisions and is deemed an aggrieved employee as required by the Act to serve as a private attorney general in representative on behalf of the general public, and recover all penalties and damages that otherwise are reserved for the DLSE, the California DIR, or the Labor Commissioner of the State of California. Jhos Logistics is a licensed and bonded freight shipping and trucking company running freight hauling business from Garden Grove, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary R. Carlin, Esq. Brent S. Buchsbaum, Esq. Laurel N. Haag, Esq. Ana L. De La Torre, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CARLIN & BUCHSBAUM, LLP 555 East Ocean Blvd., Suite 818 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 432 8933 Facsimile: (562) 435 1656 E-mail: gary@carlinbuchsbaum.com brent@carlinbuchsbaum.com laurel@carlinbuchsbaum.com ana@carlinbuchsbaum.com JMJ INC: Fails to Pay Unpaid Wages, "Chapman" Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------- GEORGIA CHAPMAN and KRYSTAL HUNTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. OFF DUTY OFFICERS, INC., a California Corporation, JMJ INCORPORATED, a California Corporation; and METROSERVICES, INC. a California Corporation, and DOES 1 through 25, the Defendants, Case No. BC691787 (Cal. Super. Ct., Jan. 25, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages under the California Labor Code. The Plaintiffs allege that during the Class Period, Defendants employed Plaintiffs and the rest of the Class as hourly non- exempt employees. The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants adopted and maintained uniform policies, practices and procedures governing the working conditions of, and payment of wages to, Plaintiffs and the rest of the Class. These uniform policies, practices and procedures violated California's labor laws and constituted unfair, fraudulent or illegal business practices under Business & Professions Code. Off Duty Officers, Inc., excels in tailoring specific security details for every possible security requirement.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Aaron C. Gundzik, Esq. Rebecca G. Gundzik, Esq. GARTENBERG GELFAND HAYTON LLP 15260 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1920 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (213) 542 2100 Facsimile: (213) 542 2101 - and - Marshall A. Caskey, Esq. Daniel M. Holzman, Esq. N. Cory Barari, Esq. CASKEY & HOLZMAN 24025 Park Sorrento, Ste. 400 Calabasas, CA 91302 Telephone: (818) 657 1070 Facsimile: (818) 297 1775 KEMPER CASUALTY: Bid to Dismiss First Amended "Bhasker" Denied -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, HELEN BHASKER, Plaintiff, v. KEMPER CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY; UNITRIN SPECIALTY FINANCIAL INDEMNITY COMPANY; FINANCIAL INDEMNITY COMPANY; ELITE FINANCIAL INSURANCE and NOELIA LUNA SUCET, Defendant, Case No. CIV 17-0260JB/JHR (D. N.M.), Judge James O. Browning of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico denied the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint and Memorandum of Law in Support ("MTD"). Bhasker contends that based on the information provided by the Defendant, she agreed to pay a six-month premium for the State of New Mexico mandated minimum automobile bodily injury and uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage. According to Bhasker, her insurance policy features: (i) liability coverage on one vehicle for $25,000.00 per person and $50,000 per accident, per vehicle; and (ii) underinsured coverage on one vehicle for $25,000 per person and $50,000 per occurrence, per vehicle. Bhasker avers that, on June 24, 2015, she was driving eastbound on I-40 in Albuquerque, New Mexico, when another driver, Stephanie Martinez, failed to stop for the traffic in front of her vehicle and struck Bhasker's car in the rear, causing serious bodily injuries and other damages. She asserts that Martinez was an underinsured motorist at the time of the collision as her insurance policy and New Mexico law define the term. Bhasker contends that she received the full extent of liability coverage carried by Ms. Martinez, which was $25,000. Bhasker asserts that after the accident, Financial Indemnity provided a certified copy of a document summarizing her policy. She contends that the certified copy of the Policy Application materially misrepresented the terms of its underinsured motorists coverage and did not contain clear, unambiguous language regarding the effects of New Mexico's underinsured coverage offset laws. Furthermore, Bhasker contends that the Policy Application's language is deceptive and clearly ambiguous in that it states that the applicant may purchase underinsured coverage in excess of the bodily injury coverage limits, which is the opposite of the legislative intent of N.M. Stat. Ann. Section 66- 5-301 and New Mexico case law. Bhasker avers that, when she, through counsel, demanded Defendant provide her with underinsured benefits that the Defendant solicited and for which the Plaintiff paid a premium, Financial Indemnity denied her claim for underinsured benefits. Bhasker originally brought the case in the Second Judicial District Court, County of Bernalillo, State of New Mexico. Financial Indemnity removed the action to federal court on Feb. 24, 2017 pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act because it is a putative class action with more than 100 putative class members that seeks to recover more than $5,000,000. One week later, Financial Indemnity filed a Motion to Dismiss. Bhasker asserts that she brings the action on her own behalf, and on behalf of the many insured around the state who have been deceived by Financial Indemnity's practices. She contends that, before the accident, she had properly paid a premium for automobile coverage under the Financial Indemnity Company auto insurance policy, and, therefore, had a reasonable expectation that she carried underinsured motorist coverage for $25,000 each person and $50,000 each accident. Before the Court is the Defendant's MTD filed April 28, 2017. The Court held a hearing on July 24, 2017. The primary issues are: (i) whether New Mexico's filed rate doctrine bars Bhasker's negligence claims, claims under New Mexico's Unfair Practices Act ("UPA") violations, claims under New Mexico's Unfair Insurance Practices Act ("UIPA"), and claims of breach of contract alleging that Financial Indemnity sold her illusory underinsured motorist insurance ("UIM"); (ii) whether, if New Mexico applies the filed rate doctrine to consumer-protection claims against insurers, Bhasker can seek premium-based damages, which depends on whether Bhasker's UIM coverage was illusory; (iii) whether, if the UIM coverage is not illusory, Bhasker's claims fail as a matter of law, because the UIM coverage offers benefits in some situations; and (iv) whether the voluntary payment doctrine bars Bhasker's claims Judge Browning concludes that: (i) the filed rate doctrine does not bar Bhasker's claims, because the Supreme Court of New Mexico would not apply the filed rate doctrine to claims against insurers alleging unfair or deceptive business practices; (ii) even if New Mexico applied the filed rate doctrine to those claims, Bhasker and the proposed class could still seek premium- based damages, because the Supreme Court of New Mexico would determine that the UIM coverage was illusory in light of little coverage it provides; (iii) even if the UIM coverage is not illusory, Bhasker's claims may proceed, because they do not require that the UIM coverage be illusory; and (iv) the voluntary payment doctrine does not bar Bhasker's claims, because she alleges that she did not know all the material facts. Accordingly, the Judge denied the Defendant's MTD. A few weeks later, Bhasker filed her Complaint on March 23, 2017. In her Complaint, Bhasker argues that Financial Indemnity failed to act honestly and in good faith when it solicited and sold superfluous and illusory minimal limits underinsured motorist coverage to their insureds (in whole or in part) in violation of New Mexico law, and/or they denied claims for the benefits of that coverage. She contends that basically, there is no such thing as minimum limits underinsured motorist coverage. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 10, 2018 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/sEeB6F from Leagle.com. Helen Bhasker, Plaintiff, represented by Adrian O. Vega, Will Ferguson & Associates, Kedar Bhasker, Will Ferguson & Associates & William Ferguson, Will Ferguson & Associates. Financial Indemnity Company, Defendant, represented by Kerri Lee Allensworth -- kallensworth@obrienlawoffice.com -- O'Brien & Padilla, Alicia M. Santos -- asantos@obrienlawoffice.com -- O'Brien & Padilla, PC & Mark L. Hanover -- mark.hanover@dentons.com -- Dentons, pro hac vice. KINDRED HEALTHCARE: March 1 "Cashon" Settlement Hearing ------------------------------------------------------- In the case, VALERIE CASHON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. KINDRED HEALTHCARE OPERATING, INC., a Delaware Corporation; GENTIVA CERTIFIED HEALTHCARE CORP., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 15 inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-04889 RS (N.D. Cal.), Judge Richard Seeborg of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California continued the deadline for the Plaintiff to file her motion for preliminary approval from Jan. 11, 2018 to Jan. 25, 2018; and set the hearing on the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval for March 1, 2018 at 1:30 p.m. On Nov. 19, 2017 the parties participated in mediation in the action. On Nov. 28, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a Notice of Proposed Class Settlement and Request for Preliminary Approval Hearing Date in which she informed the court of a proposed settlement and sought a motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement hearing date in late January 2018. On Nov. 28, 2017, the Court issued an Order Staying Currently Set Date and Setting Schedule for Preliminary Approval in which it ordered the parties to file the motion for preliminary approval by no later than Jan. 11, 2018 and set the hearing regarding preliminary approval on Feb. 1, 2018 at 1:30 p.m. The Parties have been and continue to work diligently to prepare the long-form stipulation regarding class settlement but have not yet finalized that agreement. They need additional time to finalize that agreement after which the motion for preliminary approval can be filed and heard. They believe that it would be most efficient for the parties and the Court to continue by at least two weeks the deadline and hearing regarding motion for preliminary approval. Therefore, the parties stipulated and agreed, and Judge Seeborg approved, that the deadline for the Plaintiff to file her motion for preliminary approval currently scheduled for Jan. 11, 2018 will be continued to Jan. 25, 2018; and that the hearing on the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval currently scheduled for Feb. 1, 2018 will be continued to Feb. 15, 2018 or the Court's earliest available hearing date thereafter. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 10, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/wIYT4u from Leagle.com. Valerie Cashon, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony Martin Perez, Jr. -- aperez@perezlawoffices.com -- Perez Law Offices & Brendan J. Begley -- bbegley@weintraub.com -- Weintraub Genshlea Chediak & Charles L. Post -- cpost@weintraub.com -- Weintraub Tobin Chediak Coleman Grodin. Kindred Healthcare Operating Inc., et al., Defendants, represented by Michael E. Brewer -- mbrewer@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C., Alison Jacquelyn Cubre -- acubre@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C., Angelo Spinola -- aspinola@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C. & Lisa Lin Garcia -- llgarcia@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson. KIRA SUSHI 2: "Zhao" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages & OT under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- Yi Xin Zhao, Cheng Bin Shang, Bing Wang, Zhi Qiang Wang, Teng Zuo, individually and on behalf of all other employees similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Kira Sushi 2, LLC, Hsiang Ya Chiang, Kira Zheng, Kevin "Hailong" Chen, and Jason Zheng, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00159 (D. Conn., Jan. 26, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime pay, liquidated damages, declaratory relief, costs, interest and attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs seek to prosecute their FLSA claims as a collective action on behalf of all persons who are or were formerly employed by Defendants since January 2015 to the entry of judgment in this case, who were non-exempt employees within the meaning of the FLSA and who were not paid wages for all hours worked, minimum wages, and overtime compensation at rates not less than one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Jian Hang, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC. 136-20 38th Ave., Suite 10G Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (718) 353 8588 E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com LE BERNARDIN INC: Faces "Avery" Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Le Bernardin, Inc. The case is styled as Kristin Avery, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Le Bernardin, Inc., Maguy Le Coze and Eric Ripert, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00626 (S.D N.Y., January 24, 2018). Le Bernardin, Inc. is engaged in the seafood restaurant business.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. LELAND ENTERPRISES: Gilbert Seeks Unpaid OT Wages under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ TRACI GILBERT, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. LELAND ENTERPRISES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-00043-LJA (M.D. Ga., Jan. 31, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs as a result of Defendant's alleged willful violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant violated the FLSA overtime requirement, by improperly classifying its Assistant Property Managers and Leasing Managers as salary-exempt employees and paying them a fixed weekly salary without overtime compensation for hours worked over 40 in a workweek. In addition, Defendant unlawfully provided Assistant Property Managers and Leasing Managers compensatory time off in lieu of overtime wages. The substitution of compensatory time for cash wages by private- sector employers is not expressly authorized by the FLSA. Leland Enterprises, Inc. is a specialized apartment management company based in Kissimmee, Florida, with clients throughout Central Florida. Leland has been in business since 1989. Leland is owned and operated by two Certified Public Accountants. Accordingly, Leland's focus is on financial management and reporting. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roger W. Orlando, Esq. THE ORLANDO FIRM, P.C. 315 West Ponce de Leon Avenue, Suite 400 Decatur, GA 30030 Telephone: (404) 373 1800 Facsimile: (404) 373 6999 E-mail: roger@OrlandoFirm.com - and - Jason T. Brown, Esq. Nicholas Conlon, Esq. JTB LAW GROUP, LLC 155 2nd Street, Suite 4 Jersey City, NJ 07302 Telephone: (201) 630 0000 Facsimile: (855) 582-5297 E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com LIFE GENERATIONS: "Laigo" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------- REUBEN JAMES LAIGO, Individually and on Behalf of all Other Similarly Situated Employees, the Plaintiff, v. LIFE GENERATIONS HEALTHCARE LLC, GHC OF PLEASANTON, LLC DBA PLEASANTON NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER; GHC OF LA MESA, LLC DBA ARBOR HILLS NURSING CENTER; GHC OF CANOGA PARK, LLC DBA CANYON OAKS NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER; GHC OF NATIONAL CITY II, LLC DBA CASTEL MANOR; GHC OF SUNNYVALE, LLC DBA CEDAR CREST NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER; GHC OF MODESTO, LLC DBA ENGLISH OAKS NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER; GHC OF NATIONAL CITY I, LLC DBA FRIENDSHIP MANOR; GHC OF SAC-SNF, LLC DBA GRAMERY COURT NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER; GHC OF UPLAND SNF, LLC DBA HERITAGE PARK NURSING CENTER, GHC KEARNEY MESA, LLC DBA KEARNEY MESA CONVALESCENT AND NURSING HOME; GHC OF LAKESIDE, LLC DBA LAKESIDE SPECIAL CARE CENTER; and GHC OF LAKEVIEW TERRACE, LLC DBA LAKEVIEW TERRACE SPECIAL CARE CENTER, et al., the Defendants, Case No. RG18890341 (Cal. Super. Ct., Jan. 24, 2018), seeks actual and compensatory damages, civil penalties, restitution and equitable relief under California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Defendants allegedly failed to pay Plaintiffs overtime pay and failed to provide meal and rest periods. The Plaintiffs were wrongfully denied wages and overtime compensation, meal and rest breaks, and accurate wage statements. The Defendants instructed Nursing Staff to falsely claim that they had taken meal periods and rest periods or denied meal periods altogether.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert S. Arns, Esq. Jonathan E. Davis, Esq. Kevin M. Osborne, Esq. Julie C. Erickson, Esq. THE ARNS LAW FIRM 515 Folsom Street, 3rd Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 495 7800 Facsimile: (415) 495 7888 - and - Kathryn A. Stebner, Esq. George Kawamoto, Esq. STEBNER AND ASSOCIATES 870 Market Street, Suite 1212 San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 362 9800 Facsimile: (415) 362 9801 LITTLECITY REALTY: Faces "Tejada" Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Littlecity Realty LLC. The case is styled as Altagracia Tejada, Eliberto Silva, Newton Decampos, Ivana Vuksic, Ashley Marimon, Nicholas Lucci and Susana Lopez, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Littlecity Realty LLC, Littleboy Realty LLC, Adel Eskander and Linda Eskander, Defendants, Case No. 1:18- cv-00483-JBW-RML (E.D. N.Y., January 23, 2018). Littlecity Realty LLC is engaged in real estate business.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Caroline Saucier, Esq. Cahill Gordon Reindel LLP 80 Pine Street New York, NY 10005 Tel: (212) 701-3357 Email: csaucier@gmail.com - and - Celia Lee Belmonte, Esq. Cahill Goedon & Reindell LLP 80 Pine Street New York, NY 10005 Tel: (212) 701-3721 Email: cbelmonte@cahill.com - and - Jennifer Levy, Esq. Legal Aid Society 111 Livingston Street 7th Flr. New York, NY 11201 Tel: (718) 422-2891 Email: jlevy@legal-aid.org - and - Judith A. Goldiner, Esq. Legal Aid Society 111 Livingston Street 7th Flr. New York, NY 11201 Tel: (718) 422-2891 Email: jgoldiner@legal-aid.org - and - Landis Cox Best, Esq. Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP 80 Pine Street New York, NY 10005 Tel: (212) 701-3694 Fax: (212) 269-5420 Email: lbest@cahill.com - and - Morenike Fajana, Esq. The Legal Aid Society 111 Livingston St 7th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (718) 422-2891 Fax: (646) 304-4342 Email: mfajana@legal-aid.org - and - Robert Raymond Desir, Jr., Esq. Legal Aid Society 111 Livingston Street New York, NY 11201 Tel: (718) 422-2891 Email: rrdesir@legal-aid.org - and - Samantha Lawson, Esq. Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP 80 Pine Street New York, NY 10005 Tel: (212) 701-3728 Fax: (212) 378-4474 Email: slawson@cahill.com - and - Sunny Noh, Esq. The Legal Aid Society 111 Livingston Street 7th Flr. New York, NY 11201 Tel: (718) 422-2891 Email: snoh@nylag.org MACY'S INC: Court Narrows Claims in "Haley" Suit ------------------------------------------------ The United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued an Order granting in part and denying in part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned KRISTIN HALEY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MACY'S, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-cv-06033-HSG (N.D. Cal.). This putative class action arises out of an alleged pricing scheme by Defendant to mislabel its merchandise with false or inflated original or regular prices to induce customers to purchase on sale merchandise based on a perceived bargain. Now on the basis of these purchases, the plaintiff seeks to represent a putative class of California consumers against Defendant, alleging violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17200, (UCL); the California False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17500, (FAL); and the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code Section 1750, (CLRA). Defendant contends that Plaintiffs lack Article III standing and that, accordingly, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the action. Defendant argues that none of the five Plaintiffs suffered any injury-in-fact to support Article III standing. Defendant first challenges the existence and nature of Plaintiffs' alleged purchases from Defendant. Defendant points out that Plaintiff Carder's receipt number indicates that he returned some items for a full refund. However, the receipt does not establish that he returned all the items he purchased that day, and instead confirms that Plaintiff Carder made purchases from Defendant. That the receipt purchases are not identical to the allegations in the complaint does not undermine Plaintiffs' injury-in-fact showing at this stage. Critically, Plaintiffs' theory in this case is that Defendant's misleading pricing practices were widespread and consistent, and permeated every item Plaintiffs purchased. Defendant attacks the merits of Plaintiffs' case by stating that at least some of the items Plaintiffs purchased were sold at the original or regular price before and after Plaintiffs' transactions. This argument, and Mr. Lavender's affidavit in support thereof, is at best conclusory, and in any event, too intertwined or intermeshed with the merits of this case to support a motion to dismiss at this stage in the litigation. The key factual dispute in this case is whether Defendant's original or regular prices were false or misleading, and the Court declines to determine that ultimate merits question at this time. Defendant further argues that several Plaintiffs were not actually deceived because they had knowledge of Defendant's pricing practices before they made their purchases. Defendant's only evidence about Plaintiff Haley's knowledge is that she purchased an ornament from Macy's four days before filing this action. Although suggestive, this does not establish that she had knowledge of Defendant's pricing practices. And Defendant's argument that Plaintiff Farhang was anticipating litigation because she documented her purchase is similarly misplaced. Consumers may research and document their purchases and compare with other items without anticipating litigation or having knowledge of the pricing practices at issue in this case. The Court notes that nothing in this order prohibits Defendant from raising a standing argument later in the litigation following discovery and the identification of relevant evidence. Defendant further contends that Plaintiffs lack standing because their alleged injuries would not be redressed by a favorable decision. Defendant states that Plaintiffs are not at risk of being deceived in the future. After briefing on this motion was completed, the Ninth Circuit issued its opinion in Davidson v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 873 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2017), deciding the district court split regarding whether injunctive relief is available to previously deceived consumers in false advertising cases. Davidson involved the advertising and sale of pre-moistened wipes that the plaintiff alleged were falsely marketed as flushable. The Ninth Circuit reasoned that some set of circumstances must exist in which injunctive relief is available to a consumer who learns that a label is false after purchasing a product. Accordingly, it reversed the district court's dismissal of the injunctive relief claims, finding that the plaintiff had properly alleged that she faces a threat of imminent or actual harm by not being able to rely on the defendant's labels in the future, and that this harm is sufficient to confer standing to seek injunctive relief. In light of Davidson, the Court finds that Plaintiffs' allegations that absent an injunction they cannot rely on Defendant's advertisements in future are sufficient to allege standing to seek injunctive relief. Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is denied. Defendant states that, as with Plaintiffs' prior complaint, the ACC does not identify the products that Plaintiffs Vinci and Carder purchased from Macy's with sufficient particularity. With the inclusion of Plaintiff Carder's receipt number, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have supplied sufficient detail about his transactions for Defendant to identify and defend against them. However, as discussed above, Plaintiff Vinci's receipt number merely states that the register was put in ringer mode. The receipt does not provide any detail about the sports clothing item she purchased that day, or any other purchases she may have made. Plaintiffs suggest that information can be provided, if in fact, Macy's does not actually have it. However, this ignores Plaintiffs' burden at the pleading stage. Moreover, the Court has already granted Plaintiffs an opportunity to amend their complaint to add this information, and they have now failed to do so for a second time. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to allege sufficient facts about Plaintiff Vinci's purchases for her claims to survive Defendant's Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Defendant next argues that Plaintiffs do not identify what false or misleading statements they relied on when making their purchases. The Court disagrees. And in making her purchase, Plaintiff Farhang relied on in-store signs that said merchandise was being offered at 'up to 70% off the regular price and the price tag that stated the regular price of the rug was $12,000. Looking at the ACC as a whole, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged which false and misleading statements they relied on in making their purchases. Accordingly, the Court denies the pending motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction in its entirety, grants in part the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim as to Plaintiff Vinci, and otherwise denies the motion. A full-text copy of the District Court's December 21, 2017 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9egy5es from Leagle.com. Kristin Haley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Rosemary M. Rivas -- rrivas@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky LLP & Robert S. Green -- gnecf@classcounsel.com -- Green & Noblin, P.C.. Sylvia Thompson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Erica Vinci, Zohreh Farhang & Mr. Job Carder, Plaintiffs, represented by Robert S. Green, Green & Noblin, P.C.. Todd Benson, Plaintiff, represented by Rosemary M. Rivas, Levi & Korsinsky LLP, Gordon M. Fauth, Jr. -- gmf@classlitigation.com -- Litigation Law Group, Quentin Alexandre Roberts -- qroberts@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky LLP, Rosanne L. Mah -- rmah@finkelsteinthompson.com -- Finkelstein Thompson & Robert S. Green , Green & Noblin, P.C.. Macy's, Inc. & Bloomingdale's, Inc., Defendants, represented by Brian Michael Parsons, Macy's Law Department, 11 Penn PlazaNew York, New York 10001(646), Stephanie Anne Sheridan -- ssheridan@steptoe.com -- Esq., Sedgwick LLP & Meegan Bay Brooks - - mbrooks@steptoe.com -- Sedgwick LLP. MDL 2695: Court Narrows Claims in Products Liability Litigation --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned IN RE: SANTA FE NATURAL TOBACCO COMPANY MARKETING & SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, No. MD 16-2695 JB/LF. (D.N.M.). Santa Fe Tobacco is a New Mexico corporation that sells Natural American Spirit cigarettes and uniformly advertises them as Natural and 100% Additive Free. Those same descriptors appear on Natural American cigarettes' packaging. The twelve named Plaintiffs believed that, based on those terms and others, Natural American cigarettes were safer and healthier than other cigarettes. Amended Complaint. Because of that belief, the Plaintiffs purchased Natural American cigarettes at a premium over other cigarettes. Although labeled as additive free, the Defendants add menthol in certain varieties of Natural American cigarettes. Natural American cigarettes are also flue-cured, meaning that the Defendants process the tobacco with heat to secure the sugars, which synthetically lowers the cigarette smoke's pH6 and makes it easier to inhale. The tobacco in the Defendants' cigarettes is artificially blended and modified, much like other cigarettes in the industry. Despite these alterations to the tobacco product, the Natural American cigarettes are labeled Natural. The Defendants move to dismiss all claims under rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Defendants marshal these arguments in favor of full or partial dismissal: (i) the Consent Order preempts the Plaintiffs' claims; (ii) the First Amendment shields the Defendants from liability; (iii) state statutory safe harbors protect the Defendants from the Plaintiffs' unfair and deceptive practice claims; (iv) the unfair and deceptive practice claims fail, because the Defendants' statements do not mislead a reasonable consumer; (v) the unjust-enrichment claims fail, because the Defendants' cigarette advertising is not misleading; (vi) unjust-enrichment is improperly pled, because the Plaintiffs either have a legal remedy or state law otherwise bars the claims; and (vii) the Defendants did not breach an express warranty. THE CONSENT ORDER DOES NOT PREEMPT THE PLAINTFFS' CLAIMS PREMISED ON THE SAFER-CIGARETTE THEORY. The Defendants move to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims, asserting that federal law impliedly pre-empts the state-law claims premised on the Safer-Cigarette Theory. THE FCLAA DOES NOT EXPRESSLY PREEMPT THE PLAINTIFFS' CLAIMS, BECAUSE THE PLAINTIFFS ALLEGE DECEPTION. In ruling that the FCLAA does not preempt the plaintiffs' claims arising from a false advertising allegation, the Supreme Court derived a distinction between state laws premised on smoking and health and those based upon fraudulent misrepresentations. Unlike state-law obligations concerning the warning necessary to render a product reasonably safe, state-law proscriptions on intentional fraud rely on a single, uniform standard: falsity. Thus, the FCLAA's express pre-emption clause] based on smoking and health, fairly but narrowly construed does not encompass the more general duty not to make fraudulent statements. Here, the FCLAA does not expressly pre-empt the Plaintiffs' claims, because their claims are premised on fraudulent misrepresentations. Indeed, the Defendants, rightfully, do not argue that the FCLAA expressly pre-empts the Plaintiffs' claims. THE CONSENT ORDER DOES NOT IMPLIEDLY PREEMPT THE PLAINTIFFS' CLAIMS. The Consent Order also cannot pre-empt the Plaintiffs' Safer- Cigarette Theory claims premised on the word organic. Contrary to the Defendants' position that the Plaintiffs do not allege an organic-premised claim the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint alleges that this misleading message is further reinforced through the use of the term 'Organic' on many of the labels and advertisements and each Count re-alleges and incorporates by reference each preceding paragraph. The Defendants do not argue that the Consent Order pre-empts such claims, but, instead contend that USDA regulations pre-empts those claims. The Defendants specifically argue that their use of organic is consistent with Organic Foods Product Act, (OFPA) regulations. Consistency and pre-emption, however, are not equivalent concepts. The Court concludes that the legislative field implicated in this analysis is the regulation of organic product marketing. Construing claims that several companies deceptively labeled their milk as organic, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently considered whether the OFPA field pre- empted those state-law claims. Noting that the OFPA requires states to seek approval from the USDA only if the State wishes to operate an organic certification program the Eighth Circuit determined that OFPA more modestly [than the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 contemplates a certification program designed to effect national standards and to eliminate the pre- existing havoc for the industry' caused by balkanized state regulations and therefore OFPA's regulatory scheme is not so pervasive as to suggest field pre-emption. The Court concludes, accordingly, that that the plaintiffs' organic-premised claims are not field pre-empted. DECEPTIONS BASED ON THE PLAINTIFFS' SAFER-CIGARETTE AND MENTHOL THEORIES MISLEAD A REASONABLE CONSUMER, BUT DECEPTIONS PREMISED ON THE UNPROCESSED-CIGARETTE THEORY DO NOT. In this case, a reasonable consumer knows that tobacco undergoes engineering processes before it is sold in cigarettes. Such awareness is clear from visually comparing a tobacco leaf to a cigarette. In order to mislead a reasonable consumer, the descriptor at issue must, thus, rebut the reasonable consumer's background knowledge. The natural descriptor found on Natural American cigarette's advertising and labeling is not enough to negate a reasonable consumer's understanding that turning tobacco into cigarettes requires processing, nor is it enough to suggest that Natural American tobacco undergoes less processing than other cigarette's tobacco. Although conceivable that the natural term and the surrounding American Indian imagery communicates to some consumers that Natural American cigarette's tobacco is less processed than other cigarette's tobacco, the Court concludes that a reasonable consumer would not believe that Natural American tobacco is less processed from the brand name alone. THE FIRST AMENDMENT DEFENSE FAILS. THE STATE ACTION DOCTRINE PRECLUDES THE DEFENDANTS' FIRST AMENDMENT DEFENSE FOR THE PLAINTIFFS' CONTRACT-RELATED CLAIMS, BECAUSE CONSENSUAL CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS DO NOT IMPLICATE STATE ACTION. Several United States Courts of Appeals have determined that state action is also not implicated when a court adjudicates a dispute between two parties that arises from a consensual contractual relationship. In United Egg, United Egg Producers v. Standard Brands, Inc., 44 F.3d 940, 943 (11th Cir. 1995), for example, one private party to a settlement agreement challenged the settlement agreement on First Amendment grounds. The Eleventh Circuit concluded that the state action doctrine barred the First Amendment defense. Although noting that Shelly v. Kraemer held that court enforcement of an agreement between private parties can, in some circumstances, be considered governmental action, the Eleventh Circuit cabined that decision to the racial discrimination context. It explained: That parties be able to enter into enforceable settlement agreements as a means of ending controversies is a good thing. And the Court, in the absence of compelling authority, is slow to interfere with or to undercut settlements of commercial disputes. In sum, state action exists if the dispute is tort-related or if the rights arise from a state statute, but does not exist if the dispute arises from a contractual relationship or involves common-law property rights, unless a non-judicial state actor is involved or if racial discrimination is implicated. One way to conceive of the state action test is to question whether consent existed for the underlying private relationship at issue. If yes, there is no state action. If no, state action exists. With that test in mind, the state statutory claims implicate state action. The unjust-enrichment claims also implicate state action, because unjust enrichment arises from an absence of a consensual contractual relationship. The express warranty claim, however, arises from a consensual contractual relationship consumer contracts so they do not implicate state action. The First Amendment, therefore, is not a defense for the express warranty claims. THE STATE STATUTES' SAFE HARBORS, EXCEPT FOR ILLINOIS' DO NOT BAR RELIEF. CALIFORNIA'S SAFE HARBOR DOES NOT BAR RELIEF. The Consent Order does not expressly authorize conduct; it states only that the agency will not to bring an enforcement action. An agreement not to enforce conveys, at best, a minimum level of approval and, at worst, indifference. Moreover, a consent order is far more fragile than express legislative authorization. Agencies might disagree, as the FDA and FTC have in this case, or the agency may later change its position for some other reason. Accordingly, an agreement not enforce does not amount to permission. This conclusion is in accord with other federal and State Supreme Court cases. The Court concludes, thus, that the UCL's, the CLRA's, and California's false advertising law's safe harbors do not bar relief. Colorado Law Does Not Bar Relief. The Supreme Court of Colorado has ruled that, given the broad remedial purpose of the CCPA, the safe harbor exempts only those actions that are 'in compliance' with other laws and that conduct amounting to deceptive or unfair trade practices, however, would notppear to be in 'compliance' with other laws. Florida Law Does Not Bar Relief. FDUTPA does not apply to an act or practice required or specifically permitted by federal or state law. The Supreme Court of Florida has not interpreted the Safe Harbor's bounds. The Court concludes that, if confronted with the issue, the Supreme Court of Florida would rule that an agreement not to enforce does not amount to specifically permitting conduct. Massachusetts Law Does Not Bar Relief. Mass. Gen. Laws. Ch. 93A has a safe harbor, which reads: Nothing in this Chapter shall apply to transactions or actions otherwise permitted under laws as administered by any regulatory board or officer acting under statutory authority of the commonwealth of the United States. In a factually similar case, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts determined that an FTC consent order only enjoined conduct and, therefore, the defendants point to nothing approaching a showing that the FTC affirmatively permitted the use of descriptors. The Court concludes that the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts would rule similarly here. THE PLAINTIFFS' NEW JERSEY AND OHIO UNJUST-ENRICHMENT CLAIMS FAIL, BECAUSE THE PLAINTIFFS CANNOT PLEAD A REMUNERATION FOR THE NEW JERSEY CLAIM AND THEY CANNOT PLEAD A DIRECT BENEFIT FOR THE OHIO CLAIM. THE PLAINTIFFS UNJUST-ENRICHMENT CLAIMS MAY BE PLED IN THE ALTERNATIVE EVEN THOUGH AN ADEQUATE LEGAL REMEDY MAY EXIST UNDER THE STATUTORY SCHEME. There are two possible interpretations of the rule that an adequate legal remedy bars equitable relief. First, it could mean that, as part of providing a statutory, i.e., legal, remedy, the state legislature displaced judge-made remedies like unjust enrichment. Second, it could mean that equitable relief is unnecessary, because a legal claim exists, which makes pleading equitable relief redundant. Regarding the first possible interpretation, if a state legislature displaces all unjust enrichment claims rooted in consumer deception, then such claims will never survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim; rule 8 would have no bearing on the analysis. Regarding the second possible interpretation, however, if state rules regarding the adequacy of remedies at law serve only to eliminate duplicative pleading, then such state rules conflict with rule 8(d). Applying rule 8(d) would grant the Plaintiffs a procedural right that would be unavailable in state court, i.e., the right to plead legal and equitable theories in the alternative. Granting the Plaintiffs a procedural right does not violate the Rules Enabling Act, which prohibits the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure from abridging, enlarging, or modifying substantive rights. Allowing the Plaintiffs to plead in the alternative does not create a new claim or permit double recovery, because, the legal claim will either prove meritorious and the equitable claim will be dismissed, or the legal claim will fail and the equitable claim will proceed. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint and Incorporated Memorandum of Law are granted in part and denied in part. Accordingly, the Court dismisses with prejudice California Count I (CLRA), California Count II (CFAL), California Count III (UCL), Colorado Count I (CCPA), Florida Count I (FDUTPA), Illinois Count I (ICFA), Illinois Count II (IUDTPA), Massachusetts Count I (Mass. Gen. Law. 93A), Michigan Count I (MCFA), New Jersey Count I (NJCFA), New Mexico Count I (NMUPA), New Mexico Count II (NMFAL), New York Count I (N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law Section 349), New York Count II (N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law Section 350), North Carolina Count I (N.C. Gen. Stat. Section 75-1.1), Ohio Count I (OCSPA), Ohio Count II (ODTPA), Washington Count I (WCPA) to the extent that those counts are premised on a theory of deception that a reasonable consumer would believe that the terms natural and additive-free suggest that Natural American cigarettes are less processed than other cigarettes. The Court also dismisses with prejudice Illinois Count I (ICFA) and Illinois Count II (IDUTPA) to the extent those claims are premised on the theory that a reasonable consumer would believe that the terms "additive-free" and "natural" in the Defendants' advertising suggest that Natural American cigarettes are safer or healthier; (v) dismisses with prejudice Illinois Count II (IUDTPA) to the extent that it requests injunctive relief. The Court further dismisses Ohio Count I (OSCPA) without prejudice; dismisses with prejudice Ohio Count II (ODTPA), New Jersey Count III (Unjust Enrichment), Ohio Count III (Unjust Enrichment); and dismisses with prejudice the Nationwide Count I (Express Warranty) to the extent that it is premised on Florida, Illinois, and New York law. A full-text copy of the District Court's December 21, 2017 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ydf9qblo from Leagle.com. Jacques-Rene Hebert, Sara Benson, Carol Murphy, Francisco Chavez, Joshua Horne, Albert Lopez & Abigail Emmons, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Joel R. Rhine -- jrr@rhinelawfirm.com -- Rhine Law Firm, P.C. MDL 2800: "Tosco" Suit vs. Equifax Transferred to N.D. Georgia -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Chris Tosco and Mark Ashley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Equifax Inc., a Georgia corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-24136, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta) MDL 2800 on Jan. 25, 2018. The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-00365-TWT to the proceeding. Equifax Inc. is a consumer credit reporting agency. Equifax collects and aggregates information on over 800 million individual consumers and more than 88 million businesses worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brett E. Von Borke, Esq. GROSSMAN ROTH, PA 2525 Ponce de Leon, Suite 1150 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 442 8666 Facsimile: (305) 285 1668 E-mail: Vonborke@bucknermiles.com - and - Michael S. Olin, Esq. KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON 2525 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, 9th Floor, Suite 900 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 372 1800 E-mail: molin@olinlawfirm.com - and - Seth Miles, Esq. David Marc Buckner, Esq. BUCKNER & MILES 3350 Mary Street Miami, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 964 8003 E-mail: seth@bucknermiles.com David@bucknermiles.com MERCHANTS BUILDING: Hernandez Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code ----------------------------------------------------------------- MARIO HERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MERCHANTS BUILDING MAINTENANCE, LLC, a California limited liability company; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC690688 (Cal. Super. Ct., Jan. 24, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages and interest for Defendants' failure to provide legally complaint rest breaks and/or pay rest break premium wages; failure to indemnify employees for employment-related expenditures; statutory penalties for failure to provide accurate wage statements; waiting time penalties in the form of continuation wages for failure to timely pay employee all earned and unpaid wages due upon separation of employment; applicable civil penalties; injunctive relief and other equitable relief; and reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees would work on workdays in shifts of more than 3.5 hours which is long enough to entitle them to one rest break under California law. Despite that California law requires employers to provide employees with timely rest breaks, Defendants employed a policy and procedure which failed to provide Plaintiff and class members with first rest breaks. Defendants also failed to pay employees one hour of pay at their regular rate of pay for each workday Plaintiff and employees did not receive all legally compliant rest breaks. The Defendants' failure to provide the employees with rest breaks was in violation of Labor Code Section 226.7. The Defendants owe each of their hourly employees for these unpaid rest break wages. Merchants Building Maintenance, LLC provides janitorial and window cleaning services to businesses and communities in the United States. It offers day porter, carpet cleaning, hard surface floor care, parking lot sweeping, and upholstery cleaning.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. Andrea Rosenkranz, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W. Olympic Blvd. Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 432 0000 Facsimile: (310) 432 0001 E-mail: ilavi@lelawfirm.com arosenkranz@lelawfirm.com METRO SECURITY: Smith Seeks Minimum Wage and OT Pay under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. METRO SECURITY, INC. and LLOYD JARREAU, the Plaintiff, v. Case No. 2:18-cv-00953 (E.D. La., Jan. 31, 2018), seeks to recover minimum wage and overtime pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week under Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and members of the putative collective action class were hired by the defendants to perform armed and unarmed security guard work for defendant Metro Security. They were given the title "Post Supervisor," and paid a salary by the defendants. The Defendant required its Post Supervisors to work far in excess of 40 hours per week. Plaintiff Smith at times worked shifts as long as 18 hours. He was sometimes required to work as many as 7 days in a workweek. At his bi-weekly salary of $910.00, or $455.00 per week, Plaintiff Smith's pay fell below the federal minimum wage during any week in which he worked 63 or more hours, and this occurred regularly. Plaintiff estimates he worked, on average, 60 hours per week. Metro Security Force is a Chicago, Illinois full service security guard company. It provides security guard services and security guards (armed and unarmed) for almost any need including retail, industrial, residential and construction.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: James R. Bullman, Esq. Randall E. Estes, Esq. Daniel B. Davis, Esq. James R. Bullman, Esq. ESTES DAVIS LAW, LLC 850 North Boulevard Baton Rouge, LA 70802 Telephone: (225) 336-3394 Facsimile: (225) 384-5419 E-mail: james@estesdavislaw.com MIDLAND FUNDING: "Battersby" Suit Moved to E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Richard A. Battersby, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Midland Credit Management, Inc., and Midland Funding, LLC, Case No. 617044/2017, was removed from the Suffolk County Supreme Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Central Islip). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-00611 to the proceeding. Midland Funding is one of the nation's biggest buyers of unpaid debt. Midland Funding LLC purchases accounts with an unpaid balance where consumers have gone at least 180 days without making a payment, or paid less than the minimum monthly payment.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. Attorneys for Defendants: Matthew B Corwin, Esq. HINSHAW & CULBERTSON, LLP 800 Third Avenue, 13th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 471 6200 Facsimile: (212) 935 1166 E-mail: mcorwin@hinshawlaw.com MITSIS BAKERY: Faces "Bonilla" Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mitsis Bakery Corp. The case is styled Juan Campos Bonilla, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Mitsis Bakery Corp. doing business as: Hot Tasty Bakery, John Doe Corp. doing business as: Hot Tasty Bakery, Xiao Yue also known as: Jennifer Yue, Jay Sessler and Mike Zarmakoupis, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00453 (E.D. N.Y., January 22, 2018). Mitsis Bakery Corp. is engaged in the bakery business.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. MONSANTO COMPANY: Hudson Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ------------------------------------------------------------ THURMAN HUDSON, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00168 (E.D. Mo., Jan. 31, 2018), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. Monsanto Company is a publicly traded American multinational agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation. It is headquartered in Creve Coeur, Greater St. Louis, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222 2222 Facsimile: (314) 421 0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Tingle et al. Sue over Herbicide Roundup ---------------------------------------------------------- JERRY TINGLE, SCOTT BROOMFIELD, REGINA SLUGG, ROBERT GREGG, and SARAH BARNARD, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00154 (E.D. Mo., Jan. 31, 2018), seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiffs as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Plaintiffs' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. Monsanto Company is a publicly traded American multinational agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation. It is headquartered in Creve Coeur, Greater St. Louis, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Todd Mathews, Esq. GORI, JULIAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 156 N. Main St. Edwardsville, IL 62025 Telephone: (618) 659 9833 Facsimile: (618) 659 9834 E-mail: todd@gorijulianlaw.com - and - Peter A. Miller, Esq. MILLER DELLAFERA PLC 3420 Pump Rd., PMB 404 Henrico, VA 23233 Telephone: (800) 401 6670 Facsimile: (888) 830 1488 E-mail: pmiller@millerdellafera.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Williams Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup -------------------------------------------------------------- CECIL AND ALICE WILLIAMS, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00136 (E.D. Mo., Jan. 26, 2018), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. Monsanto Company is a publicly traded American multinational agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation. It is headquartered in Creve Coeur, Greater St. Louis, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222 2222 Facsimile: (314) 421 0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Wolfe Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ----------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD and PHYLLIS WOLFE, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00137 (E.D. Mo., Jan. 26, 2018), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. Monsanto Company is a publicly traded American multinational agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation. It is headquartered in Creve Coeur, Greater St. Louis, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222 2222 Facsimile: (314) 421 0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Whites Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ----------------------------------------------------------- ANDRE and LISA WHITE, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00126 (E.D. Mo., Jan. 25, 2018), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. Monsanto Company is a publicly traded American multinational agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation. It is headquartered in Creve Coeur, Greater St. Louis, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222 2222 Facsimile: (314) 421 0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MORTGAGE CAPITAL: Fails to Refund Loan Officers Costs, Leong Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- LELA LEONG, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MORTGAGE CAPITAL PARTNERS, INC.; 16 and DOES 1-50, the Defendant, Case No. BC691964 (Cal. Super. Ct., Jan. 26, 2018), seeks reimbursement for business expenses, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and restitution under the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff and similarly situated outside salespersons employed by Defendant during the Class Period are salesperson who paid out-of-pocket business expenses reasonably necessary for the performance of their jobs as Mortgage Loan Officers employed by Defendant, for which Plaintiff and Class Members have not received reimbursement from Defendant. According to the complaint, the Defendant expects its Mortgage Loan Officers to spend much of their work time away from MCP's offices or Class Members' home offices. Plaintiff and similarly situated Mortgage Loan Officers are expected to pay, and have personally paid, expenses incurred operating their personal vehicles and using their personal cell phones. Defendant has willfully failed and refused to timely and fully reimburse Plaintiff and other present and former Mortgage Loan Officers for these business expenses that were incurred in the regular course of their duties as Defendant's outside sales employees, as required by Labor Code.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy F. Bollinger, Esq. Dennis F. Moss, Esq. Ari E. Moss, Esq. MOSS BOLLINGER LLP 15300 Ventura Blvd., Ste. 207 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (310) 982 2984 Facsimile: (818) 963 5954 E-mail: jeremy@mossbollinger.com dennis@mossbollinger.com ari@mossbollinger.com MOXLEY & ASSOCIATES: Faces "Williams" Suit in S.D. Alabama ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Moxley & Associates, LLC. The case is styled as Carita Williams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Moxley & Associates, LLC and Midland Funding, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00028 (S.D Ala., January 24, 2018). Moxley & Associates, LLC, formerly known as Holloway & Moxley, LLP has been a staple in the financial services industry since 1997.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Schoen, Esq. 2800 Zelda Road, Suite 100-6 Montgomery, AL 36106 Tel: (334) 395-6611 Fax: (917) 591-7586 Email: DSchoen593@aol.com MRI INT'L: Feb. 9 Deadline to File Approval Bid in "Takiguchi" -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, SHIGE TAKIGUCHI, FUMI NONAKA, MITSUAKI TAKITA, TATSURO SAKAI, SHIZUKO ISHIMORI, YUKO NAKAMURA, MASAAKI MORIYA, HATSUNE HATANO, and HIDENAO TAKAMA, individually and on behalf of all others similarity situated, Plaintiff, v. MRI INTERNATIONAL, INC., EDWIN J. FUJINAGA, JUNZO SUZUKI, PAUL MUSASHI SUZUKI, LVT, INC., dba STERLING ESCROW, and DOES 1-500, Defendants, Case No. 2:13-cv-01183-HDM-NJK (D. Nev.), Judge Howard D. McKibben of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada has entered an order providing for a 30-day continuance of the deadline to file a motion for preliminary approval to Feb. 9, 2018. On Nov.17, 2017 the Court ordered Parties to file a motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement no later than Dec. 11, 2017. The Parties reached a settlement in principle in September 2017 and have exchanged drafts of the Class Action Settlement Agreement. On Nov. 17, 2017 Mr. Fujinaga raised, for the first time, his concern that, since a receiver has been appointed by the Court in the parallel U.S Securities and Exchange Commission's action against MRI and himself (SEC v. MRI International, Inc.), he believed that he may not be authorized to enter into any settlement on behalf of MRI or himself. On Nov. 18, 2017, the Court appointed receiver in the SEC Action, Robb Evans & Associates, confirmed its belief to the Plaintiff's counsel that Mr. Fujinaga was not authorized to enter into a settlement agreement with Plaintiffs and directed that the Plaintiffs send a copy of the Class Action Settlement Agreement to the receiver's counsel, Lynch Law Practice. On Nov. 30, 2017, the Receiver declined to enter into the Class Action Settlement Agreement because he did not believe that the settlement would benefit the receivership estate. On Nov. 30, 2017, and Dec. 7, 2017, the Plaintiffs' counsel met and conferred with Receiver's counsel, Michael Lynch, Esq., explaining that the order appointing receiver specifically includes a carve-out provision exempting the present action from the Receiver's control and that, in any event, the settlement is in the best interest of all parties, including the receivership estate. The Receiver maintains its position that he is unable to authorize the settlement absent direction from the Court. On Dec. 15, 2017, the Parties filed a joint motion in the SEC Action requesting direction from the Court, either that the Receiver lacks authority to direct the settlement in the action, or that Judge Mahan order the Receiver to enter into the Class Action Settlement Agreement. On Jan. 8, 2018, the Parties filed a reply conveying the Court's strong belief that it is in the best interest of all the parties for Judge Mahan to approve the settlement. Judge Mahan has not yet ruled on the joint motion and it is the Parties' second request for a continuance. Therefore, they jointly move that the Court enter an order providing for a 30-day continuance of the deadline to file a motion for preliminary approval to Feb. 9, 2018. Judge McKibben approved. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 10, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/yduZcP from Leagle.com. Shige Takiguchi, Fumi Nonaka, Kaoruko Koizumi, Tatsuro Sakai & Mitsuaki Takita, Plaintiffs, represented by James Edwin Gibbons - - jeg@manningllp.com -- Manning & Kass Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester LLP, James R. Olson, Olson, Cannon, Gormley, Angulo & Stoberski, Mariko Taenaka, Law Offices of Robert W. Cohen, Robert W. Cohen, Law Offices of Robert W. Cohen, APC & Steven Jeff Renick -- sjrnull@nullmanningllp.com -- Manning & Kass, Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester LLP. Shizuuko Ishimori, Yoko Hatano, Yuko Nakamura, Hidehito Miura, Yoshiko Tazaki, Masaaki Moriya, Hatsune Hatano, Satoru Moriya, Hidenao Takama, Shigeru Kurisu, Saka Ono, Kazuhiro Matsumoto, Kaya Hatanaka, Hiroka Yamajiri, Kiyoharu Yamamoto, Junko Yamamoto, Koichi Inoue, Akiko Naruse, Toshimasa Nomura & Ritsu Yurikusa, Plaintiffs, represented by James Edwin Gibbons, Manning & Kass Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester LLP, James R. Olson, Olson, Cannon, Gormley, Angulo & Stoberski, Mariko Taenaka, Law Offices of Robert W. Cohen, Robert W. Cohen, Law Offices of Robert W. Cohen, APC & Steven Jeff Renick, Manning & Kass, Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester LLP, pro hac vice. MRI International, Inc. & Edwin J Fujinaga, Defendants, represented by Daniel L. Hitzke, Hitzke & Associates & Erick M. Ferran. Junzo Suzuki, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey A. Silvestri -- jsilvestri@mcdonaldcarano.com -- McDonald Carano Wilson, Nicolas Morgan -- nicolasmorgan@paulhastings.com -- Paul Hastings LLP, pro hac vice & Paul J. Georgeson -- pgeorgeson@mcdonaldcarano.com -- McDonald Carano Wilson LLP. ICAG, INC., Defendant, represented by Jacob A. Reynolds -- jreynolds@hutchlegal.com -- Hutchison & Steffen, Mark A. Hutchison -- mhutchison@hutchlegal.com -- Hutchison & Steffen, LLC & Robert T. Stewart -- rstewart@hutchlegal.com -- Hutchison & Steffen, LLC. First Hawaiian Bank, Defendant, represented by Christopher R. Ramos -- cramos@vedderprice.com -- Vedder Price (CA), LLP, pro hac vice, Rex Garner -- rex.garner@akerman.com -- Akerman LLP, Ariel E. Stern -- ariel.stern@akerman.com -- Akerman LLP, Lisa M. Simonetti -- lsimonetti@vedderprice.com -- Vedder Price, LLP. Suzuki Enterprises, Inc. Profit Sharing Plan, Defendant, represented by Gregg D. Zucker -- gregg@foundationlaw.com -- Foundation Law Group & Robert A. Rabbat -- rrabbat@enensteinlaw.com -- Enenstein Ribakoff LaVina & Pham. Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert, Interested Party, represented by Paul D. Alston -- PAlston@ahfi.com -- Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing, Albert G. Marquis -- amarquis@maclaw.com -- Marquis & Aurbach, Candice Renka -- crenka@maclaw.com -- Marquis & Aurbach & Nickolas A. Kacprowski -- NKacprowski@ahfi.com -- Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing. Mary Luszczyk, Material Witness, represented by Mark S. Dzarnoski, Gordan & Silver, Ltd. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Court Narrows Claims in "Smith" FDCPA Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting in part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned PETER L. SMITH, Plaintiffs, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:17 CV 1483 (N.D. Cal.). Plaintiff claims that in his case, the amounts he owed were improperly inflated by the addition of inspection and late fees. He argues that the fees assessed by the Defendants were improper and unwarranted, and that their imposition violated several state and federal laws, as well as Ohio common law principles. Count One alleges a claim under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA); Count Three asserts claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA); and, Count Six request relief under the Federal RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. Section 1961. Plaintiff claims that Nationstar violated 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e by falsely representing the character, amount, or legal status of debt, among other things, including, without limitation, attempt to and/or collecting upon an unlawful debt. He also claims, among other things, that Defendants violated the FDCPA by continuing to collect a debt or any disputed portion thereof after failure to properly respond to Plaintiff's verification request. To the extent that the general allegations in the Complaint could be read to suggest that the underlying default amount was also in error, any such claim is not pled with sufficient particularity to withstand a dismissal on the pleadings. Although the Complaint lists payments requested and payments made, there is no allegation that the requested payments were incorrect based on the amount of principal, interest, and escrow owed. Escrow amounts can vary year to year and month to month and are based on projections of future amounts owed. Therefore, even if they did result in an over or under payment on occasion, this does not mean that the amounts charged were not legal or proper, and the Court will read no such inference into the Complaint. Plaintiff has not specifically alleged any misleading or improper charges other than the inspection fees already addressed above. For all of these reasons, Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently allege any violation of the FDCPA occurring within the statute of limitations period. Plaintiff's Fair Credit Reporting claim is based on his allegation that Nationstar reported failed to follow reasonable procedures to ensure the accuracy of information it reported, and consequently gave derogatory and inaccurate statements and information relating to him and his finances to third party credit reporting bureaus, all in violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1681e(b). Section 1681(e) states that whenever a consumer reporting agency prepares a consumer report it shall follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom the report relates. Although not specifically cited in the Complaint, the factual allegations in the Complaint would qualify Nationstar as a furnisher of information under the FCRA, making them liable under 15 U.S.C. Section 1681s-2(a). This Section of the FCRA, however, is not enforceable by a private cause of action. There is a private cause of action for failing to conduct an investigation to identify errors in a credit report once notified by a consumer reporting agency of a dispute, however Plaintiff's Complaint makes no allegation that Nationstar was notified of a dispute, or that they failed to investigate one. Consequently, Plaintiff's Complaint fails to sufficiently state a claim against Nationstar under the FCRA. The Court finds that Plaintiff's Complaint also fails to sufficiently allege that either Nationstar or Solutionstar were part of a RICO enterprise with the third-party vendors who conducted the inspections at issue. There is no allegation that the third-party vendors had anything other than a routine business relationship with these Defendants. There is no hint of a special relationship between any of the vendors and the Defendants, nor that the Defendants needed to use specific vendors in order to accomplish their alleged scheme. The Complaint does not assert that the vendor's connection to the Defendants, or to the Plaintiff's alleged harms are anything other than fortuitous. There is no allegation that the vendors committed fraud or engaged in other improper behavior, nor that they were aware of or participated in any of the allegedly improper decisions and activities complained of by Plaintiff. Therefore, the Complaint fails to state a claim for RICO violations because it does not adequately allege an enterprise under the RICO statute. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is granted in part. Counts One, Three, and Six are dismissed with prejudice. A full-text copy of the District Court's December 21, 2017 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y88vttgu from Leagle.com. Peter L. Smith, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas J. Connick -- tconnick@connicklawllc.com -- Connick Law. Nationstar Mortgage, Defendant, represented by D. Kyle Deak -- kyle.deak@troutman.com -- Troutman Sanders & Stephen A. Weigand, Faruki Ireland Cox Rhinehart & Dusing, 201 E. Fifth Street, Suite 1420, Cincinnati, OH 45202 Nationstar Mortgage LLC, Defendant, represented by D. Kyle Deak, Troutman Sanders & Stephen A. Weigand, Faruki Ireland Cox Rhinehart & Dusing. Solutionstar, Defendant, represented by D. Kyle Deak, Troutman Sanders & Stephen A. Weigand, Faruki Ireland Cox Rhinehart & Dusing. NAZARI ASSOCIATES: "Rivas" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Work ---------------------------------------------------------- ROMULO RIVAS, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NAZARI ASSOCIATES VI LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, GAS DORAL MANAGEMENT LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, and EFRAIM SARAGOVIA, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-20356-KMW (S.D. Fla., Jan. 29, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs and reasonable attorneys' fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to pay time and one- half wages for all of the hours he worked in excess of 40 hours per week for Defendants between approximately in numerous work weeks during the three-year statute of limitations period January 2015 and October 2016 as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Keith M. Stern, Esq. Hazel Solis Rojas, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A. One Flagler 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 901 1379 Facsimile: (561) 288 9031 E-mail: employlaw@keithstern.com hsolis@workingforyou.com NORTHSTAR LOCATIONS: Faces "Quinn" Suit in East. Dist. New York --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northstar Locations Services, LLC. The case is styled as Chana R. Quinn, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v. Northstar Locations Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv- 00487 (E.D. N.Y., January 23, 2018). Northstar Location Services, LLC, doing business as The Northstar Companies, provides receivables debt collection services to customers in the United States, Canada, and internationally.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. OCEAN STATE: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss "Stewart" Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Judge Janet C. Hall of the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut granted Ocean State's motion to dismiss the case, KEVIN STEWART on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. OCEAN STATE JOBBERS, INC., ET AL., Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:17-CV-1266 (JCH) (D. Conn.). The case comes before the Court pursuant to a putative class action Complaint filed by Stewart on July 28, 2017. Stewart alleges that the Ocean State sold Duracell batteries that were intended for the Asian market in its stores in the northeastern United States. On the basis of these allegations, Stewart alleges violations of consumer protection statutes in New York, Rhode Island, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Jersey. On Sept. 11, 2017, Ocean State filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that, with respect to the New York consumer protection claims, Stewart has failed to adequately allege that the packaging in question was materially misleading, or that he was materially misled by it. It further argues that Stewart lacks standing to bring claims pursuant to the consumer protection statutes of Rhode Island, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Jersey. In the alternative, Ocean State moved for a more definite statement pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e). Stewart also argues that the batteries were so inexpensive that they must have been inferior. Judge Hall finds that this argument is hard to reconcile with Stewart's allegations in both his Complaint and his Response to the Motion to Dismiss that he "paid a premium" to Ocean State for the Duracell batteries. Even assuming the inexpensive nature of the batteries supports the argument that they are inferior, however, the Complaint is devoid of any assertions about the price of the batteries except that Stewart paid a "premium price" for them, which hardly indicates that the batteries were so cheap that they must have been inferior. Because Stewart failed to allege that the batteries were "steeply discounted" in his Complaint, the Judge cannot rely on that argument for the purposes of ruling on the Motion to Dismiss. Therefore, the Judge will grant Ocean State's Motion to Dismiss with respect to Stewart's New York law claims. Stewart may replead these claims within 30 days. With respect to Stewart's claims pursuant to the laws of Rhode Island, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, or New Jersey, Judge Hall finds that Stewart has not alleged that he suffered an injury-in-fact in Rhode Island, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, or New Jersey, because he did not purchase Duracell batteries intended for the Asian market in those states. Thus, he has failed to plead that he has standing to bring claims under the consumer protection statutes of those states. In addition, the Judge finds that that Stewart intends to seek class certification at some point during the lawsuit does not relieve him of the burden of pleading facts that show he has standing with respect to all claims in his Complaint. Because Stewart fails to meet that burden at this time, the claims under Rhode Island, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Jersey law must be dismissed. For the reasons described, Judge Hall granted Ocean State's Motion to Dismiss in its entirety. In light of this ruling, the Judge denied Ocean State's alternative Motion for a More Definite Statement. Stewart may replead within 21 days of the date of the ruling. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 10, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/Bt10IX from Leagle.com. Kevin Stewart, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey I. Carton -- jcarton@denleacarton.com -- Denlea & Carton LLP & Robert J. Berg -- rberg@denleacarton.com -- Denlea & Carton LLP, pro hac vice. Ocean State Jobbers, Inc., doing business as Ocean State Job Lot, Defendant, represented by Howard P. Goldberg -- hgoldberg@mgmlaw.com -- Manion Gaynor & Manning, LLP, pro hac vice, Shauna R. Twohig -- stwohig@mgmlaw.com -- Manion Gaynor & Manning, LLP, pro hac vice & Kenneth R. Costa -- kcosta@mgmlaw.com -- Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP. P&B CAPITAL: Thomas Sues over Debt Collections Practices -------------------------------------------------------- Mary Thomas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. P&B Capital Group, LLC, Crown Asset Management, LLC, John Does 1-25, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv- 00165 (W.D.N.Y., Jan. 31, 2018), seeks to recover damages and declaratory and injunctive relief under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act. According to the complaint, some time prior to February 2, 2017, an obligation was allegedly incurred to Synchrony Bank. The Synchrony Bank obligation arose out of transactions in which money, property, insurance or services, which are the subject of the transaction, are primarily for personal, family or household purposes, specifically a personal credit card. The alleged obligation is a "debt" as defined by 15 U.S.C. section 1692a(5). Due to her financial constraints, Plaintiff could not pay the alleged debt, and it went into default. Sometime thereafter, the debt was acquired by Defendant Crown Asset. Defendant Crown Asset is a "debt collector" as defined in 15 U.S.C. section 1692a(6) of the FDCPA. The Defendant Crown Asset, a subsequent owner of the Synchrony Bank debt, contracted the Defendant P & B to collect the alleged debt. Defendant P & B collects and attempts to collect debts incurred or alleged to have been incurred for personal, family or household purposes on behalf of creditors using the United States Postal Services, telephone and internet. The Defendant P & B is a "debt collector" as defined in 15 U.S.C. section 1692a(6) of the FDCPA.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Kohn, Esq. RC Law Group, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282 6500 Facsimile: (201) 282 6501 PABCOR MANAGEMENT: Carey & Hudson Sue over Chicago Rental Rules --------------------------------------------------------------- DUANE CAREY and BOBBIE HUDSON, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PABCOR MANAGEMENT, LLC, PABCOR EQUITIES INC., 6633 N. SHERIDAN ROAD, LLC and CHICAGO TITLE LAND TRUST COMPANY, as Trustee under Trust Agreement dated April 17, 1980 and known as Trust Number 2417, the Defendants, Case No. 2018-CH-01380 (Ill. Cir., Cook County, Jan. 31, 2018), seeks to recover damages from Defendants for violating the City of Chicago Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance. The Defendants allegedly failed to (i) disclose the name and address of the financial institution into which Plaintiffs' and the class' security deposits were deposited in the manner required by 5-l 2-080(a)(3) of the RLTO, (ii) give the Plaintiffs and the class a security deposit receipt in the manner provided by Section 5-12-0SO(b) of the RLTO at the time of receiving a security deposit payment, and (iii) failed to attach to Plaintiffs' and the class' written rental agreements the RLTO summaries required by Section 5-12-170 of the RLTO. Pabcor Management, LLC is in the management services business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrev Sobek, Esq. JS LAW 29 E. Madison Street, Suite 1000 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone (312) 756-1330 E-mail: jeffs@jsslawoffices.com PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS: Opposes "Rabin" Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------- PricewaterhouseCoopers tells the Honorable Jon S. Tigar he should decline to conditionally certify a class of job applicants aged 40 and over who allegedly were denied employment based on their age. Emily Nicklin, Esq., at Kirkland & Ellis LLP, representing the global auditing and consulting firm in Rabin v. PwC, Case No. 3:16-cv-02276-JST (N.D. Cal.), tells Judge Tigar he should deny the certification request for three reasons: (A) Plaintiffs fail to show there exists any "decision, policy, or plan" to discriminate that similarly affects members of the proposed collective. Many of the activities they cite are plainly lawful. As for the other alleged activities, Plaintiffs lack any supporting evidence, and no amount of lawyer argument can substitute for the required facts. (B) The proposed collective fails because it includes facially unqualified applicants, whom PwC rejected in its screening process before meeting them or otherwise receiving information about their age, which PwC does not collect as part of the application process. (C) The proposed collective fails because it includes non- applicants. In this regard, Plaintiffs fail to show that PwC deterred anyone, let alone anyone qualified who was age 40 or over, from applying; that the named Plaintiffs, both of whom were serial applicants to PwC, are similarly situated to non- applicants; that any company-wide "decision, policy, or plan" exists that had a similar effect across the non-applicants; or that it was "futile" for candidates age 40 and over to apply to Covered Positions. A copy PwC's response is available at no charge at: http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=vXAG1okp PwC is represented by: Emily Nicklin, Esq. Gabor Balassa, Esq. Christina Briesacher, Esq. Mark Premo-Hopkins, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 300 North LaSalle Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 862-2000 E-mail: emily.nicklin@kirkland.com gabor.balassa@kirkland.com christina.briesacher@kirkland.com mark.premohopkins@kirkland.com PROFESSIONAL BUREAU: Vallot Sues over Debt Collections Practices ---------------------------------------------------------------- LEE VALLOT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PROFESSIONAL BUREAU OF COLLECTIONS OF MARYLAND, INC., CASCADE RECEIVABLES MANAGEMENT, LLC and John Does 1-25, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00236 (D. Colo., Jan. 31, 2018), seeks to recover damages, declaratory and injunctive relief under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act. According to the complaint, some time prior to February 1, 2017, an obligation was allegedly incurred to Schumacher Medical. The obligation arose out of a transaction involving a medical debt incurred by Plaintiff with Schumacher Medical in which money, property, insurance or services, which are the subject of the transaction, are primarily for personal, family or household purposes. Sometime thereafter, the Schumacher Medical debt was assigned or sold to Defendant Cascade Receivables Management. The alleged Cascade Receivables Management obligation is a "debt" as defined by 15 U.S.C. section 1692a(5). Defendant Cascade Receivables Management contracted the Defendant to collect the alleged debt. PBCM collects and attempts to collect debts incurred or alleged to have been incurred for personal, family or household purposes on behalf of creditors using the United States Postal Services, telephone and internet. PBCM provides account recovery and collections services for first party and third party collections, and servicing of performing portfolios.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. RC LAW GROUP, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282 6500 Facsimile: (201) 282 6501 E-mail: ysaks@rclawgroup.com PROPHET MANASSEH: "Person" Suit Seeks OT Wages under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------- ALYSE PERSON and other similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff(s), v. PROPHET MANASSEH JORDAN MINISTRIES and PROPHET YAKIM MANASSEH JORDAN, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-20352-FAM (S.D. Fla., Jan. 29, 2018), seeks to recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff regularly worked overtime hours without being paid proper compensation. Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff at the rate of one half her regular rate of time. The Plaintiff maintained a regular work schedule. During the period of March 10, 2015 to September 15, 2017 Plaintiff worked from 9:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. (9 hours daily) or 45 hours per week. The Plaintiff received no bona fide lunch break. The Defendants did not keep any time keeping method and did not keep track of the hours worked by Plaintiff. The Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours per week period however did not receive any additional compensation for overtime hours.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Oscar Andres Gomez, Esq. EPGD ATTORNEYS AT LAW, P.A. 2701 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Ste. 202 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Telephone: (786) 837 6787 Facsimile: (305) 718 0687 E-mail: oscar@epgdlaw.com PROTECT AMERICA: Wieseler-Myers Sues over Robocalls --------------------------------------------------- CATHERINE WIESELER-MYERS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PROTECT AMERICA, INC., a Texas corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00255-MJW (D. Colo., Jan. 31, 2018), seeks to recover damages for Defendant's unlawful practice of sending Plaintiff and putative Class Members text (SMS) messages and pre-recorded phone calls without her consent, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant, routinely and as a matter of practice, sends unconsented text messages and places pre-recorded phone calls to mobile phone numbers across the country to solicit customers for its home security business. Defendant does not obtain consent to place these calls and send these messages via an Automated Telephone Dialer System ("ATDS") and fails to make the required disclosures under the TCPA. Protect America is a home security company based in Austin, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Aschenbrener, Esq. KAMBERLAW, LLC 201 Milwaukee Street, Suite 200 Denver, CO 80206 Telephone: (212) 920 3072 E-mail: masch@kamberlaw.com PVK INC: Faces "Jocelyn" Suit in Eastern District New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against PVK, Inc. The case is styled as Cindy Jocelyn, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PVK, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00427 (E.D. N.Y., January 22, 2018). PVK, Inc. develops, markets, and sells food products under the "Scarpetta" brand name throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. R. GROSS DAIRY: "Nunez" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage & OT under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- The case, NESTOR GONZALEZ NUNEZ, NESTOR SANCHEZ, DANIEL VENTURA, and JOSE MANUEL JIMENEZ MENDIOLA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. R. GROSS DAIRY KOSHER RESTAURANT INC. (D/B/A MR. BROADWAY), YUVAL ZARAI, and MOTI ZILBER, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00861 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 31, 2018), seeks to recover minimum wage and overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The Plaintiffs are former employees of Defendants. The Defendants own, operate, or control a kosher restaurant, located at 1372 Broadway, New York, New York 10018 under the name "Mr. Broadway". The Plaintiffs were employed as delivery workers. They were required to spend a considerable part of their work day performing non-tipped duties, including but not limited to preparing food, dishwashing, stocking the refrigerator with drinks, cutting meat, vegetables and fruits, preparing salads, preparing ground beef, cooking, filling bags with pickles and garnishes, bringing up food for the cooks, helping in the kitchen, and serving food. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that they worked. Rather, Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked, failed to pay Plaintiffs appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. Further, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which they had to work over 10 hours a day.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, New York 10165 Telephone: (212) 317 1200 Facsimile: (212) 317 1620 RITE AID: Court Dismisses FCRA Claims in "Moore" ------------------------------------------------ The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued a Memorandum granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned KYRA MOORE, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. RITE AID HDQTRS CORP., doing business as "RITE AID CORPORATION," Defendant, Civil Action No. 13-1515 (E.D. Pa.). Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment and Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is both denied as moot. Following her conversation with Rite Aid, plaintiff received an Adverse Action Notice exactly five business days after the date of the Pre-Adverse Action Notice stating that she had not been hired for the position. Plaintiff contends she was rejected for employment solely as a result of her being classified 'Non- Competitive' by Rite Aid's agent LexisNexis. After receiving the Adverse Action Notice, plaintiff also initiated a dispute with LexisNexis, which eventually removed her adverse record from the Esteem database. The Class Action Complaint set forth one count against Rite Aid on behalf of a putative class for violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1681b(b)(3) of the FCRA, which requires that any person using a consumer report for employment purposes who intends to take any adverse action based in whole or in part on the report against an applicant for employment must provide the applicant with a copy of the report and a description in writing of the consumers rights, as prescribed in 15 U.S.C. Section 1681g(c)(3), before taking such adverse action. Rite Aid styles its Motion as a Motion to Dismiss Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment. Two types of challenges to a court's jurisdiction may be made under Rule 12(b)(1). A facial attack under Rule 12(b)(1) challenges subject matter jurisdiction without disputing the facts alleged in the complaint, and it requires the court to 'consider the allegations of the complaint as true. Rite Aid argues that despite its failure to wait the full five days as set forth in the Pre-Adverse Action Notice, plaintiff contacted Rite Aid within the five-day period, provided additional information to support her application, and was able to take advantage of her full procedural rights under the FCRA. In order for a federal court to have jurisdiction over a claim, the plaintiff must have standing under Article III of the United States Constitution. Standing under Article III requires that (1) the plaintiff have suffered an 'injury in fact' an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, i.e. the injury must be fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant; and (3) it must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. In this case, however, Rite Aid challenges the standing of the named plaintiff, not the class; the issue of class certification is consequently not logically antecedent to the question of standing. Thus, this Court considers standing under Article III before addressing class certification issues under Rule 23. Plaintiff alleges that Rite Aid has violated her rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act by willfully violating 15 U.S.C. Section 1681b(b)(3)(A) of the FCRA. In this case, plaintiff argues that her harm is closely related to long-established causes of action for failure to provide statutorily mandated information. Plaintiff contends that Rite Aid's mailing of the Adverse Action Notice before the expiration of the five days referenced in the Pre-Adverse Action Notice constituted a well- founded informational injury. According to plaintiff, this informational injury deprived her of the traditional right to be confronted with the charges against [her] and tell [her] side of the story. Plaintiff's argument is misplaced. The harm suffered by plaintiff in this case does not have a "close relationship" to traditional causes of action for deprivation of statutorily mandated information. Unlike in Horizon Healthcare Services and Stokes, plaintiff in this case received the information required by Section 1681b(b)(3) and was not deprived of access to her background report. She not only received the Pre-Adverse Action Notice but was able to use it to contact Rite Aid and present her version of events. The alleged harm in this case consequently was nothing more than a "bare procedural violation." Spokeo, 136 S.Ct. at 1550. As the Supreme Court pointed out in Spokeo, not all "informational" injuries are concrete, and simply labeling the injury "informational" does not suffice. Id. at 1550. The harms suffered in both of those cases prevented the plaintiffs from exercising their statutory rights. In the case, however, plaintiff received the Pre-Adverse Action Notice and was able to contact Rite Aid to discuss her termination at CVS and seek reconsideration of her application. Plaintiff's rights guaranteed by the FCRA were not harmed by Rite Aid's conduct, and, consequently, her harm was not the type elevated by Congress to the status of a concrete injury through the FCRA. The Court now turns to plaintiff's second theory of liability that Rite Aid may be held liable under Section 1681b(b)(3)(A) for the conduct of its agent, LexisNexis, in its adjudication of applications prior to mailing the Pre-Adverse Action Notices. This Court concludes that Pennsylvania state law is controlling, plaintiff has released Rite Aid through the release of its agent, LexisNexis, and thus, plaintiff has not suffered a concrete harm caused by LexisNexis for which Rite Aid is responsible. This Court rejects plaintiff's argument. Only rarely will federal common law displace state law in a suit between private parties. The guiding principle in displacing state law is that there must be some significant conflict between some federal policy or interest and the use of state law, which must be specifically shown. Conflict with federal policies cannot be shown by the mere presence of a federal statute. Plaintiff in this case has not shown a significant conflict between the federal policies embodied in the FCRA and the application of state contract law. The settlement agreement with LexisNexis provides for the application of Pennsylvania law. Thus, this Court will enforce the choice of law provision in the settlement agreement with LexisNexis and look to Pennsylvania law in construing the agreement. Plaintiff also argues that Mamalis is inapplicable to a situation where a principal and an agent have independently harmed the plaintiff. Plaintiff disputes that this case is about adjudications by LexisNexis, to the exclusion of adjudications made by Rite Aid. She contends that Rite Aid retained control over the content and timing of the mailing" of the Pre-Adverse and Adverse Action Notices and may be held liable for that conduct, regardless of its agency relationship with LexisNexis. Mamalis itself recognizes that a principal may be held directly liable for its own conduct. However, this Court has already concluded that plaintiff did not suffer a concrete injury a result of Rite Aid's direct conduct, and consequently, plaintiff does not have standing to pursue those claims. Thus, plaintiff's contentions regarding Rite Aid's direct liability are not relevant to this issue. Plaintiff's remaining claims rest on the fact that Rite Aid acted through its agent, and under Pennsylvania law, where plaintiff has released the agent, she has also released the principal for that same conduct. In this case, named plaintiff Kyra Moore has developed the factual record over the four years of this litigation. She has likewise had multiple opportunities to refine her argument, including through the filing of the Amended Complaint, the Motion for Class Certification, and in her Response to the Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment. Most importantly, it is difficult to see what further development named plaintiff might offer regarding her individual standing to bring the claims in Count I of the Amended Complaint. She cannot now plead that she was unable to contact Rite Aid to present her side of the story or that she did not settle with Rite Aid's agent, LexisNexis. Amendment would be futile with respect to named plaintiff's individual claims. Consequently, named plaintiff's individual claims under 15 U.S.C. Section 1681b(b)(3) are dismissed with prejudice. The members of the putative class, however, may not have been able to exercise their rights under the FCRA because of Rite Aid's alleged failure to adhere to the five-day notice provision in the Pre-Adverse Action Notice. Likewise, the members of the putative class may not have settled their claims against LexisNexis and thereby released Rite Aid as LexisNexis's principal. Thus, amendment of the Amended Complaint would not be futile with respect to the claims of the putative class, and those claims are dismissed without prejudice. Rite Aid's Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment is granted to the extent it seeks dismissal of the claims under 15 U.S.C. Section 1681b(b)(3) in Count I of the First Amended Class Action Complaint. A full-text copy of the District Court's December 21, 2017 Memorandum is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9c463to from Leagle.com. KYRA MOORE, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, represented by DAVID A. SEARLES -- dsearles@consumerlawfirm.com -- FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C., LEONARD A. BENNETT -- lenbennett@clalegal.com -- CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES PC, IRV ACKELSBERG -- iackelsberg@langergrogan.com -- LANGER GROGAN & DIVER PC,JOHN SOUMILAS -- jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com -- FRANCIS & MAILMAN,P.C., NADIA HEWKA , COMMUNITY LEGAL SERVICES, 1424 Chestnut St. Philadelphia, PA 19102, SHARON M. DIETRICH -- sdietrich&clSphila.or -- COMMUNITY LEGAL SERVICES, INC. & JAMES A. FRANCIS -- jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com -- FRANCIS & MAILMAN, PC. RITE AID HDQTRS CORP., doing business as RITE AID CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by JONATHAN D. WETCHLER -- jwetchler@duanemorris.com -- DUANE MORRIS LLP, ALISON C. MORRIS - - ACMorris@duanemorris.com -- DUANE MORRIS LLP,CAROLINE AUSTIN -- caustin@duanemorris.com -- DUANE MORRIS LLP, CHARLOTTE E. THOMAS -- cthomas@duanemorris.com -- DUANE MORRIS LLP, DANA B. KLINGES - - dklinges@duanemorris.com -- DUANE MORRIS LLP, ODERAH C. NWAEZE -- ONwaeze@duanemorris.com -- DUANE MORRIS LLP & SEAN ZABANEH -- SSZabaneh@duanemorris.com -- DUANE MORRIS LLP. SANOFI AVENTIS: Court Dismisses Amended Lantus Antitrust Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned In re LANTUS DIRECT PURCHASER ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Civil Action No. 16-12652-JGD (D. Mass.), Magistrate Judge Judith Gail Dein of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and dismissed the Plaintiffs' Amended Class Action Complaint without prejudice. Plaintiffs, FWK Holdings, LLC and Cesar Castillo, Inc., are purchasers of the insulin glargine products Lantus and Lantus SoloSTAR, which are used in the treatment of Type I and Type II diabetes. They have brought a purported class action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated against Sanofi, the manufacturer of both products, alleging that Sanofi improperly delayed the entry into the market of a competitive product manufactured by Eli Lilly and Co. In their Amended Class Action Complaint, the Plaintiffs assert two claims under Section 2 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. Section 2) -- one for monopolization and one for attempted monopolization. It is the Plaintiffs' contention that Sanofi prolonged its monopoly for insulin glargine by (1) improperly listing six patents in the U.S. Federal Drug Administration's Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations ("Orange Book"); and (2) pursuing sham litigation against Lilly in which Sanofi asserted claims of patent infringement, allegedly without any basis. The litigation was settled by Sanofi and Lilly shortly before trial. The matter is before the Court on the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Sanofi argues that the Court should dismiss both counts of the Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Magistrate Judge Dein finds that Sanofi's interpretation of the listing requirements was reasonable. The Plaintiffs have pled no other facts that lead to the conclusion that Sanofi knew or should have known that its listing of the '864 patent was incorrect. Therefore, the Sherman Act claims, insofar as they rely on the improper Orange Book listing of the '864 patent, are dismissed. In addition, the fact that the underlying litigation was heavily contested, while not conclusive, also weighs against a finding that the litigation was a sham. The settlement in Sanofi I, while not dispositive, further shows that the underlying suit did not lack any merit. In light of the Plaintiffs' failure to establish that the litigation was objectively baseless, the Magistrate Judge needs not address the second prong of the sham litigation test. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' antitrust claims based on a contention of sham litigation are dismissed. Finally, in light of her conclusion that the litigation concerning the '864 patent was not a sham litigation, the Magistrate Judge holds that the remainder of the claims of the Amended Complaint relating to the other Sanofi patents must be dismissed. Since Sanofi was entitled to bring its patent litigation against Lilly due to the '864 patent, Sanofi was entitled to the 30-month delay in Lilly's entry into the market. She therefore dismisses those claims as there is no plausible argument for causation. For these reasons, Magistrate Judge Dein concludes that the Plaintiffs have failed to allege sufficient facts to support a finding of antitrust liability against Sanofi for listing patents in the Orange Book unreasonably, or for engaging in sham litigation with Lilly. Accordingly, she granted the Defendant's Motion and dismissed without prejudice the Amended Complaint. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 10, 2018 Memorandum is available at https://is.gd/cPoTkB from Leagle.com. Cesar Castillo, Inc., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Bradley J. Demuth -- bdemuth@nussbaumpc.com -- Nussbaum Law Group, P.C., pro hac vice, Kristie A. LaSalle -- kristiel@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Linda P. Nussbaum -- lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com -- Nussbaum Law Group, P.C., pro hac vice & Thomas M. Sobol -- tom@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. FWK Holdings LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by David P. Germaine -- dgermaine@vaneklaw.com -- Vanek Vickers & Masini PC, pro hac vice, John P. Bjork -- jbjork@vaneklaw.com -- Vanek Vickers & Masini PC, pro hac vice, Joseph M. Vanek -- jvanek@vaneklaw.com - - VANEK, VICKERS & MASINI, P.C., pro hac vice, Thomas M. Sobol, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Kristie A. LaSalle, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Sanofi-Aventis U.S., LLC, Defendant, represented by Alisha M. Crovetto -- acrovetto@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, pro hac vice, Julia E. McEvoy -- jmcevoy@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, pro hac vice, Laura Diss Gradel -- lgradel@jonesday.com -- Jones Day & Rosanna K. McCalips -- rkmccalips@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, pro hac vice. SCHREIBERCOHEN LLC: Reyes Sues over Debt Collections Practices -------------------------------------------------------------- Icela Reyes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Schreiber/Cohen, LLC, Midland Funding, LLC, and John Does 1-25, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18- cv-00152 (D. Conn., Jan. 25, 2018), seeks damages and declaratory and injunctive relief under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act. According to the complaint, some time prior to July 3, 2017, an obligation was allegedly incurred to Synchrony Bank. The Synchrony Bank obligation arose out of transactions in which money, property, insurance or services, which are the subject of the transaction, are primarily for personal, family or household purposes. The alleged Synchrony Bank obligation is a "debt" as defined by 15 U.S.C. section 1692a(5). Due to her financial constraints, Plaintiff could not pay the alleged debt, and it went into default. Sometime thereafter, as per the collection letter the debt was "assigned" to Defendant Midland Funding. Defendant Midland Funding is a "debt collector" as defined in 15 U.S.C. section 1692a(6) of the FDCPA. Defendant Midland Funding, a subsequent owner of the Synchrony Bank debt, contracted the Defendant Schreiber/Cohen to collect the alleged debt.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Yaakov Saks, Esq. RC LAW GROUP, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282 6500 Facsimile: (201) 282 6501 SIDECAR BAR & GRILLE: Faces "Cuenca" Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sidecar Bar & Grille Inc. d/b/a Sidecar Bar & Grill. The case is styled as Carlos Moina Cuenca, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Sidecar Bar & Grille Inc. d/b/a Sidecar Bar & Grill and James B Decoursy, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv- 00506 (E.D N.Y., January 24, 2018). Sidecar Bar & Grille Inc. operates in the restaurant industry.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. SNYDER'S-LANCE INC: Shaev Seeks to Enjoin Merger with Campbell -------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID B. SHAEV PROFIT SHARING ACCOUNT, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. SNYDER'S- LANCE, INC., JEFFREY A. ATKINS, PETER P. BRUBAKER, C. PETER CARLUCCI, JR., JOHN E. DENTON, BRIAN J. DRISCOLL, LAWRENCE V. JACKSON, JAMES W. JOHNSTON, DAVID C. MORAN, DAN C. SWANDER, ISAIAH TIDWELL, AND PATRICIA A. WAREHIME, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00039 (W.D.N.C., Jan. 25, 2018), seeks to enjoin Defendants from holding a stockholder vote on a Proposed Transaction and taking any steps to consummate the Proposed Transaction unless and until material information is disclosed to Snyder's-Lance's stockholders sufficiently in advance of the vote on the Proposed Transaction or, in the event the Proposed Transaction is consummated, to recover damages resulting from the Defendants' violations of the Exchange. The case is a class action brought by Plaintiff on behalf of itself and the other ordinary shareholders of Snyder's-Lance, Inc., except Defendants and their affiliates, against Snyder's- Lance and the members Snyder's-Lance's board of directors for their violations of Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC Rule 14a-9, 17 C.F.R. 240.Proxy-9, in connection with the proposed merger between Snyder's-Lance and Campbell Soup Company through a merger transaction. On December 18, 2017, Snyder's-Lance and Campbell issued a joint press release announcing that they had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger by and among the Snyder's-Lance, Campbell, and Twist Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Campbell ("Merger Sub"). Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Campbell will acquire Snyder's-Lance through the merger of Merger Sub with and into Snyder's-Lance, with Snyder's-Lance surviving the merger and becoming a wholly owned subsidiary of Campbell. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Snyder's-Lance stockholders will receive $50.00 per share in cash in exchange for each share of Snyder's-Lance common stock that they own. The Merger Consideration and the process by which Defendants agreed to consummate the Proposed Transaction are fundamentally unfair to Snyder's-Lance's public stockholders. In fact, the financial analyses conducted by Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, the Company's financial advisor, illustrates that the value of the Company's shares exceeds the Merger Consideration. For example, Goldman Sachs' Illustrative Present Value of Future Share Price Analyses - EPS indicates a per share value range as high as $59.20, which illustrates that each share of Snyder's-Lance common stock has an inherent premium of approximately 18% over the $50.00 Merger Consideration. On January 17, 2018, in order to convince Snyder's-Lance's stockholders to vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, Defendants authorized the filing of a materially incomplete and misleading Preliminary Proxy Statement on a Schedule 14A with the SEC, in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. In particular, the Proxy contains materially incomplete and misleading information concerning: (i) financial projections for the Company; and (ii) the valuation analyses conducted by the Goldman Sachs. The special meeting of Snyder's-Lance stockholders to vote on the Proposed Transaction is forthcoming. It is imperative that the material information that has been omitted from the Proxy is disclosed to the Company's stockholders prior to the forthcoming stockholder vote so that they can properly exercise their corporate suffrage rights. Snyder's-Lance, Inc. is the second largest salty snack maker in the United States. It was formed by the 2010 merger of Lance and Snyder's of Hanover.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel K. Bryson, Esq. Patrick M. Wallace WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 600 5000 E-mail: Dan@wbmllp.com Pat@wbmllp.com - and - Gregory M. Nespole, Esq. Benjamin Kaufman, Esq. Gloria Kui Melwani, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 545 4600 Facsimile: (212) 686 0114 E-mail: gmn@whafh.com Kaufman@whafh.com Melwani@whafh.com - and - Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. Miles D. Schreiner, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405 New York, NY 10118 Telephone: (212) 971 1341 Facsimile: (212) 202 7880 E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com mschreiner@monteverdelaw.com SPECIALTYCARE: Faces "Bosque" Class Suit Over Failure to Pay OT --------------------------------------------------------------- Jorge Bosque, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Specialtycare, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-24271-RNS (S.D. Fla., November 27, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Specialtycare, Inc. operates Hialeah Hospital located at 651 E. 25th Street, Hialeah, Florida 33013 in Miami-Dade County, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Keith M. Stern, Esq. Hazel Solis Rojas, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A. One Flagler 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 901-1379 Facsimile: (561) 288-9031 E-mail: employlaw@keithstern.com hsolis@workingforyou.com ST. THOMAS HEALTH: Faces "Ross" Suit in Middle District Tenn. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against St. Thomas Health. The case is styled as Maggie Ross, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. St. Thomas Health, Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00077 (M.D. Tenn., January 22, 2018). Saint Thomas Health is an integrated health delivery system based in Nashville, Tennessee.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Caraline E. Rickard, Esq. Jonathan L. Bobbitt, Esq. Gilbert McWherter Scott & Bobbitt PLC 341 Cool Springs Boulevard, Suite 230 Franklin, TN 37067 Tel: (615) 354-1144 Fax: (731) 664-1540 Email: crickard@gilbertfirm.com - and - Justin S. Gilbert, Esq. Gilbert McWherter Scott Bobbitt PLC 200 W Martin Luther King Boulevard, Suite 1067 Chattanooga, TN 37402 Tel: (423) 499-3044 Fax: (731) 664-1540 Email: jgilbert@gilbertfirm.com SURFSIDE COFFEE: "Fernandez" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- KATIA VERA FERNANDEZ, For Herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff(s), v. SURFSIDE COFFEE COMPANY LLC and CHRISTOPHER MELLGREN, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-20305-KMW (S.D. Fla., Jan. 25, 2018), seeks to recover overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants operate over 65 separate Dunkin Donuts retail locations, making Defendants one of the largest Dunkin Donuts franchisees in Florida. Defendants' retail coffee franchise deals in the sale of coffee, food, and other goods and products, using cooking machinery and appliances, food, produce, paper goods, spices, oils, seasonings, computers, tablets, telephones, telephone systems, internet routers, computer cabling, and credit card processing machinery and services to engage in interstate commerce. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and other similarly situated persons who work and who worked for Defendants in Florida during the three years immediately preceding the filing of the initial Complaint in this Cause through the date of the rendition of a final judgment in this action as "Assistant Managers". According to the complaint, there are many similarly situated current and former employees of Defendants who worked with the title of "Assistant Manager" and were paid a salary with a nondiscretionary bonus who also were underpaid in violation of the FLSA, deprived of the overtime pay they earned, and would benefit from the issuance of notice of their rights, the present lawsuit, and their ability to join this lawsuit (without fear of retaliation for affected current employees of Defendants). The Defendants paid Plaintiff according to the same pay practice that it applied to its other employees who, like Plaintiff, were not paid for all of the time they worked for Defendants and who were not paid overtime wages calculated at time and one-half times their regular rate(s) of pay for all of the time worked as a result of Defendants' paying them a salary and nondiscretionary bonus without regard to the hours and/or overtime hours actually worked.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian H. Pollock, Esq. Max L. Horowitz, Esq. FAIRLAW FIRM 7300 North Kendall Drive, Suite 450 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 230 4884 Facsimile: (305) 230 4844 E-mail: brian@fairlawattorney.com max@fairlawattorney.com SWAPP LAW: Loses Bid to Dismiss "Wilcox" DPPA Suit -------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington issued an Order denying Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned JADE WILCOX on behalf of herself and all others similarly situation, Plaintiff, v. JAMES CRAIG SWAPP, individually; and SWAPP LAW, PLLC, doing business as Craig Swapp and Associates, Defendants, No. 2:17-CV-275-RMP (E.D. Wash.). Plaintiff Jade Wilcox brought this putative class action lawsuit against Defendants alleging that Defendants violated the Driver's Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) by purchasing accident reports from the Washington State Patrol (WSP) and using the information in the accident reports to solicit legal business. Ms. Wilcox alleges that Defendants violated the DPPA when they purchased collision report information from the WSP for the purpose of sending marketing materials. Ms. Wilcox alleges that Defendants purchased DPPA-protected collision report information and that they did so knowingly. Ms. Wilcox alleges that Defendants possessed the knowledge required for establishing liability under the DPPA. She alleges four reasons to support her claim that Defendants knew that they were obtaining personal information in violation the DPPA when they purchased WSP collision reports. Taking Ms. Wilcox's factual allegations that Defendants knowingly purchased DPPA-protected information as true and the allegation that the collision reports are populated, in part, or in whole, with data collected by the DOL, the Court finds that Ms. Wilcox's Complaint alleges sufficient factual content for the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Therefore, the Court denies Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. A full-text copy of the District Court's December 21, 2017 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybe4tone from Leagle.com. Jade Wilcox, on behalf of herself, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by James Richard Sweetser, Sweetser Law Office, 1020 N Washington St Ste 1. Spokane, WA 99201-2237, Jason M. Leviton jason@blockesq.com -- Block & Leviton LLP, pro hac vice, Robert Joseph Barton joe@blockesq.com -- Block & Leviton LLP, pro hac vice, Thomas G. Jarrard , Law Office of Thomas G Jarrard, 1020 N Washington St, Spokane, WA 99201, USA & Thomas W. Kirchofer -- tom@blockesq.com. -- Block & Leviton LLP, pro hac vice. James Craig Swapp, individually & Swapp Law PLLC, doing business as Craig Swapp and Associates, Defendants, represented by Barbara J. Duffy -- duffyb@lanepowell.com -- Lane Powell PC & Ryan P. McBride -- mcbrider@lanepowell.com -- Lane Powell PC. SWATCH LTD: Wohl Sues over Two-Year Warranty on Watch Purchase -------------------------------------------------------------- BARRY WOHL, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. SWATCH LTD. and THE SWATCH GROUP (U.S.) INC., the Defendants, Case No. 650424/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Jan. 26, 2018), seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as actual and punitive damages. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and as a class action on behalf of all persons who purchased a Swatch watch within the State of New York and whose warranty was not honored and those persons who purchased a Swatch watch within the past 24 months, alleging breach of contract and violations of New York General Business Law ("NY GBL") section 349. This action challenges defendants' failure to honor the terms of the warranty that accompanies the watch and the terms of the warranty posted on the company's website as well as defendants' deceptive business practices in failing to disclose that the two- year warranty would only be honored if the watch was purchased directly from a Swatch corporate retail or on-line store.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Robert I. Harwood, Esq. Daniella Quitt, Esq. HARWOOD FEFFER LLP 488 Madison Avenue, 8th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 935 7400 SYNEOS HEALTH: Share Prices Inflated, Vaitkuviene Claims -------------------------------------------------------- EGLE VAITKUVIENE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. SYNEOS HEALTH, INC., ALISTAIR MACDONALD and GREGORY S. RUSH, the Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-00029-H (E.D.N.C., Jan. 25, 2018), seeks to recover damages as a result of Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Defendants' scheme and course of business operated as a fraud on purchasers of INC common stock by: (i) deceiving the investing public about INC's prospects and business; (ii) artificially inflating the price of INC common stock; (iii) allowing INC to use $2.75 billion of its common stock as acquisition currency; (iv) allowing certain INC executives and insiders to sell millions of dollars of their personally held shares of INC common stock at artificially inflated prices; and (v) causing Plaintiff and other members of the Class to purchase INC common stock at inflated prices. INC is a CRO that provides various clinical development services for the biopharmaceutical and medical device industries in North America, Europe, the Middle East and Africa, the Asia-Pacific, and Latin America. The Company's services include clinical trial management services comprising patient recruitment and retention, project management, clinical monitoring, drug safety/ pharmacovigilance, medical affairs, quality assurance, and regulatory and medical writing; and data services consisting of clinical data management, electronic data capture, and biostatistics. The Class Period starts on May 10, 2017. On that day, before the market opened, INC announced that it had agreed to acquire inVentiv Health, Inc., a privately held, global CRO and CCO, in a stock-for-stock acquisition. According to the Company's press release issued that morning, "[b]ased upon the closing price of INC Research common stock on Tuesday, May 9, 2017, the transaction value[d] inVentiv at an enterprise value of approximately $4.6 billion, and the combined company at an enterprise value of approximately $7.4 billion," and "[u]pon closing of the transaction, INC Research shareholders [were] expected to own approximately 53 percent and inVentiv shareholders [were] expected to own approximately 47 percent of the combined company." Advent International and Thomas H. Lee Partners, two private equity firms who were then equal equity owners of inVentiv, would remain investors in the combined company.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff McDANIEL & ANDERSON, L.L.P. Lafayette Square 4942 Windy Hill Drive Raleigh, NC 27609 Telephone: (919) 872 3000 Facsimile: (919) 790 9273 - and - Corey D. Holzer, Esq. HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC Ashwood Parkway, Suite 410 Atlanta, GA 30338 Telephone: (770) 392 0090 Facsimile: (770) 392 0029 E-mail: cholzer@holzerlaw.com TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL: Fails to Pay Earned Wages, Sharp Says ------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN LOGAN SHARP, 216 Kennedy Drive Severna Park, MD 21146 Ann Arundel County, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Terminix International, Inc. 860 Ridge Lake Blvd. Memphis, TN 38120, and The Terminix International Company Limited Partnership 855 Ridge Lake Blvd. Memphis, TN 38120 and Service Master Global Holdings, Inc. 860 Ridge Lake Blvd. Memphis, TN 38120 and DOES 1-55, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-02072 (W.D. Tenn., Jan. 31, 2018), seeks redress for Defendants' breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law, and seeks timely payment of all wages and commissions earned. Every year, thousands of Americans engage Terminix branded companies to provide pest extermination and prevention services at their homes and businesses. Terminix is a division and brand of ServiceMaster Global Holdings, Inc. According to the complaint, the Defendants rely upon their outside salespersons to market and sell Terminix products and services, and promise to pay their outside salespersons commission on products and services sold. Defendants have engaged in a pattern and practice of failing to pay Plaintiff and other outside salespersons agreed-upon commissions in a timely manner.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Caroline Ramsey Taylor, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP 518 Monroe Street Nashville, TN 37208 Telephone: (615) 921 6500 Facsimile: (615) 921 6501 E-mail: caroline@wbmllp.com - and - Gary E. Mason, Esq. Danielle L. Perry, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP 5101 Wisconsin Ave NW, Ste. 305 Washington, D.C. 20016 Telephone: (202) 429 2290 Facsimile: (202) 429 2294 E-mail: gmason@wbmllp.com dperry@wbmllp.com TEXAS: Taylor Files Suit v. Parole Board Chair, et al. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against David Gutierrez, Chair of the Texas Criminal Justice Board of Pardons and Paroles. The case is styled Lentiona Taylor, individually, and on behalf of all present and future inmates similarly situated, Plaintiff v. David Gutierrez, Chair of the Texas Criminal Justice Board of Pardons and Paroles, Leanne Massingill, Parole Commissioner, Texas Board of Pardons and Parole and Roel Tejano, Parole Commissioner, Texas Board of Pardon and Parole, Defendants, Case No. 6:18-cv-00021-RP (W.D. Tex., January 23, 2018). The Board of Pardons and Paroles decides which eligible offenders to release on parole or discretionary mandatory supervision, and under what conditions.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. ULINE INC: Settlement in "Moncada" Suit Has Final Approval ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JUAN MONCADA, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, etc., Plaintiffs, v. ULINE, INC., an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CV 16-664 DSF (KKx) (C.D. Cal.), Judge Dale S. Fischer of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement. On July 13, 2017, the Court entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, preliminarily approving the settlement of this action in accordance with the First Amended Joint Stipulation of Class Action and PAGA Settlement and Release, which, together with the attached exhibits, set forth the terms and conditions for settlement. The Court also approved the allocation toward penalties under the California Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, California Labor Code section 2698, et seq. ("PAGA Settlement Amount") and the separate payment toward PAGA penalties ("Separate PAGA Amount") for Putative Class Members who submitted timely and valid Requests for Exclusion from the Settlement ("Excluded Individuals"). On Dec. 11, 2017, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement came on for hearing. Having duly considered the parties' papers and oral argument, and good cause appearing, Judge Fischer granted the Motion. The Court confirmed Lawyers for Justice, PC and Girardi & Keese as the counsel for the Class, and Plaintiffs Juan Moncada and Yaima Montes de Oca as the representatives of the Class. The Settlement Class, with respect to the Released Claims that do not arise under the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") only, is defined as all individuals who have been employed by Defendant in the State of California as non-exempt employees at any time during the period from March 3, 2012 to Jan. 3, 2017. The Judge ordered that the Defendant will pay the Separate PAGA Amount of $382.59, and will distribute the Separate PAGA Payment as follows: the amount of $286.94 to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency, and the amount of $95.65 to the Excluded Individuals on a pro rata basis according the terms of the Settlement Agreement. He also ordered that the Settlement Administrator, CPT Group, Inc., issue payment to itself in the amount of $18,000 for the Settlement Administration Costs, in accordance with the Settlement Agreement. He further ordered that CPT issue the Settlement Payment Checks to Class Members according to the methodology and terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement. The Judge directed that the Settlement Payment Checks and checks issued to Excluded Individuals (Kristopher Ordonez, Anaid Calixto, Amanda Reynosa, and Stuart Holmes) for the pro rata share of Excluded Individuals' PAGA Portion will be negotiable for 120 calendar days after issuance. After the expiration of the 120-day period, the funds associated with any such checks that are returned as undeliverable or that remain uncashed will be forwarded to the State of California's Unclaimed Property Division. The Settlement Administrator will distribute the PAGA Settlement Amount as follows: the amount of $75,000 will be distributed to the LWDA, and the amount of $25,000 will remain in the Net Settlement Amount, to be paid to the Class Members on a pro rata basis, according to the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The Gross Settlement Amount will be disbursed in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement and the Court's Orders. The Notice of entry of the Order will be given to Putative Class Members by posting a copy of the Order on CPT's website for a period of at least 60 calendar days after the date of entry of the Order. The time for appeal will run from the Court's entry of the Order. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 10, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/e9NzP3 from Leagle.com. Juan Moncada, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Andre Sherman -- asherman@girardikeese.com -- Girardi Keese, Edwin Aiwazian -- edwin@lfjpc.com -- Lawyers for Justice PC, Jill Jessica Parker -- jill@lfjpc.com -- Lawyers for Justice PC, Joanna Ghosh -- joanna@lfjpc.com -- Lawyers for Justice, PC & Romina Keshishyan -- Romina@rklegalpc.com -- Lawyers for Justice PC. Yaima Montes de Oca, Plaintiff, represented by Joanna Ghosh, Lawyers for Justice, PC & Edwin Aiwazian, Lawyers for Justice PC. Uline Inc., an unknown business entity, Defendant, represented by Carlos Jimenez -- cajimenez@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson PC, Debra Urteaga -- durteaga@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson PC & Steven Andrew Groode -- sgroode@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson PC. WELK RESORT: Court Allows Ashcraft to Amend FCRA Suit ----------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada granted the Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the case, JOHN E. ASHCRAFT, Plaintiff(s), v. WELK RESORT GROUP, CORP, et al, Defendant(s), Case No. 2:16-cv-02978-JAD-NJK (D. Nev.). The case involves claims under the Fair Credit Report Act arising out of the Defendants' handling of a credit dispute arising after the Plaintiff obtained a Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The Plaintiff initiated the case on Dec. 22, 2016, and Experian filed an answer on Feb. 7, 2017. The Court issued a scheduling order setting a deadline to amend the pleadings for May 9, 2017. On May 3, 2017, the Plaintiff conducted his Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Experian. On May 9, 2017, he moved to amend his complaint to, inter alia, add class action claims. Due to a dispute over Experian's errata to its deponent's testimony, the Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend was denied without prejudice. he parties then engaged in motion practice on the disputed errata, and that dispute was resolved on Nov. 8, 2017. The Plaintiff then refiled his motion for leave to amend by the new deadline set by the Court. Experian filed a response in opposition. It raises several arguments in opposition to the motion for leave to amend, asserting that there has been undue delay in seeking amendment, that it will be prejudiced by amendment, and that amendment is futile. Magistrate Judge Koppe finds that at the time the Plaintiff sought leave to amend, the case was in its early stages, with Experian having only appeared a few months earlier and the discovery cutoff several months in the distance. Such circumstances militate strongly against a finding of undue delay, and Experian's conclusory assertions that parts of the proposed amended complaint could have been brought sooner are insufficient to establish otherwise. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge finds there was no undue delay. The Magistrate Judge also finds that the Plaintiff sought to add class allegations early on in the litigation, and is not persuaded that the added burden of defending against class claims is sufficient prejudice to justify denying leave to amend. Finally, she finds that finds Experian's arguments as to the futility of the class allegations and of the claim for declaratory relief are premature and insufficient to deny leave to amend. For these reasons, Magistrate Judge Koppe granted the Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend. The Plaintiff will promptly file and serve the amended complaint. The parties appear to agree to an extension of deadlines in the scheduling order, and the parties will file a joint stipulation with proposed deadlines by Jan. 17, 2018. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 10, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/3O6maZ from Leagle.com. John E. Ashcraft, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew I. Knepper -- matt.knepper@huschblackwell.com -- Knepper & Clark, LLC, Miles N. Clark -- miles.clark@knepperclark.com -- Knepper & Clark LLC, Sean N. Payne, PAYNE LAW FIRM LLC & David H. Krieger -- info@hainesandkrieger.com -- Haines & Krieger, LLC. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew Michael Cummings -- acummings@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, Jeremy S. Close -- jsclose@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, pro hac vice & Jennifer L. Braster -- jbraster@naylorandbrasterlaw.com -- Naylor & Braster. YURI SUSHI: Faces "Lin" Suit in Southern District of New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Yuri Sushi Inc. The case is styled as Ting Yao Lin, on behalf of himself and similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Yuri Sushi Inc, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00528 (S.D. N.Y., January 22, 2018). Yuri Sushi Inc is a Japanese Restaurant.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. ZANKOU ENTERPRISES: Villalobos Sues over Wage & Hour Violation -------------------------------------------------------------- MARLON VILLALOBOS on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ZANKOU ENTERPRISES, INC., a California corporation; ZANKOU CHICKEN, a business entity unknown; INFINITI HR WEST, LLC, a limited ZANKOU, INC., a California corporation; BURBANK ZANKOU, INC., a California corporation; GLENDALE ZANKOU, INC., a California corporation; PASADENA ZANKOU, INC., a California corporation; TOLUCA LAKE ZANKOU, INC., a California corporation; VAN NUYS ZANKOU, INC., a California corporation; WEST L.A. ZANKOU, INC., a California corporation; ZANKOU WEST HOLLYWOOD, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 to 100, Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC692281 (Cal. Super. Ct., Jan. 31, 2018), seeks to recover all earned and unpaid wages, injunctive relief, and other equitable relief pursuant to the California Labor Code. The case is a wage-and-hour class action lawsuit on behalf of Plaintiff and other current and former non-exempt employees working as hourly employees for Defendants in California. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to provide legally compliant and legally required meal periods; failed to provide legally compliant and legally required rest periods; failed to provide accurate and complete wage statements; and failed to timely pay former employees all earned and unpaid wages.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. Jordan D. Bello, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 432 0000 Facsimile: (310) 432 0001 E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com jbello@lelawfirm.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 * * *