/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/180215.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, February 15, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 34 Headlines 3 KINGS SECURITY: "Vindel" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages 4819 VERNON KITCHEN: "Calderon" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT ADVANCED MICRO: "Kim" Suit Alleges Exchange Act Violations AEROHIVE NETWORKS: "McGovney" Sues Over Share Price Drop ALLERGAN INC: Appeals Ruling in Asacol Antitrust Suit to 1st Cir. ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Faces "Nisanov" Suit in E.D. New York AMC ENTERTAINMENT: "Nichols" Hits Stock Drop from Theater Buy AMETEK INC: Court Refuses to Disqualify Counsel in "Greenfield" APPLE & EVE: "Quiroz" Hits Mislabeling, False Advertising AZZ INC: Kessler Topaz Files Shareholder Class Action BANK OF MONTREAL: Fire Pension Assoc. Asserts Sherman Act Breach BAY BRIDGE: Mobile Home Residents Mull Suit Over Water Woes BITCONNECT: Faces 2nd Class Action Over Alleged Ponzi Scheme BLATT HASENMILLER: Court Certifies "Spice" FDCPA Class BOISE, ID: Class Action Over Public Defense System Can Proceed BOVET FLEURIER: Faces "Thorne" Suit in S.D. New York BREITLING USA: Faces "Thorne" Suit in S.D. New York BUDGET RENT: Court Denies Further Class Discovery in "Benson" CANADA: Court Approves Hepatitis C Class Action Settlement CANADA: More Former Indian Hospital Patients Expected to Show Up CANADA: WRPS Superintendent Named in Class Action Retires CANADA: RCMP Harassment Claims Filing Deadline Set CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Faces "Shabazz" Suit in S.D. New York CENTRAIS ELECTRICAS: To Settle U.S. Suits Before Privatization CHICAGO, IL: Strip Search Settlement Payout Disappointing CHICAGO BRIDGE: Monteverde & Associates Files Class Action Suit CIVEO CORP: Monteverde & Associates Files Class Action CLEVELAND PUBLIC: Class Action Lawsuit Moves Forward CLOVERLEAF COLD: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Wages CONSUMER ADVOCACY: Jackson Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls, SMSs CREDENCE RESOURCE: Morris Sues Over Illegal Collection Calls CSC SERVICE: Faces D.S. Ridgeside Suit in M.D. Tennessee DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: D.C. Circuit Appeal Filed in "DL" Suit DNB: Norway's Consumer Council to Appeal Class Action Ruling DUKE UNIVERSITY: Antitrust Lawsuit Can Proceed as Class-Action ENTELLUS MEDICAL: "Horstman" Suit Alleges Exchange Act Violation EQUIFAX INC: Invasion of Privacy Class-Action Proceeds in Ontario FACEBOOK INC: Challenges Class Action Certification in BIPA Suits FACEBOOK INC: Alston & Bird Attorney Discusses EU Case Ruling FIELDTURF: Montgomery County Joins Class Action FIRE INSURANCE: Denial of Summary Adjudication Bid Upheld FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Super Duty Diesel Emissions FORSTER & GARBUS: Seeks 2nd Cir. Review of Order in "Winslow" FOWLER PACKING: Court Partly Certifies "Aldapa" Classes GENERAL ELECTRIC: Faces Class Action in Connecticut GEORGE & FRANK'S: Failed to Pay Minimum Wages, "Cuizon" Suit Says GETSWIFT: Flunks Deadline, Faces Class Action GLENWOOD LUXURY: "Camacho" Suit Alleges ADA Violations HAIN CELESTIAL: Bid to Dismiss "Pecanha" Denied HIGH TECH RAIL: "Campbell" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT HMI INDUSTRIES: Seeks 7th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Rench" Suit HOTEL ON RIVINGTON: Faces "Olsen" Suit in S.D. New York HUHTAMAKI INC: Goodwin Seeks to Recoup Unpaid Wages HYUNDAI MOTORS: Montgomery Attorney Discusses Class Action Ruling INFUSYSTEM HOLDINGS: Court Dismisses Securities Class Action INTEREXCHANGE INC: Court Denies Bid to Exclude Kerr Testimony JACOBS ENGINEERING: Court Dismisses "Kritch" Suit JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Robbins Geller to Lead in Remicade Suit JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Perth Mum Joins CA After Years of Pain LEXISNEXIS RISK: Dismissal of First Advantage's Suit Affirmed LG ELECTRONICS: Settles Class Action Over Phone Bootloop Problems LIFE TIME: "Lenardson" Suit Seeks to Recoup Minimum, OT Wages LINCOLN NATIONAL: 6th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of ERISA Suit LOOMIS ARMORED: "Hawkins" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages MARK GOBER: Faces "Darrough" Suit in E.D. of Arkansas MARYLAND: Taxpayers to Appeal Class Action Dismissal MDL 2804: Trade Group Responds to Opioid Crisis Lawsuits MDL 2804: Wapello County Opts Out of Opioid Crisis Class Action MEDTRONIC INC: Judge Allows Class-Action Suit to Proceed MO'S FISHERMAN: Bid to Consolidate FLSA Suits Denied MONTRES BREGUET: Faces "Thorne" Suit in S.D. of New York MORGAN STANLEY: Sued for Racial Bias a Decade After CA Settlement NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Misleading Students About Loan Forgiveness NORTH STAR: Peoplease Dismissed as Defendant in FLSA Suit NORTHEAST TEXAS HOME: "Easley" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages NORTON HEALTHCARE: Plan Members Allege Fund Mismanagement OCEAN SPRAY: Seeks 1st Circuit Review of Ruling in "Winters" Suit OSTEOMED LP: Court Narrows Claims in "Sclar" Suit PARKER SCHOOL: "Johnson" Suit Alleges WARN Violation PHI AIR MEDICAL: Faces "Wray" Suit in District of Arizona PHILIP MORRIS: AVL Cancer Hospital Joins Tobacco Class Action PREMIER NUTRITION: Court Dismisses Sonner's Claims in "Mullins" PREMIERE VACATION: Summary Ruling in Favor of Plan Member Upheld PRIMESTAR PAINTING: Leverette Seeks Unpaid Overtime Premium PURDUE PHARMA: New Hampshire's Suit Remanded to State Court PYRAMID CONSULTING: "Banks" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation RED PARROT: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss TCPA Suit RETAIL FOOD: Franchisees Launch Class Action RM PARADIS: "Hackman" Suit Alleges TCPA Violations SCIENCE APPS: Individual Claims in "Ostendorf" Dismissed SMJ CONSTRUCTION: "Haidong" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS: April 3 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set SOUTHEAST PERSONNEL: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages, Sanchez Says SP FOODS: "Taylor" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under EPA SQUARETRADE INC: Nguyen Sues for Invasion of Privacy STATE FARM: Faces "Allen" Suit in Georgia State Court STEINHOFF: Set to Face Class Action Following Accounting Scandal STEINHOFF: BarentsKrans Initiates Shareholder Class Action TARGET CORP: Faces "McAteer" Suit in District of Minnesota TASCH LLC: Court Conditionally Certifies "Lemons" FLSA Class TESARO INC: Kessler Topaz Announces Shareholder Class Action TOURNEAU LLC: Faces "Thorne" Suit in S.D. New York UBER TECHNOLOGIES: "Greder" Suit Alleges Consumer Acts Violations UNITED STATES: Court Dismisses Detained Immigrant's Suit UNITED STATES: DHS Denial of Class Cert in "Manirakiza" Upheld UNITED STATES: Appeals Decision in "Vidal" Suit to Second Circuit VISALUS INC: Court Dismisses 3rd Amended "Kerrigan" Rico Suit VODAFONE GROUP: March 20 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set WOLF PETROLEUM: Court Conditionally Certifies "Moss" Class YELP INC: Klein Law Firm Files Securities Class Action ZTO EXPRESS: Faces Linde Foundation Securities Suit Over IPO * Germany Urged to Consider US-Style Class Action Amid Dieselgate * Miles Attorney Discuses CFPB Class Action Waiver Rule * Securities Fraud Class Actions Tougher Than Ever to Win ********* 3 KINGS SECURITY: "Vindel" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- LAZARO VINDEL, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. 3 KINGS SECURITY AND RENTALS, INC., a California Corporation, KINGS ENTERPRISES SECURITY SERVICES, INC., and DOES 1 through 100, Case No. BC690597 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., January 17, 2018), seeks to recover alleged unpaid wages and penalties under the California Business and Professions Code, the California Labor Code and the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 4. The Defendants do business by providing onsite security services to individuals and businesses. The Defendants employed the Plaintiff and other similarly-situated non-exempt employees within Los Angeles County and the state of California. The Plaintiff does not know the true names or capacities of the Doe Defendants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul K. Haines, Esq. HAINES LAW GROUP, APC 2274 East Maple Ave. El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (424) 292-2350 Facsimile: (424) 292-2355 E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com - and - Sam Sani, Esq. SANI LAW, APC 1055 West 7th Street, 33rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (310) 935-0405 Facsimile: (310) 935-0409 E-mail: ssani@sanilawfirm.com 4819 VERNON KITCHEN: "Calderon" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT --------------------------------------------------------------- OSCAR BARRON CALDERON, JOSE MEDEL SOLIS, SALVADOR ASTUDILLO, and ELIAS ASTUDILLO, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. 4819 VERNON KITCHEN LLC, AUSTIN 88 LLC, B10 LLC, B12 LLC, NGM MANAGEMENT GROUP LLC, FIDI DISTRICT LLC, MIDTOWN EAST NY LLC, COLUMBUS VILLAGE LLC and/or any other related or affiliated entities, Case No. 150471/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., January 17, 2018), is brought pursuant to the New York Labor Law and the New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations to recover alleged unpaid overtime and spread of hours compensation owed to the Plaintiffs and others. The Defendants own and operate organic fast food restaurants operating under the trade name "Bare Burger." Vernon is a domestic limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the state of New York with a principal place of business in Long Island City, New York. Austin is a New York domestic limited liability company with a principal place of business in Forest Hills, New York. B10 is a New York domestic limited liability company with a principal place of business in Bayside, New York. B12 is a New York domestic limited liability company with a principal place of business in Long Island City, New York. NGM is a New York domestic limited liability company with a principal place of business in New York City. FIDI is a New York domestic limited liability company with a principal place of business in Long Island City. Midtown is a New York domestic limited liability company with a principal place of business in New York City. Columbus is a New York domestic limited liability company with a principal place of business in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq. Leonor H. Coyle, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER LLP 40 Broad, 7th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 943-9080 Facsimile: (212) 943-9082 E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com lcoyle@vandallp.com ADVANCED MICRO: "Kim" Suit Alleges Exchange Act Violations ---------------------------------------------------------- Doyun Kim, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., Lisa T. Su and Devinder Kumar, Case No. 5:18-cv-00321 (N.D. Calif., January 16, 2018), seeks to recover compensable damages under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. This is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired common shares of AMD between February 21, 2017 and January 11, 2018, both dates inclusive. Plaintiff Doyun Kim purchased AMD securities at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period and was damaged upon the revelation of corrective disclosure, says the complaint. Defendant Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. manufactures semiconductor products, which includes microprocessors, embedded microprocessors, chipsets, graphics, video and multimedia products. The Company offers its products worldwide. Founded in 1969, the Company is headquartered in Sunnyvale, California, and its stock trades on the NASDAQ Capital Market under the ticker symbol "AMD." Defendant Lisa T. Su has served as the Company's CEO, President and Director since October 2014. Defendant Devinder Kumar has served at all relevant times as the Company's Chief Financial Officer, Senior Vice President and Treasurer. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer Pafiti, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 468 North Camden Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Tel: (818) 532-6499 E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Tel: (212) 697-6484 E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com AEROHIVE NETWORKS: "McGovney" Sues Over Share Price Drop -------------------------------------------------------- Jacob McGovney, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Aerohive Networks, Inc., David K. Flynn and John Ritchie, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00435, (N.D. Cal., January 19, 2018), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Aerohive, together with its subsidiaries, designs and develops cloud networking and enterprise Wi-Fi solutions in Americas, Europe, the Middle East and Africa, and the Asia Pacific. Defendants failed to disclose that there were underlying sales execution issues that were uncovered at the end of the third quarter of 2017. Consequently, Aerohive's revenue guidance for the fourth quarter of 2017 was overstated. On this news, shares of Aerohive fell $1.63 per share, or over 29%, from its previous closing price to close at $4.07 per share on January 17, 2018. McGovney purchased Aerohive securities at artificially inflated prices and lost substantially upon the revelation of the alleged corrective disclosure. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Ave., 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Fax: (212) 202-3827 Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com ALLERGAN INC: Appeals Ruling in Asacol Antitrust Suit to 1st Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Allergan Sales, LLC, Allergan USA, Inc., Allergan, Inc., Allergan, PLC and Warner Chilcott Limited filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled IN RE ASACOL ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No. 1:15-cv-12730-DJC, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Boston. The appellate case is captioned as Teamsters Union, et al. v. Warner Chilcott Limited, et al., Case No. 18-1065, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The litigation is a putative class action in which the Plaintiffs, members of a putative class of end-payor purchasers of certain pharmaceutical products, allege that the Defendants, manufacturers of certain pharmaceutical products, engaged in exclusionary conduct impermissible under antitrust laws by pulling one product, Asacol 400mg, from the market at the same that it introduced a new product, Delzicol. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the District Court has issued a Memorandum and Order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and denying the Defendants' motion for summary judgment. The Plaintiffs seek to certify a class defined as: All persons or entities in the United States and its territories who purchased and/or paid for some or all of the purchase price for Delzicol or Asacol HD in Arizona, California, Florida, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia for consumption by themselves, their families, or their members, employees, insureds, participants, or beneficiaries, during the period July 31, 2013 through and until the anticompetitive effects of Defendants' unlawful conduct cease and also purchased and/or paid for some or all of the purchase price for Asacol 400mg prior to July 31, 2013. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that Appearance Form, Docketing Statement, Transcript Report/Order form, and Fee was due February 1, 2018.[BN] Plaintiffs UNITED FOOD & COMMERCIAL WORKERS UNIONS AND EMPLOYERS MIDWEST HEALTH BENEFITS FUND, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated; and MARK ADORNEY are represented by: Justin N. Boley, Esq. Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq. WEXLER WALLACE LLP 55 W Monroe St., Suite 3300 Chicago, IL 60602-0000 Telephone: (312) 346-2222 E-mail: jnb@wexlerwallace.com kaw@wexlerwallace.com Plaintiffs-Appellees UNITED FOOD & COMMERCIAL WORKERS UNIONS AND EMPLOYERS MIDWEST HEALTH BENEFITS FUND, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated; MARK ADORNEY; and TEAMSTERS UNION 25 HEALTH SERVICES & INSURANCE PLAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; MINNESOTA LABORERS HEALTH AND WELFARE FUND, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated; AFSCME HEALTH AND WELFARE FUND; PENNSYLVANIA EMPLOYEES BENEFIT TRUST FUND; AHOLD U.S.A., INC.; ROCHESTER DRUG CO- OPERATIVE, INC.; VALUE DRUG COMPANY; MEIJER, INC.; and MEIJER DISTRIBUTION, INC., are represented by: Daryl DeValerio Andrews, Esq. Glen DeValerio, Esq. ANDREWS DEVALERIO 265 Franklin St Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 999-6473 E-mail: gdevalerio@bermandevalerio.com gdevalerio@bermandevalerio.com - and - Tyler J. Story, Esq. Bethany R. Turke, Esq. WEXLER WALLACE LLP 55 W Monroe St., Suite 3300 Chicago, IL 60602-0000 Telephone: (312) 346-2222 E-mail: tjs@wexlerwallace.com brt@wexlerwallace.com - and - Nathaniel L. Orenstein, Esq. BERMAN TABACCO 1 Liberty Sq., 8th Floor Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 542-8300 E-mail: norenstein@bermantabacco.com Plaintiffs-Appellees TEAMSTERS UNION 25 HEALTH SERVICES & INSURANCE PLAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; NECA-IBEW WELFARE TRUST FUND, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; and WISCONSIN MASONS' HEALTH CARE FUND, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, are represented by: David P. Barclay, Esq. Eric D. Barton, Esq. Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq. Tyler W. Hudson, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL, LLP 4740 Grand Avenue, Suite 300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 701-1100 E-mail: dbarclay@wcllp.com ebarton@wcllp.com tcartmell@wagstaffcartmell.net thudson@wcllp.com - and - Norman Berman, Esq. Justin Nader Saif, Esq. John Henby Sutter, Esq. BERMAN TABACCO 1 Liberty Sq., 8th Floor Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 542-8300 E-mail: nberman@bermantabacco.com jsaif@bermantabacco.com jsutter@bermantabacco.com - and - Jeffrey L. Kodroff, Esq. John A. Macoretta, Esq. Diana J. Zinser, Esq. SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF PC 1818 Market St., Suite 2500 Philadelphia, PA 19103-0000 Telephone: (215) 496-0300 E-mail: jkodroff@srkwlaw.com jmacoretta@srkw-law.com dzinser@srkw-law.com - and - Peter J. Mougey, Esq. LEVIN PAPANTONIO THOMAS MITCHELL RAFFERTY & PROCTOR PA 316 S Baylen St., Suite 600 Pensacola, FL 32502 Telephone: (850) 435-7068 E-mail: pmougey@levinlaw.com Plaintiffs-Appellees MINNESOTA LABORERS HEALTH AND WELFARE FUND, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated; AFSCME HEALTH AND WELFARE FUND; PENNSYLVANIA EMPLOYEES BENEFIT TRUST FUND; AHOLD U.S.A., INC.; ROCHESTER DRUG CO-OPERATIVE, INC.; VALUE DRUG COMPANY; MEIJER, INC.; and MEIJER DISTRIBUTION, INC., are represented by: Karen H. Riebel, Esq. Heidi M. Silton, Esq. Devona L. Wells, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP 100 Washington Ave S, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401-0000 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 E-mail: khriebel@locklaw.com hmsilton@locklaw.com dlwells@locklaw.com Plaintiffs-Appellees AHOLD U.S.A., INC.; ROCHESTER DRUG CO- OPERATIVE, INC.; VALUE DRUG COMPANY; MEIJER, INC.; and MEIJER DISTRIBUTION, INC., are represented by: Lauren G. Barnes, Esq. David S. Nalven, Esq. Thomas M. Sobol, Esq. Kiersten A. Taylor, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 55 Cambridge Pkwy., Suite 301 Cambridge, MA 02142-0000 Telephone: (617) 482-3700 E-mail: lauren@hbsslaw.com davidn@hbsslaw.com tom@hbsslaw.com kierstent@hbsslaw.com Plaintiffs-Appellees ROCHESTER DRUG CO-OPERATIVE, INC.; VALUE DRUG COMPANY; MEIJER, INC.; and MEIJER DISTRIBUTION, INC., are represented by: Neill Wilson Clark, Esq. Peter R. Kohn, Esq. Joseph T. Lukens, Esq. FARQUI & FARQUI LLP 101 Greenwood Ave., Suite 600 Jenkintown, PA 19046 Telephone: (215) 277-5770 Facsimile: (215) 277-5771 E-mail: nclark@faruqilaw.com pkohn@faruqilaw.com jlukens@faruqilaw.com - and - Miles Greaves, Esq. Brett Cebulash, Esq. Barry S. Taus, Esq. TAUS, CEBULASH & LANDAU, LLP 80 Maiden Ln., Suite 1204 New York, NY 10038 Telephone: (212) 931-0703 E-mail: mgreaves@tcllaw.com bcebulash@tcllaw.com btaus@tcllaw.com - and - David F. Sorensen, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE PC 1622 Locust St. Philadelphia, PA 19103-0000 Telephone: (215) 875-5705 E-mail: dsorensen@bm.net Plaintiffs-Appellees VALUE DRUG COMPANY; MEIJER, INC.; and MEIJER DISTRIBUTION, INC., are represented by: Zachary David Caplan, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE PC 1622 Locust St. Philadelphia, PA 19103-0000 Telephone: (215) 875-5705 E-mail: zcaplan@bm.net - and - Dan Chiorean, Esq. Stuart E. Des Roches, Esq. ODOM & DES ROCHES, LLC 650 Poydras St. Poydras Center New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 522-0077 E-mail: dchiorean@odrlaw.com stuart@odrlaw.com - and - Russell A. Chorush, Esq. Christopher M. First, Esq. PAYNES & CHORUSH, LLP 1111 Bagby St., Suite 2100 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 221-2000 E-mail: rchorush@hpcllp.com cfirst@hpcllp.com - and - Bruce E. Gerstein, Esq. Ephraim R. Gerstein, Esq. Dan Litvin, Esq. Joseph Opper, Esq. GARWIN GERSTEIN & FISHER LLP Wall Street Plaza 88 Pine St, 10th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 398-0055 E-mail: bgerstein@garwingerstein.com egerstein@garwingerstein.com dlitvin@garwingerstein.com jopper@garwingerstein.com - and - David C. Raphael, Jr., Esq. Susan C. Segura, Esq. SMITH SEGURA & RAPHAEL LLP 3600 Jackson St., Suite 111 Alexandria, LA 71303-3000 Telephone: (318) 445-4480 E-mail: draphael@ssrllp.com ssegura@ssrllp.com Plaintiffs-Appellees MEIJER, INC.; and MEIJER DISTRIBUTION, INC., are represented by: John Paul Bjork, Esq. David P. Germaine, Esq. Jeffrey Moran, Esq. Joseph M. Vanek, Esq. VANEK VICKERS & MASINI PC 55 W Monroe St., Suite 3500 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 404-9644 E-mail: jbjork@vaneklaw.com dgermaine@vaneklaw.com jmoran@vaneklaw.com jvanek@vaneklaw.com - and - Thomas David Brooks, Esq. Paul Ethan Slater, Esq. SPERLING & SLATER PC 55 W Monroe St., Suite 3200 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 641-3200 E-mail: tdbrooks@sperling-law.com mslater@sperling-law.com - and - Donald Sean Nation, Esq. Steve D. Shadowen, Esq. LANGLEY & BANACK INCORPORATED 745 E Mulberry Ave., Suite 700 San Antonio, TX 78212 Telephone: (717) 903-1177 E-mail: sean@hilliardshadowenlaw.com steve@hilliardshadowenlaw.com Plaintiff-Appellee MEIJER DISTRIBUTION, INC., is represented by: Matthew Charles Weiner, Esq. HILLIARD SHADOWEN LLP 2407 S Congress Ave., Suite E Austin, TX 78704-5500 Telephone: (845) 323-8036 E-mail: matt@hilliardshadowenlaw.com Defendants-Appellants WARNER CHILCOTT LIMITED; ALLERGAN, INC., f/k/a Actavis, PLC; ALLERGAN USA, INC.; ALLERGAN SALES, LLC; and ALLERGAN, PLC, Formerly known as Actavis, PLC; and Defendants WARNER CHILCOTT (US), LLC; WARNER CHILCOTT SALES (US), LLC; and WARNER CHILCOTT COMPANY, LLC, are represented by: Kevin C. Adam, Esq. Katherine Dyson, Esq. WHITE & CASE LLP 75 State St. Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (978) 836-6363 E-mail: kevin.adam@whitecase.com kate.dyson@whitecase.com - and - Matthew Bernstein, Esq. Noah Austin Brumfield, Esq. Peter J. Carney, Esq. Eileen M. Cole, Esq. Dana Foster, Esq. John Mark Gidley, Esq. Matthew Sterrett Leddicotte, Esq. Holly Letourneau, Esq. Celia McLaughlin, Esq. Matthew Hendy, Esq. WHITE & CASE LLP 701 13 St., NW Washington, DC 20005-3807 Telephone: (202) 637-6193 Facsimile: (202) 639-9355 E-mail: matthew.bernstein@whitecase.com noah.brumfield@whitecase.com pcarney@whitecase.com ecole@whitecase.com defoster@whitecase.com mgidley@whitecase.com mleddicotte@whitecase.com hletourneau@whitecase.com mmclaughlin@butlerpappas.com matthew.hendy@whitecase.com - and - Caitlin Cipicchio, Esq. Micheal J. Gallagher, Esq. Trisha Grant, Esq. Alison Hanstead, Esq. Stefan M. Mentzer, Esq. Jack E. Pace, III WHITE & CASE LLP 1221 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020-1095 Telephone: (212) 819-8200 Facsimile: (212) 354-8113 E-mail: caitlin.cipicchio@whitecase.com mgallagher@whitecase.com trisha.grant@whitecase.com ahanstead@whitecase.com smentzer@whitecase.com jpace@whitecase.com - and - Angela Daker, Esq. WHITE & CASE LLP 200 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 4900 Miami, FL 33131-2352 Telephone: (305) 371-2700 E-mail: adaker@whitecase.com - and - Nicole J. Benjamin, Esq. ADLER POLLOCK & SHEEHAN PC 1 Citizens Plaza, 8th Floor Providence, RI 02903-1345 Telephone: (401) 274-7200 E-mail: nbenjamin@apslaw.com - and - Alexandra G. Calistri, Esq. MINTZ LEVIN COHN FERRIS GLOVSKY & POPEO PC 666 Third Avenue New York, NY 10017-0000 Telephone: (914) 450-9140 E-mail: LGCalistri@mintz.com - and - Jonathan Isaac Handler, Esq. David W.S. Lieberman, Esq. DAY PITNEY LLP 1 International Pl Boston, MA 02110-0000 Telephone: (617) 345-4600 E-mail: jihandler@daypitney.com dlieberman@daypitney.com Defendants-Appellants ALLERGAN, INC., f/k/a Actavis, PLC; ALLERGAN USA, INC.; ALLERGAN SALES, LLC; and ALLERGAN, PLC, Formerly known as Actavis, PLC, are represented by: Demetra Frawley, Esq. WHITE & CASE LLP 1221 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020-1095 Telephone: (212) 819-7037 Facsimile: (212) 354-8113 - and - Sonia Murphy, Esq. Nicholas L. Wilkins, Esq. WHITE & CASE LLP 701 13 St., NW Washington, DC 20005-3807 Telephone: (202) 637-6161 Facsimile: (202) 639-9355 E-mail: smurphy@whitecase.com nick.wilkins@whitecase.com Defendants ZYDUS PHARMACEUTICALS USA INC.; CADILA HEALTHCARE LIMITED; WARNER CHILCOTT (US), LLC; WARNER CHILCOTT SALES (US), LLC; and WARNER CHILCOTT COMPANY, LLC, are represented by: Randall A. Hack, Esq. Stephen Gerard Huggard, Esq. Elizabeth Howar Kelly, Esq. Andy Miller, Esq. LOCKE LORD EDWARDS LLP 111 S Wacker Dr. Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 443-0676 E-mail: rhack@lockelord.com stephen.huggard@lockelord.com liz.kelly@lockelord.com amiller@lockelord.com ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Faces "Nisanov" Suit in E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alltran Financial, LP. The case is styled as Yasmin Nisanov, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Alltran Financial, LP, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00830 (E.D. N.Y., February 7, 2018). Alltran Financial, LP offers collection services for credit card, retail, commercial, and deficiency loan industries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. Joseph H. Mizrahi Law, P.C. 337 Avenue W, Suite 2f Brooklyn, NY 11223 Tel: (917) 299-6612 Fax: (347) 665-1545 Email: jmizrahilaw@gmail.com AMC ENTERTAINMENT: "Nichols" Hits Stock Drop from Theater Buy ------------------------------------------------------------- Warren Nichols, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc., Adam M. Aron, Craig R. Ramsey, Chris A. Cox, Lin Zhang, Jack Q. Gao, Maojun Zeng, Anthony J. Saich, Lloyd Hill, Gary F. Locke, Howard W. Koch, Jr., and Kathleen M. Pawlus, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00510, (S.D. N.Y., January 19, 2018), seeks to recover damages caused by violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. AMC Entertainment Holdings Inc. operates as a holding company, and through its subsidiaries, provides theatrical exhibition services worldwide. On December 21, 2016, AMC completed the acquisition of Carmike Cinemas, Inc. for $858.2 million. Defendants failed to disclose that Carmike's operations had been experiencing a prolonged period of financial underperformance due to a protracted period of underinvestment in its theaters, Carmike had experienced a significant loss in market share when its loyal patrons migrated to competitors that had renovated and upgraded their theaters and that AMC was able to retain only a very small number of Carmike's loyalty program members after the Carmike acquisition. AMC announced that its 2017 revenues were expected to range between $5.10-5.23 billion and its 2017 net loss between $150 and $125 million, or a loss of $1.17 to $0.97 per diluted share. On this news, AMC stock fell around 27% to close at $15.20 per share on August 2, 2017, or more than 50% below the price at which the shares were sold in the Company's secondary public offering. Plaintiff acquired AMC securities at artificially inflated prices during that time and lost substantially upon the revelation of the alleged corrective disclosures, notes the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697-6484 Facsimile (212) 697-7296 Email: peretz@bgandg.com AMETEK INC: Court Refuses to Disqualify Counsel in "Greenfield" --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, GREENFIELD MHP ASSOCIATES, L.P., et al., Plaintiffs, v. AMETEK, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-01525-GPC- AGS (S.D. Cal.), Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (i) denied Ametek's motion to disqualify Baron & Budd P.C. and Gomez Trial Attorneys as counsel to the Plaintiffs in the action and three other related federal lawsuits before the Court: Trujillo, et al. v. Ametek, et al. (Case No. 15-cv-1394), Cox, et al. v. Ametek, Inc. et al. (Case No. 17-cv-597), and Cox, et al. v. Ametek, Inc. et al. (Case No. 17-cv-1211); ad (ii) denied the Plaintiffs' motion for sanctions. In the action, the Plaintiffs -- owners of three mobile home parks located in El Cajon, California -- have brought suit claiming damage to their property as a result of ground contamination. Defendants are Ametek, a former owner and operator of an aircraft parts manufacturing facility near the Plaintiffs' properties ("The Facility"); and Senior Operations, LLC, the current owner of the facility. In short, the Plaintiffs allege that Ametek, while operating The Facility, constructed an underground waste sump, which eventually leaked and produced a chemical plume contaminating nearby soil and groundwater. This contamination is the origin of five lawsuits, four of which are before the Court, and one of which is in state court. On May 29, 2015, students and staff from Magnolia Elementary School ("MES") -- which abuts The Facility -- filed a putative class action, Trujillo, et al. v. Ametek, Inc., et al., in state court against Ametek, Thomas Deeney (an Ametek officer), and Senior. The plaintiffs in Trujillo allege injury as a result of inhaling toxic vapors while on MES property. The plaintiffs in Trujillo are represented by Baron & Budd, P.C. The case is currently in discovery. On Jan. 25, 2017, three residents of the Greenfield park filed suit, Rossiter, et al. v. Greenfield MHP, et al., in state court against Greenfield's owners. According to the electronic state court docket -- of which this Court may take judicial notice, see, e.g., Williams v. Los Angeles Cty. Super. Ct., No. CV 08- 4823-TJH (MAN), 200, it appears that the plaintiffs in Rossiter are represented by the Gilleon Law Firm, and the Greenfield owners are represented by Cooksey Toolen Gage Duffy & Woog. No one in this case suggests that Baron & Budd or Gomez Trial Attorneys are involved in the Rossiter lawsuit. On March 24, 2017, residents of the three mobile home parks filed a putative class action, Cox, et al. v. Ametek, Inc., et al., in the Court against Ametek, Deeney, and Senior. In Cox I, the plaintiffs allege that they have been injured as a result of inhaling toxic vapors stemming from the contamination of the soil and groundwater at the mobile home parks. The plaintiffs are represented by Baron & Budd. Finally, on June 14, 2017, three sons of a deceased resident of the Villa Cajon park filed suit, Cox, et al. v. Ametek, Inc., et al., in the Court against Ametek and Deeney. Cox II is not a class action. There, the plaintiffs claim wrongful death against the defendants, alleging that the contamination in the mobile home parks caused their mother's death. The Cox II plaintiffs are represented by Baron & Budd. Before the Court is a motion to disqualify opposing counsel filed by Defendant Ametek, seeking an order disqualifying the Plaintiffs' Counsel in the instant action and three other related federal lawsuits before the Court: Trujillo, et al. v. Ametek, et al., Cox I, and Cox II. Ametek contends that the Plaintiffs' Counsel must be disqualified from representing any of the plaintiffs in the four federal lawsuits because there is a concurrent conflict of interest. The mobile home park residents and owners have adverse interests, according to Ametek, because the mobile home park residents have viable claims against the park owners for the owners' alleged failure to warn the residents about the plume's contamination of the park properties. In their opposition memorandum, the Plaintiffs assert that the Court should enter sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 against Ametek because the motion to disqualify has "no legal or factual support," and was brought to harass or to cause unnecessary delay. Judge Curiel finds that both parties erroneously assume that Ametek must demonstrate Article III standing for the Court to consider the disqualification motion. In light of the totality of the circumstances of the case, however, he finds that disqualification is inappropriate. The Judge concludes that Article III does not prevent the Court from entertaining and deciding a motion to disqualify counsel. That conclusion, of course, does not require that such a motion be granted. Having concluded that Article III does not pose a barrier to deciding the instant motion, he must consider whether disqualification under these circumstances is appropriate. He holds it is not. In light of the clear indication by the clients impacted by the potential conflict of interest that they wish to be represented by the Plaintiffs' Counsel, the age of the case, and the risk that this motion was brought as a matter of tactical gamesmanship, the the Judge finds that the totality of the circumstance weigh against disqualification. Finally, Judge Curiel finds the sanctions under these circumstances unwarranted. The motion to disqualify filed by Ametek was far from frivolous: it raised a viable claim that the Plaintiffs' Counsel's concurrent representation of the mobile home park residents and owners violates California's rules of professional conduct. While there is evidence suggesting that Ametek's filing of the motion was motivated at least in part by tactical gamesmanship, the Judge does not find that Rule 11 sanctions are appropriate under the circumstances. For the reasons he stated, Judge Curiel denied Ametek's motion to disqualify Baron & Budd and Gomez Trial Attorneys as the counsel for the Plaintiffs in the instant case, as well as Trujillo, Cox I, and Cox II. He also denied the Plaintiffs' motion for sanctions. The Judge vacated the hearing scheduled for Jan. 26, 2018. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 24, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/FuJK4a from Leagle.com. Greenfield MHP Associates, L.P., a limited partnership, Starlight MHP, LLC, a California limited liability company, Starlight Exchange, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Davis Group Exchange, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company & Villa Cajon MHC, L.P., a Utah limited partnership, Plaintiffs, represented by Brett D. Land, Baron & Budd PC, pro hac vice, Carla Burke, Baron & Budd PC, pro hac vice, Celeste A. Evangelisti, Baron & Budd PC, Jason J. Julius, Baron & Budd, John P. Fiske, Baron & Budd, P.C., Scott Summy, Baron & Budd PC, pro hac vice, Zachary Sandman, Baron & Budd PC, pro hac vice & Deborah S. Dixon -- ddixon@gomeztrialattorneys.com -- Gomez Trial Attorneys. Ametek, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by Anna L. Nguyen -- anguyen@ww-envlaw.com -- Wactor and Wick, Edward C. Walton -- ed.walton@procopio.com -- Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch, LLP, Joseph Duffy -- joseph.duffy@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Jon K. Wactor -- jonwactor@ww-envlaw.com -- Wactor & Wick, Kristen Lee Price -- kristen.price@procopio.com -- Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch LLP & Sean Michael Sullivan -- sean.sullivan@procopio.com -- Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch LLP. Senior Operations LLC, a limited liability company, Defendant, represented by David James Porter -- david.porter@bipc.com -- Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC, pro hac vice, Jordan Webster -- jordan.webster@bipc.com -- Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC, pro hac vice & Kimberly Arouh -- kimberly.arouh@bipc.com -- Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney LLP. APPLE & EVE: "Quiroz" Hits Mislabeling, False Advertising --------------------------------------------------------- Daniela Quiroz and Gilbert Hernandez, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. The Apple & Eve, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00401 (S.D. N.Y., January 19, 2018), seeks redress for unfair and deceptive practice of false advertising and marketing of Defendant's products having "No Sugar Added" and claiming "No preservatives have been added" despite containing the preservatives citric acid and/or ascorbic acid in violation of the consumer protection laws of New York, California, the other 49 states, and the District of Columbia. Defendant develops, markets and sells beverage products under the "Apple & Eve" brand name throughout the United States. Defendant also manufactures, markets, advertises and sells extensive juice Products across the United States, available at numerous supermarkets, retail, and online outlets such as Walmart, Safeway, CVS, Ralphs, Stop & Shop and Amazon.com. Quiroz and Hernandez purchased Apple & Eve juices, relying on Defendant's representations on the packaging that they did not contain preservatives. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, Second Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 465-1188 Fax: (212) 465-1181 AZZ INC: Kessler Topaz Files Shareholder Class Action ----------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, disclosed that a shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against AZZ Inc. on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities between April 22, 2015 and January 8, 2018, inclusive. Investors who purchased AZZ securities during the Class Period may, no later than March 12, 2018, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class. For additional information or to learn how to participate in this action please visit https://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/azz-inc#join AZZ shareholders who wish to discuss this action and their legal options are encouraged to contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (Darren J. Check, Esq., D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. or Adrienne Bell, Esq.) at (888) 299-7706 or at info@ktmc.com. AZZ is a global provider of galvanizing services, welding solutions, specialty electrical equipment, and highly engineered services to the power generation, transmission, distribution, refining and industrial markets. As detailed in the complaint, on January 9, 2018, AZZ disclosed to investors that it "should have accounted differently for certain contracts within its Energy Segment." The Company further disclosed that it was "reviewing whether its historical accounting for these contracts differs materially and if there are any significant impacts to the Company's audited consolidated financial statements." Finally, AZZ indicated that its accounting review was "ongoing, and the Company cannot yet estimate when it will be completed," and that "the Company cannot yet conclude upon the materiality of any potential adjustments." Following these disclosures, shares of AZZ's stock fell $3.14 per share, or over 6%, to close on January 9, 2018 at $47.50 per share, on heavy trading volume. Among other things, the shareholder class action complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, AZZ and certain of its executive officers made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that the Company: (i) had misstated revenues for its Energy Segment; (ii) had failed to report revenues in compliance with applicable accounting standards; and (iii) lacked adequate internal controls over financial reporting. As a result of the foregoing, AZZ's publicly disseminated financial statements during the Class Period were materially false and misleading. AZZ shareholders may, no later than March 12, 2018, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, or other counsel, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class in the action. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check prosecutes class actions in state and federal courts throughout the country. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check is a driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual investors from the United States and around the world. The firm represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and share in the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check. For more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, please visit www.ktmc.com. Darren J. Check, Esq. D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. Adrienne Bell, Esq. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP Tel: (888) 299-7706 (610) 667-7706 Email: dcheck@ktmc.com skaskela@ktmc.com abell@ktmc.com [GN] BANK OF MONTREAL: Fire Pension Assoc. Asserts Sherman Act Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- Fire & Police Pension Association of Colorado, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Bank of Montreal et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00342 (S.D. N.Y., January 12, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Sherman Act, Commodity Exchange Act, and Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization Act. This action arises from Defendants' unlawful conspiracy to increase the profitability of their derivatives trading business by manipulating the Canadian Dealer Offered Rate during the period of at least August 9, 2007 through at least June 30, 2014. Plaintiff Fire & Police Pension Association of Colorado was established in January 1980 and administers a statewide, multiemployer, public employee retirement system providing defined benefit plan coverage as well as death and disability coverage for police officers and firefighters throughout the State of Colorado. Defendant Bank of Montreal is a Canadian bank with its principal place of business in Montreal, Canada. Bank of Montreal uses the trade name "BMO Financial Group" for all of its operating entities and has three operating groups: Personal and Commercial Banking, Wealth Management, and BMO Capital Markets. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Vincent Briganti, Esq. Geoffrey M. Horn, Esq. Peter D. St. Phillip, Esq. Christian Levis, Esq. Roland R. St. Louis, III, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG P.C. 44 South Broadway White Plains, NY 10601 Tel: (914) 997-0500 Fax: (914) 997-0035 E-mail: vbriganti@lowey.com ghorn@lowey.com pstphillip@lowey.com clevis@lowey.com rstlouis@lowey.com BAY BRIDGE: Mobile Home Residents Mull Suit Over Water Woes ----------------------------------------------------------- Beth Brogan, writing for Bangor Daily News, reports that frustrated by ongoing water supply problems, residents of Brunswick's Bay Bridge Estates mobile home park have formed a tenants association and retained an attorney to investigate a potential class-action suit. Kennebunk attorney Peter Clifford confirmed on Jan. 30 that he represents the tenants association and would begin fact-finding about potential legal action against the park's owners. Mr. Clifford attended a meeting of the residents of the park on Jan. 28, and he said he was "very cautious" in explaining potential legal options, but mentioned the possibility of a class-action suit. Early in January, during a prolonged cold spell, residents of Bay Bridge informed Brunswick officials that they had no water. Town Attorney Stephen Langsdorf and municipal administrators declared the lack of water a "public health issue" and ordered Bay Bridge to correct the situation. When town officials deemed that response inadequate, Town Manager John Eldridge ordered water to be trucked to the mobile home park at Bay Bridge's expense. Mr. Langsdorf wrote in a Jan. 5 release that Bay Bridge had agreed to pay for the water, which would supplement any groundwater in the park's dozen 5,000-gallon storage tanks, and that would result in no rationing. The same day, Bay Bridge sent a letter to tenants informing them of "the installation of a new well," previously anticipated for spring. According to the release, the owners had committed to drilling a new well, which was expected to be completed by Jan. 19. But according to correspondence Mr. Eldridge provided on Jan. 30, Bay Bridge personnel denied an inadequate water supply, and they said an unusually long cold spell caused the complaints about supply. They claimed tenants left water running to prevent frozen pipes, resulting in a low supply, which prompted management to reduce the overall flow to prevent damage to the system. Rodney Doray of the tenants association said on Jan. 28 that tenants spent money they didn't have on water at the time -- and that some are still having problems. Some residents spent as much as $2,500 repairing the main water line into their homes, he said. Water has been an issue in the park for years, Mr. Doray said, "with some of the plumbing freezing up, or septic things overflowing. I do know I have a rotted-out bathroom floor from years of this happening." "Some people were buying their own water, so how much are people out of pocket," Mr. Clifford said. "If you're forced to live in uninhabitable conditions, you're entitled to a rebate on your rent. Some had to go to a hotel because it was so cold." Mr. Clifford said the decision to drill a new well or tap an existing, capped well would be made by management, but he said, "obviously, it raises some questions about the quality of the water and its safety. And many, many residents have let it be known for years they don't like the quality of the water." But he said all testing seems to show it met standards -- although he said recent testing showed "unacceptably high levels of arsenic." Kevin McCarthy, who represents the park's owners, The Liberty Group, said on Jan. 31 that the two existing wells were enough to meet regular customer demands, until the cold spell. "But the problem was we had tenants just running water," Mr. McCarthy said. "In many cases, there were just frozen pipes, so there was no water. But usage in the park almost doubled [at that time], and the wells couldn't recover quickly. As a result, we had to limit outflow." In a Jan. 4 letter to the town, Mr. McCarthy wrote that it was the responsibility of the mobile home owners to insulate their pipes with wrap insulation, heat tape and skirting to prevent freezing. He added that such is often not the case, or plumbing is not in good repair, but that on-site management is available to help tenants. He claimed Bay Bridge Estates, and not the town, is currently trucking in the water, and said the park did expedite the process of bringing an old, capped well back online, which he hopes, pending state approval, will increase supply. On Jan. 30, Mr. Eldridge said the town had just received results of water testing, which showed elevated pH levels at various sites and elements that could contribute to the bitter water complained about by residents. He said the tests also included water trucked in from the Brunswick Topsham Water District, which could affect the samples. Mr. McCarthy said the park has tried to work with tenants, and he has met with leaders of the new tenants association. He said he was disappointed to hear of potential legal action. "I don't know what kind of class action there could be," he said. "We're willing to, and have expressed to the leaders we want to sit down and work this out." "The issue is whether there's a breach of habitability -- whether they were living in uninhabitable conditions, with the lack of water," Mr. Clifford said. "I think there's been a question as to what extent the town's provision of water mitigated those circumstances." [GN] BITCONNECT: Faces 2nd Class Action Over Alleged Ponzi Scheme ------------------------------------------------------------ John Colston, writing for emchat, reports that it seems that things are not looking that good for Bitconnect now. The company is said to be dealing with a new class action lawsuit. This is the second lawsuit filed against the company on allegations of operating a Ponzi scheme. This class action lawsuit was filed in Kentucky by plaintiff Brian Paige on claims that the company engaged in an online investment scam. The plaintiff also sought a restraining order. This is the second time when Bitconnect is sued on such allegations in about one week. The class action includes a total of 1,000 people and of course the class is open for more individuals to join. The class action lawsuit was filed on January 29 in a Kentucky court. Reportedly, the company managed to scam an important number of people in Kentucky, as well as thousands of other people across the US, cheating them of important sums of money. The lawsuit indicated that people have lost millions of dollars because of Bitconnect. According to the lawsuit, Ryan Maasen used a series of YouTube videos with the purpose to promote the company and make people believe that depositing money into Bitconnect's website would be beneficial for them. Of course, Maasen made promises of high returns, but the claims were never turned into reality. In fact, Bitconnect finally shut down after a series of investigations and cease-and-desist orders from state authorities. The plaintiff also accused the company of operating a Ponzi scheme, saying that Bitconnect actually relied on money it obtained from new users and did not actually perform a business activity. As imagined, the plaintiff wants the company to pay damages to the class of people affected by its practices. Mr. Paige also filed a request for a restraining order for the freezing of assets. [GN] BLATT HASENMILLER: Court Certifies "Spice" FDCPA Class ------------------------------------------------------ In the case, GLORIA SPICE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BLATT, HASENMILLER, LIEBSKER & MOORE LLC, Defendant, Cause No. 1:16-CV-366-TLS (N.D. Ind.), Judge Theresa L. Sprigmann of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division, granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. Spice, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, has brought the class action against Blatt, asserting a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"). The matter is before the Court on the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. The Plaintiff seeks to certify the class of all individuals in the State of Indiana to whom the Defendant sent, within one year before the date of the original complaint1 and in connection with the collection of a debt, a letter based upon the Template. The Template is defined as the form debt collection letter upon which the April 20, 2016 and April 21, 2016 letters that the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff are based, containing the language: As of the date of this letter, you owe [dollar amount]. The crux of the Plaintiff's argument is that the Defendant used this language for both consumer debts subject to the accrual of interest and those not subject to the interest accrual. The language in the Template, therefore, can be reasonably interpreted in multiple ways and thus violates the FDCPA. The Defendant is an entity that, in some instances and for some purposes, uses the mail and telephone to collect debts. The Plaintiff allegedly owed consumer debts to two creditors, neither of which are the Defendant. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant mailed three letters to her in an attempt to collect the debts, and these three letters form the basis of the Plaintiff's suit. The first letter involved a debt allegedly owed to a Midland Funding, LLC account number ending-0557 (MF-0557 Debt). The Defendant sent the Plaintiff a letter, dated April 20, 2016, which states: "As of the date of this letter, you owe $14,599.73." The second letter involved a debt allegedly owed to Bank of America, with an account number ending-3344 (BoA-3344 Debt). The Defendant sent the Plaintiff a letter, dated April 21, 2016, which states: "As of the date of this letter, you owe $33,230.90." The third letter involved another debt allegedly owed to Bank of America, with an account number ending-6122 (BoA- 6122 Debt). The Defendant sent the Plaintiff a letter, also dated April 21, 2016, which states: "As of the date of this letter, you owe $4,735.80. The Plaintiff was not the only person to receive this type of letter from the Defendant. During the proposed class period -- Oct. 18, 2015, through Oct. 18, 2016 -- the Defendant estimates that it mailed a letter based on the same template or form as the April 2016 letters to approximately 86,106 individuals within the proposed class definition. The Defendant possesses the names, addresses, and phone numbers of each potential member of the class as defined, and has agreed to preserve such information. The Defendant objects to class certification. First, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff is not an adequate class representative because she agreed to class action waiver provisions in the terms and conditions for two of the accounts at issue. Second, the Defendant maintains that the proposed class is not readily ascertainable and that each proposed class member is subject to differing arbitration and class action waiver provisions. Third, the Defendant argues that a class action is not a superior means of adjudicating the Plaintiff's FDCPA claim. Finally, the Defendant claims that the Plaintiff is not represented by adequate class counsel. Judge Springmann finds the Defendant's positions unpersuasive. She finds that (i) the arbitration agreements between the Plaintiff and Bank of America do not preclude her from representing the proposed class; (ii) the Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged an objectively identifiable class; and (iii) the Plaintiff has satisfied the requisite elements of Rule 23(a)(1)-(4), Rule 23(b)(3), and Rule 23(g). For these reasons, the Judge granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. She certified the class of all individuals in the State of Indiana to whom the Defendant sent -- between Oct. 18, 2015, and Oct. 18, 2016 -- in connection with the collection of a debt, a letter based upon the Template. The Template is defined as the form debt collection letter upon which the April 20, 2016, and April 21, 2016, letters that the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff are based, containing the language: As of the date of this letter, you owe [dollar amount]. The Judge appointed Thompson Consumer Law Group PLLC as the Class Counsel. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 24, 2018 Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/cmUFah from Leagle.com. Gloria Spice, on behalf of herself and all Others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph M. Panvini , Thompson Consumer Law Group PLLC & Russell S. Thompson, IV , Thompson Consumer Law Group PLLC. Blatt Hasenmiller Leibsker & Moore LLC, Defendant, represented by David M. Schultz , Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP & Jennifer J. Kalas , Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP. Gloria Spice, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph M. Panvini -- jpanvini@consumerlawinfo.com -- Thompson Consumer Law Group PLLC & Russell S. Thompson, IV -- rthompson@consumerlawinfo.com -- Thompson Consumer Law Group PLLC. Blatt Hasenmiller Leibsker & Moore LLC, Defendant, represented by David M. Schultz -- dschultz@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP & Jennifer J. Kalas -- jkalas@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP. BOISE, ID: Class Action Over Public Defense System Can Proceed -------------------------------------------------------------- Stephanie Hale-Lopez, writing for kivitv.com, reports that it's been three years since the American Civil Liberties Union of Idaho filed a lawsuit against the Gem State for inadequately funding its public defense system. Now, a district judge has ruled the case worthy of a class action lawsuit. The ACLU of Idaho says the state's public defense system is broken, and it took the state to court to prove it. "In Idaho, for years now, we've actually had an issue with regards to representation that we believe has been lacking in part, because of the inadequate resources from the state," said Leo Morales, Executive Director of ACLU of Idaho. Mr. Morales says there are too few public defenders and not enough funding or resources to ensure those who need a public defense are receiving adequate representation. "That's what it really falls down to," Mr. Morales said. "It's a sixth amendment right to counsel." Recently, a district judge ruled the lawsuit, originally filed in 2015, can move forward as a class action. The new status, experts explain, means more plaintiffs who say they've received deficient representation can be included in the lawsuit. "Once class certification happens, usually the next step is settlement," said Katherine Macfarlane, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Idaho. "So here, plaintiffs have more power than they ever have at any stage in this case." Ms. Macfarlane says this lawsuit has the possibility to enact sweeping reform in the state's public defense system. "There could be more money, there could be more attorneys, and there could be a little less county control," Ms. Macfarlane said. And for the ACLU of Idaho, that means an equal playing field for everyone. "Because the prosecutor's office is strong, we should also have a public defender office that also has the adequate resources to adequately defend their clients, as well," Mr. Morales said. Under the court's ruling, anyone in Idaho with a pending charge against them who cannot afford an attorney is now part of the class action. [GN] BOVET FLEURIER: Faces "Thorne" Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bovet Fleurier S.A. The case is styled as Braulio Thorne, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bovet Fleurier S.A. also known as: Bovet LLC a/k/a BOVET LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01107 (S.D. N.Y., February 7, 2018). Bovet Fleurier SA manufactures and markets clocks and watches.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Chaim Cohen, Esq. Daniel Cohen PLLC 407 Rockaway Avenue, 3rd Floor Brooklyn, NY 11212 Tel: (646) 645-8482 Email: dancohenlaw@gmail.com BREITLING USA: Faces "Thorne" Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Breitling U.S.A. Inc. The case is styled as Braulio Thorne, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Breitling U.S.A. Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01106 (S.D. N.Y., February 7, 2018). Breitling USA Inc. manufactures watches, clocks, watchcases, and parts.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. BUDGET RENT: Court Denies Further Class Discovery in "Benson" ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, PETER R. BENSON, Plaintiff, v. BUDGET RENT A CAR SYSTEM INC., et al., Defendants. ANNE HUMPHREYS, Plaintiff, v. BUDGET RENT A CAR SYSTEM INC., et al., Defendants, Civil Action Nos. 08-cv-4512, 10-cv-1302 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Lawrence F. Stengel of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied the Plaintiff's motion to permit further class discovery. The initial complaint was filed on Sept. 16, 2008, alleging that Budget Rent A Car overbills customers in Pennsylvania for damage to rental cars. On Nov. 20, 2008, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Discovery proceeded on both the class action claims and the Plaintiff's individual claims. On Oct. 15, 2010, prior to any class certification, the Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment and on Nov. 15, 2010 the Plaintiff filed opposition. During this time, Ann Humphreys, represented by the same counsel as Mr. Benson, filed a putative class action suit that also challenged Budget's method of calculating damages. The parties agreed to stay proceedings in the Humphreys matter pending the outcome of the Benson summary judgment motion. The parties also agreed that the outcome of the Benson summary judgment motion would apply to both cases. On Sept. 29, 2011, Judge Stengel issued an Order granting in part and denying in part Budget's motion. He granted summary judgment in favor of Budget on the reasonableness of using retail fair market value to calculate the pre-damage value of damaged rental cars, and denied summary judgment as to Budget's calculation of the loss of use charges. The Plaintiff's counsel disputed that the findings in the Benson summary judgment decision applied to the Humphreys case. Accordingly, on April 13, 2012, the Judge issued an order directing the parties to brief the application of the Benson decision to the Humphreys case as well as a choice of law issue. On April 30, 2012, the plaintiff in Humphreys filed a motion to amend the complaint along with her response to the April order. On March 4, 2013, the Judge granted the plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint. Extensive discovery proceeded in both Benson and Humphreys. The Plaintiff's counsel subsequently stated their intent to move for class certification in Benson. Following a telephone conference on April 7, 2015, Judge Stengel issued an order staying discovery in Benson pending resolution of class certification in Humphreys. The class discovery closed on July 10, 2015. On July 21, 2016, following an evidentiary hearing and oral argument, the Judge issued an Order denying class certification because the Plaintiff failed to demonstrate the commonality requirement of Rule 23 and because the proposed nationwide class would not be manageable. The Plaintiff now moves to lift the discovery stay in Benson and permit class discovery. Judge Stengel finds that additional class discovery is not warranted. Initially, certification in Benson is precluded for the same reasons he denied certification in Humphreys: because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the commonality requirement of Rule 23. He disagrees with the Plaintiff's argument that the choice of law variations that precluded certification in Humphreys simply do not exist in Benson because the proposed class is defined as all Pennsylvania consumers, who received demand letters from [defendants], relating to damage to Budget rental vehicles. As the Defendant aptly points out, there is no limitation in the Plaintiff's class definitions as to the state in which the rental (or the property damage) occurred. The Judge would be obliged to undertake the choice of law analysis numerous times prior to certifying the class, which defeats the commonality prong of the certification analysis. What is more, extensive and burdensome discovery has taken place in both Benson and Humphreys. To permit class discovery at this stage in the litigation would result in a fishing expedition that would create an enormous cost to the Defendant, and would not change the outcome of the Plaintiff's proposed class certification. Accordingly, Judge Stengel denied the Plaintiff's motion to permit further class discovery. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 24, 2018 Memorandum is available at https://is.gd/YZsRrt from Leagle.com. ANNE HUMPHREYS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by ANN MILLER, Law Office of Ann Miller, ARTHUR STOCK -- astock@bm.net -- BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C., DANIEL M. HARRIS -- daniel.harris@floydskerenlaw.com -- THE LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL HARRIS, SHOSHANA MICHELLE SAVETT -- stsavett@bm.net -- BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. & TODD S. COLLINS -- tcollins@bm.net -- BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. BUDGET RENT A CAR SYSTEM, INC. & VIKING COLLECTION SERVICE, INC., Defendants, represented by BRIDGET E. MONTGOMERY -- bmontgomery@eckertseamans.com -- ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC, ADAM M. SHIENVOLD -- ashienvold@eckertseamans.com -- ECKERT SEAMANS, CAROL L. PRESS -- cpress@eckertseamans.com -- ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT LLC, DAVID J. SCHERTZ, ECKERT SEAMANS & RYAN LEE STAUFFER, ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT. CANADA: Court Approves Hepatitis C Class Action Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------- A decades-long fight to compensate thousands of Canadians who were infected with hepatitis C from receiving blood transfusions or blood products between January 1, 1986 and July 1, 1990 is entering the final chapter in the search for claimants who have yet to come forward. The Courts have recently approved a compensation plan providing for approximately $40 million to be distributed to eligible victims who did not claim before the initial deadline -- the original settlement program was approved in 1999 -- due to matters beyond their control or where there is otherwise a reasonable explanation for their delay. Anyone who believes they or a member of their family contracted hepatitis C from receiving blood or blood products in Canada during this period are encouraged to visit www.HepCclassaction.ca to find out more about the application process. "Our goal is to ensure that all eligible victims are compensated," said Kathryn Podrebarac, one of the lawyers who sits on the Joint Committee which oversees the administration of the 1986-1990 Hepatitis C Settlement Agreement. "We will guide them on the steps they need to take to start the application process, because the sooner they do this, the sooner they can collect any compensation they may be entitled to." This settlement provides compensation tailored to the victim's circumstances. Victims may be entitled to initial compensation ranging from $14,600 to $329,000, tax-free, and possibly additional compensation depending on their health and circumstances. Hepatitis C is a progressive chronic disease that attacks liver cells and causes liver inflammation. A person infected with hepatitis C may not have symptoms for decades, and the virus may be transmitted from human to human. The most common symptoms linked to the hepatitis C virus are: -- Fever -- Fatigue -- Joint pain -- Dark urine -- Light stools -- Abdominal pains -- Loss of appetite -- Nausea and vomiting -- Jaundice (yellowing of the skin and eyes) Anyone concerned about hepatitis C should consult their doctor. Potential claimants are urged to visit www.HepCclassaction.ca or call 1-866-353-4003 for additional information about the application process and the compensation available. Claimants have until March 31, 2025 to begin the application process. For further information: For media inquiries: Vasiliki Zobolas, vzobolas@argylepr.com, 416-968-7311 ext. 233; Marie-Pier Cìte, mpcote@tactconseil.ca, 418-529-3223 ext. 236 [GN] CANADA: More Former Indian Hospital Patients Expected to Show Up ---------------------------------------------------------------- Andrea Huncar, writing for CBC News, reports that a Sherwood Park lawyer leading a $1.1 billion class action lawsuit says he expects to hear from thousands of former patients of so-called "Indian hospitals," including one in Edmonton, as allegations of medical experimentation emerge. "What we have heard is absolutely horrifying," said Steve Cooper -- steve.cooper@masuchalbertlaw.com -- of the Sherwood Park, Alta.-based firm Masuch Albert LLP, "Children being disciplined by being placed in full body casts -- not as a matter of medical need but in order for the staff to be able to control children who are a long ways from their parents." Other allegations include surgeries performed on children without parental consent, physical and sexual abuse, medical negligence, and even medical experimentation -- something they're just beginning to look into. "I have heard, but not investigated, nutrition experiments," said Mr. Cooper, who was part of the committee that helped negotiate the $5-billion national residential school settlement in 2006. "Denying certain vitamins or other dietary components to see the effect. I suspect other so-called experiments will come out in the fullness of time." Mr. Cooper's firm filed the lawsuit in conjunction with Toronto- based firm Koskie Minsky LLP on Jan. 26. "We believe this class is in the thousands," said Mr. Cooper, noting Edmonton's former Charles Camsell Indian Hospital operated for decades. "And that's one hospital amongst 29 that we know of and there could be more." Danielle Metcalfe-Chenail, who is writing a book about the Camsell, said the facility increasingly functioned as a segregated hospital for Indigenous patients while under federal jurisdiction between the late 1940s to 1960s. Often admitted with tuberculosis, patients stayed up to three years because the main treatment was a "rest cure," she said. Many were isolated from their families, culture and language. Non-Indigenous veterans were treated at the Camsell in its earliest years just after the Second World War, said Metcalfe- Chenail. The hospital was opened to the general population in the late 1960s when the province took over operations and built a second building, which has been closed as a hospital for years but is under redevelopment. Even as a student of Indigenous history and colonialism in Canada, Metcalfe-Chenail said she only began learning about Indigenous hospitals a few years ago, after meeting former patients while collecting stories about the Camsell, including Ann Hardy, one of the chief complainants in the lawsuit. "Unfortunately in Canada it's taken lawsuits like this to shine a light on these dark corners of our history," said Metcalfe- Chenail. "And so it's through these kinds of actions that we get it into the curriculum, we get it on the media, and that people start paying attention." [GN] CANADA: WRPS Superintendent Named in Class Action Retires --------------------------------------------------------- CBC News reports that a senior Waterloo police officer named in an affidavit, as part of a proposed multi-million dollar class- action lawsuit, retired on Jan. 31. Waterloo Regional Police Service superintendent Pat Dietrich said "I will have retired as of January 31, 2018," on his work voicemail. An automated email response from his account also states "I have retired from the Waterloo Regional Police Service." Mr. Dietrich's name is mentioned in an affidavit filed for a proposed class action lawsuit against the Waterloo region police force. Two women filed the lawsuit in May 2017 claiming they experienced "systemic and institutional gender-based discrimination and harassment, sexual harassment and sexual assault," on the job. The women -- a former constable and a current officer with the force on leave -- are seeking $100 million for general and aggravated damages and $50 million for exemplary damages. As part of the same suit, the families of the officers are seeking damages of $17 million, bringing the total to $167 million. Mr. Dietrich is named in the affidavit submitted by Sgt. Karin Eder, who alleges Dietrich sent her a photo of his penis and asked her for a naked photo in return. None of the allegations against Dietrich and other officers have been proven in court and the proposed class-action lawsuit has not been certified. CBC News reached out to Dietrich for comment, but he did not respond. [GN] CANADA: RCMP Harassment Claims Filing Deadline Set -------------------------------------------------- Rachel Houlihan and Dave Seglins, writing for CBC News, report that when Jessica joined the RCMP two decades ago, she was proud to begin a career as an IT specialist with Canada's highly esteemed national police force. "My hopes were to have a successful career to advance in my career path . . . and experience different types of jobs throughout the RCMP," said Jessica (not her real name). But she said that in 2011 she was forced to take stress leave for depression and anxiety after enduring innuendo, unwanted groping and sexual advances on the job. "I had a supervisor grab me and [he] kissed me. He wanted to engage in a lot more than that and I refused," Jessica told CBC News. "I loved the work I was doing, but the relationship with the supervisor was very difficult because I refused the advances. There was then bullying and intimidation and [him] mocking me in front of people. And that went on for many years." CBC has agreed to not reveal her identity because she fears retaliation from former colleagues. Jessica has never even told her closest friends or family about her experiences. But she's been paying close attention to recent allegations from women who've come forward to expose sexual harassment in the entertainment industry and politics. After much hesitation, she decided to come forward about her experiences at the RCMP, just one in a recent wave of women to file claims for compensation from the RCMP in numbers that are ballooning beyond anyone's expectations. "A lot of stories are coming out in the #MeToo movement," Jessica said. "I started thinking about it and it took me probably six, seven months of slowly taking some notes of things I was remembering to finally come forward." 'All hands on deck' In 2016, the RCMP delivered a formal apology to female RCMP members and committed to a range of anti-harassment training and enforcement as part of a settlement in two class-action lawsuits. After a judge approved a plan last spring to settle a class- action lawsuit on behalf of female RCMP officers, the federal government originally set aside $100 million for compensation. The court set a filing deadline of Feb. 8. This is the first gender harassment class-action settlement in Canada. Officials predicted between a few hundred and 1,500 female RCMP employees might file claims for gender discrimination and sexual harassment dating back to the 1970s. It's been "all hands on deck" at the offices of lawyers assisting claimants, said Megan McPhee, a Toronto-based lawyer who represents one of two former RCMP officers who launched the class action. Ms. McPhee said there are approximately 2,400 claimants right now and said she "wouldn't be surprised" if it was 3,000 or 4,000 by the time the process was completed. "I think that what we're really seeing is there's been a change in the environment since this settlement was first negotiated," Ms. McPhee said. "The discussions about Harvey Weinstein and the Hollywood coverage, the surge in the #MeToo movement and the changing conversation has prompted a lot of women to think long and hard about their experience and to think about sharing that experience." David Klein, the B.C. lawyer who represents the second plaintiff in the class-action said "the new awareness is assisting women in coming to grips with what happened and speaking out about it and making claims." Many women inside the RCMP have long feared retaliation and workplace reprisals. But according to these lawyers, claimants now coming forward allege a wide range of workplace abuses, from name-calling and bullying to discrimination and denial of promotion to sexual assault. As many as 20,000 women who worked at the RCMP between 1974 and 2017 are eligible to file claims. The lawyers say approximately half of the current claims submitted have been filed by women who still work at the RCMP. 100-day extension? With the February filing deadline looming, lawyers are scrambling to process the high volume of claims. They are now asking the federal court for a 100-day extension to allow any women who register by the deadline more time to complete their submission, a proposal supported by the Crown. Ms. McPhee said the claims process takes considerable time and can be emotional and even traumatic for some women who have only recently decided to come forward. "Some of [the women] are suffering from PTSD. As they relive these issues, they're having to seek psychiatric support. And so it's taken a lot longer than any of us had anticipated to go through and to file these claims," Ms. McPhee said. The federal government said there is no cap on its compensation fund, and that it is prepared to cover costs even if the number of claims winds up being double or triple the original estimates. "Every claimant who is determined by the Independent Assessor to be eligible for compensation will receive the amount they are entitled to," said Andrew Gower, spokesperson for Public Safety Canada, in an email to CBC News. "If, in the future, it is determined that additional funds will be required to continue to meet this important obligation, the necessary steps will be taken to allocate the appropriate amount of additional resources." For Jessica, filing her claim is about seeking recognition for a derailed career. "It was important to me to do that. First of all, for me to heal. I'm not doing this for the money. I'm no longer in that environment, but . . . it's still inside me, bottled up . . . so many things I've never told anyone." [GN] CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Faces "Shabazz" Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capital Management Services, L.P. The case is styled as Yaasmiyn Shabazz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Capital Management Services, L.P. and John Does l- 25, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01079 (S.D. N.Y., February 7, 2018). Capital Management Services L.P. is a nationally licensed and recognized collections agency, providing delinquent receivables resolution.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. CENTRAIS ELECTRICAS: To Settle U.S. Suits Before Privatization -------------------------------------------------------------- Marcelo Teixeira, writing for Reuters, reports that Brazil's state-controlled power company Eletrobras aims to settle U.S. class action lawsuits before it begins what is expected to be the country's largest privatization in almost two decades, Chief Executive Wilson Ferreira Jr said on Jan. 31. Investors in the United States have sued Centrais Eletricas Brasileiras SA (Eletrobras) after the company reported large losses related to a sprawling corruption scandal in Brazil. "Over the course of the lawsuits, settlement initiatives could arise, and we are willing to evaluate each one of them," he told Reuters in an interview. The company, which is on a list of assets the Brazilian government has decided to sell, says it has also been the victim of wrongdoing and that it is collaborating with U.S. prosecutors. Mr. Ferreira said Eletrobras has held talks with the U.S. Department of Justice, the Securities and Exchanges Commission (SEC) and investors, but he declined to say whether the company would accept a deal that includes a cash payment. The Brazilian government plans to privatize the company in the second half of the year in what is likely to be Brazil's largest privatization in almost 20 years. New Eletrobras shares will be issued to investors in a transaction that will result in the government losing a majority stake. Ferreira said the Brazilian government expects to eliminate some legal hurdles for the privatization in coming days. The rules for the privatization are contained in a draft bill the government has sent to Congress. Investors fear lawmakers will make changes that could reduce interest in the firm, such as leaving some subsidiaries out of the privatization. Congressman Jose Carlos Aleluia, from Bahia state, has insisted that subsidiary Chesf, which has a strong presence in the politically influential Northeast region, remain out of the privatization. Mr. Ferreira refuted that. "There is no sense on that, these assets have synergies," he said, adding that reaction against the bill was natural given the company's long history in the public sector. Ferreira, who was appointed Eletrobras CEO in 2016 after years in charge of power company CPFL Energia, said he would remain in the post if the new controlling shareholders ask him to after privatization. [GN] CHICAGO, IL: Strip Search Settlement Payout Disappointing --------------------------------------------------------- Mary Mitchell, writing for Chicago Sun Times, reports that Orlando Cajigas, 53, waited nearly a decade for his piece of a class-action settlement pie. Checks went out to individuals jailed between Jan. 30, 2004, and March 2009, that were stripped-searched at Cook County Jail and had filed a claim. Mr. Cajigas' check landed in the mailbox on Jan. 29. But if the people subjected to the humiliating searches expected a windfall, they were sorely disappointed. Of the $55 million settlement the Cook County Board of Commissioners and its insurers agreed to pay in 2010, the amount going to the individuals who were violated is a pittance. Mr. Cajigas' check was $300 and some change. "I went back to the bank and cashed it and was able to buy some groceries," he said. Mr. Cajigas, who is disabled, spent $56 on two bags of groceries. He was hauling them home in the cold when I reached him on Jan. 31. "I could have paid off a bill or two, but it wasn't enough money to even do that," he told me. Mr. Cajigas still remembers the humiliation of being butt naked while guards searched the detainees in a group. "All these years I've been waiting, and I get a $300 check. That's ridiculous. It should have been more," he said. A spokesman for Loevy & Loevy declined to comment on the settlement distribution, citing a "confidentiality" agreement, but acknowledged Cajigas' check stemmed from the strip-search settlement. "There is a website, cookcountystripsearch.com, and that has all the documents, and all the answers about how much is getting distributed," the spokesman said. This is a complicated settlement, so bear with me. Besides winning a record-breaking $55 million settlement over strip searches, Mr. Loevy also sued a number of the county's insurers for fraud in state court. The civil rights firm was able to negotiate a settlement in that case, which netted a $52 million payment by the insurers. Of that amount, $32,500,000 was allocated to the class; the rest was to go to the county and the State of Illinois, according to an order by District Court Judge Matthew F. Kennelly. "Class Counsel has now secured $87.5 million for the Class," lawyers said in "Plaintiffs Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Incentive Awards," one of several legal documents posted on the cookcountystripsearch.com website. The court awarded the firm one-third of the common fund for fees. The check Mr. Cajigas received represents a "pro rata portion of the $32,500,000 million court award, after deducting court awarded fees and expenses of attorneys and incentive awards to the class representatives," according to the website. Payments will be made in two distributions. "This is hardly, in other words, a case where class members receive scraps for their injuries while the attorneys get some kind of windfall," Mr. Loevy argued in the motion. A decade ago, Mr. Cajigas was getting arrested regularly. "I was going back and forth to County Jail every two weeks," he said. That's a lot of strip searches. His mother was the one who notified him that there was a class- action lawsuit being filed against the county over the illegal strip searches. Although he's no longer getting in trouble with the law, he's still struggling to survive. "I thought I was going to get $400,000. Thirty-two million divided by 70,000 people is a lot more than $300," he said. There's no question that the stellar civil rights law firm did a heck of a job. Mr. Cajigas was glad to get the $300 bucks. Nonetheless, to the people whose rights and dignity were violated, the payout disparity in class action suits is as wide as the gap between a CEO's compensation and the paychecks handed out to worker bees. We accept it. But it doesn't feel right. [GN] CHICAGO BRIDGE: Monteverde & Associates Files Class Action Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Notice is hereby given that Monteverde & Associates PC has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for The Southern District Of Texas Houston Division, case no. 4:18- cv-00273, on behalf of stockholders of Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. ("CB&I" or the "Company") (NYSE: CBI) who held CB&I securities and have been harmed by CB&I and its board of directors' (the "Board") for alleged violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act"), 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78n(a) and 78t(a) respectively, and United States Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 14a-9, 17 C.F.R. Sec. 240.14a-9 in connection with acquisition of CB&I by McDermott International, Inc. ("McDermott") through a merger transaction as alleged in detail herein (the "Proposed Transaction"). Under the terms of the agreement, CB&I stockholders will receive 2.47221 shares of McDermott common stock in exchange for each share of CB&I they own (the "Merger Consideration"). The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement Form S-4 (the "S-4") contains materially incomplete and misleading information concerning: (i) financial projections for CB&I; (ii) financial projections for McDermott; (iii) financial projections for the operating synergies projected to result from the Proposed Transaction (the "Synergies"); (iv) the valuation analyses performed by the CB&I's financial advisor, Centerview Partners LLC ("Centerview"), in support of their fairness opinions; (v) the valuation analyses performed by the McDermott's financial advisors, Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC ("Goldman Sachs") and Greenhill & Co., LLC ("Greenhill," and together with Goldman Sachs "McDermott's Financial Advisors"), in support of their fairness opinions; and (vi) the background process leading to the Proposed Transaction. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from today. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. If you wish to discuss this action, or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact: Monteverde & Associates PC is a boutique class action securities and consumer litigation law firm committed that has recovered millions of dollars and is committed to protecting shareholders and consumers from corporate wrongdoing. Monteverde & Associates PC lawyers have significant experience litigating Mergers & Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions, whereby they protect investors by recovering money and remedying corporate misconduct. Mr. Monteverde, who leads the legal team at the firm, has been recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities Litigation in 2013 and 2017, an award given to less than 2.5% of attorneys in a particular field. He has also been selected by Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017 Top Rated Lawyer. Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC Tel: (212) 971-1341 Email: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com [GN] CIVEO CORP: Monteverde & Associates Files Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ Monteverde & Associates PC on Jan. 31 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for The Southern District of Texas Houston Division, case no. 4:18- cv-0259, on behalf of shareholders of Civeo Corporation, ("Civeo" or the "Company") (NYSE: CVEO) who held Civeo securities and have been harmed by Civeo and its board of directors' (the "Board") for alleged violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act"), 15 U.S,C. Sec 78n(a) and 78t(a) respectively, and United States Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 14a-9, 17 C.F.R. Sec. 240.14a-9 in connection with acquisition of Noralta Lodge Ltd. ("Noralta") by Civeo through a merger transaction as alleged in detail herein ("Proposed Transaction"). The complaint alleges that the Merger Consideration appears excessive, and the process by which Defendants agreed to consummate the Proposed Transaction is fundamentally unfair to Plaintiff and Civeo's other public stockholders. In particular, the 14A contains materially incomplete and misleading information concerning: (i) financial projections for the Company, Noralta, and the synergies expected to result from the Proposed Transaction; (ii) the valuation analyses conducted by the Company's financial advisor, Lazard Fräres & Co. LLC ("Lazard"); and (iii) the background process leading up to the Proposed Transaction. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from January 31, 2018. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. If you wish to discuss this action, or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact: Click here for more information: www.monteverdelaw.com/investigations/m-a/ It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. Monteverde & Associates PC is a boutique class action securities and consumer litigation law firm committed that has recovered millions of dollars and is committed to protecting shareholders and consumers from corporate wrongdoing. Monteverde & Associates PC lawyers have significant experience litigating Mergers & Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions, whereby they protect investors by recovering money and remedying corporate misconduct. Mr. Monteverde, who leads the legal team at the firm, has been recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities Litigation in 2013 and 2017, an award given to less than 2.5% of attorneys in a particular field. He has also been selected by Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017 Top Rated Lawyer. [GN] CLEVELAND PUBLIC: Class Action Lawsuit Moves Forward ---------------------------------------------------- Joe Pagonakis, writing for News5 Cleveland, reports that the class action lawsuit filed against Cleveland Public Power, claiming the public utility charged millions in unsubstantiated environmental charges, from 2007 to 2017, continues to move forward. Attorney Jack Landskroner, Esq. who filed the lawsuit on behalf of more than 80,000 CPP customers, said notices went out to consumers, and the next step is the court's determination on summary judgment in two weeks. Landskroner told News 5 the court has to make rulings on issues of law, to interpret what the Cleveland codified ordinance allows CPP to do in billing customers. "In a day and age where transparency should reign supreme, we have a utility saying we can charge what we want, when we want," said Landskroner. "The lawsuit states Cleveland Public Power improperly and illegally charged, consumers within their bills, that wasn't disclosed, and was in violation of city ordinance." Landskroner told News consumers getting notices on the lawsuit need to do nothing if they want to be part of the lawsuit, and only fill-out and return the post card if they wish to opt out. News 5 made 4 request to CPP for on-camera interviews on the controversial energy adjustment charge in the past 8 months, but all of our request were denied. CPP instead issued the following statement: "The Energy Adjustment Charge reflects Cleveland Public Power's cost of energy and transmission. CPP's energy and transmission costs rise annually. Base rates, which cover distribution-related costs, on the other hand, have remained unchanged for more than 20 years. Since there is on-going litigation, we cannot comment further at this time. " [GN] CLOVERLEAF COLD: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------- Louie Torres, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a woman has filed a class action suit against Cloverleaf Cold Storage Co. for alleged unpaid wages, violation of state and federal law and violation of workers' compensation acts. Whitney Edwards filed a complaint on Jan. 3 in Cook County Circuit Court, alleging she worked as the defendant's employee and was paid at the rate of $14.02 per hour, but was not paid any vacation pay. The plaintiff holds the defendant responsible for allegedly failing to pay her and other workers like her for all vacation time earned. The plaintiff seeks to enjoin the defendant, the monetary equivalent of all costs deducted from her, statutory damages, all deductions made from her, court costs and any further relief this court grants. She is represented by Alvar Ayala and Christopher J. Williams of Workers' Law Office PC in Chicago. Cook County Circuit Court case number 2018CH00071 [GN] CONSUMER ADVOCACY: Jackson Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls, SMSs ----------------------------------------------------------------- Gerard Jackson, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Consumer Advocacy Center, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00146, (M.D. Pa., January 19, 2018), seeks statutory damages and any other legal or equitable relief under the Telephone Consumers Protection Act and the Pennsylvania Telemarketer Registration Act. Consumer Advocacy sells student loans nationwide and promotes this via telemarketing that includes autodialing equipment, prerecorded messages and text messaging. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen P. DeNittis, Esq. Ross H. Schmierer, Esq. DENITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C. 1515 Market Street, Suite 1200 Philadelphia PA 19102 Tel: (215) 564-1721 Email: sdenittis@denittislaw.com CREDENCE RESOURCE: Morris Sues Over Illegal Collection Calls ------------------------------------------------------------ Florence Morris, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Credence Resource Management, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00132, (S.D. Cal., January 19, 2018), seeks damages and other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from willfully contacting Plaintiff on his cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy. Plaintiff allegedly fell behind in the payments allegedly owed on the alleged debt to Credence. Plaintiff retained the services of the Law Office of Daniel G. Shay who then transmitted a Letter of Representation which indicated that Defendant was to cease all communications with Plaintiff, demanding all future communications with regard to Plaintiffs' account be sent and directed directly to DGS's office only. Despite this, Credence continued to contact Morris, says the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Matthew M. Loker, Esq. Elizabeth Wagner, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 Email: ak@kazlg.com ml@kazlg.com elizabeth@kazlg.com - and - Joshua Swigart, Esq. HYDE AND SWIGART 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 233-7770 Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 to 26 Email: Josh@westcoastlitigation.com - and - Daniel G. Shay, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL G. SHAY 409 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101B San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 222-7429 Facsimile: (866) 431-3292 Email: danielshay@tcpafdcpa.com CSC SERVICE: Faces D.S. Ridgeside Suit in M.D. Tennessee -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against CSC Service Works, Inc. The case is styled as D.S. Ridgeside, Inc., Brendon Park Associates, LLC, D.S. Poplar Village, Inc., Windover DE, LLC and South Wind Apartments, LLC, individually and on behalf of all similarly-situated, Plaintiffs v. CSC Service Works, Inc., individually and as successor to Coinmach Corporation, Mac-Gray Services, Inc. and Mac-Gray Services, LLC, as a subsidiary of Coinmach Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00126 (M.D. Tenn., February 7, 2018). CSC ServiceWorks is a provider of home and commercial laundry solutions as well as tire inflation and vacuum vending services at stores and gas stations nationwide.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joshua L. Burgener, Esq. Dickinson Wright PLLC (Nashville Office) 424 Church Street, Suite 800 Nashville, TN 37219 Tel: (615) 244-6538 Fax: (615) 254-1878 Email: jburgener@dickinsonwright.com - and - Judith E. Beasley, Esq. Freeman Webb, Inc. 555 Great Circle Road, Suite 100 Nashville, TN 37228 Tel: (615) 271-2716 Fax: (615) 726-1937 Email: judy.beasley@freemanwebb.com - and - Martin D. Holmes, Esq. Dickinson Wright PLLC (Nashville Office) 424 Church Street, Suite 800 Nashville, TN 37219 Tel: (615) 244-6538 Email: mdholmes@dickinsonwright.com - and - Morris Reid Estes, Jr., Esq. Dickinson Wright PLLC Fifth Third Center 424 Church Street, Suite 1401 Nashville, TN 37219-2392 Tel: (615) 244-6538 Email: restes@dickinsonwright.com DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: D.C. Circuit Appeal Filed in "DL" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiffs Leah Bland, DL, Frederick Davy, Monica Davy, FD, Tameka Ford, HW, JB, Timothy Lantry, Arlette Mankemi, Angelique Moore, Kerianne Piester, TF, TL, Ronald Wisor, XY, Bryan Young and Tammika Young filed an appeal from a District Court decision entered in their lawsuit entitled DL, et al. v. District of Columbia, et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-01437-RCL, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case, originally filed in 2005, was brought by the parents of preschool age children with various disabilities, who tried to obtain special education services from the District of Columbia Public Schools, alleging violations of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), the Rehabilitation Act, and District of Columbia law, which require that the District offer a free and appropriate public education to disabled children. The Plaintiffs alleged numerous knowing, pervasive, and systemic failures to comply with the "Child Find" requirement. The Plaintiffs ultimately brought claims related to four subclasses: (i) disabled three-to-five-year-olds whom the District failed to identify for the purpose of offering special education services; (ii) disabled three-to-five-year-olds whom the District failed to give an initial evaluation within 120 days of being referred for special education services; (iii) disabled three-to-five-year- olds whom the District failed to give an eligibility determination -- i.e., a decision as to whether they qualify for IDEA services -- within 120 days of being referred; and (iv) all children who transitioned from early intervention to preschool programs, and whom the District denied a smooth transition by age three. The appellate case is captioned as DL, et al. v. District of Columbia, et al., Case No. 18-7004, in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- APPELLANT docketing statement is due on February 16, 2018; -- APPELLANT certificate as to parties is due on February 16, 2018; -- APPELLANT statement of issues is due on February 16, 2018; -- APPELLANT underlying decision is due on February 16, 2018; -- APPELLANT deferred appendix statement is due on February 16, 2018; -- APPELLANT notice of appearance is due on February 16, 2018; -- APPELLANT transcript status report is due on February 16, 2018; -- APPELLANT procedural motions are due on February 16, 2018; -- APPELLANT dispositive motions are due on March 5, 2018; -- APPELLEE certificate as to parties is due on February 16, 2018; -- APPELLEE entry of appearance is due on February 16, 2018; -- APPELLEE procedural motions are due on February 16, 2018; and -- APPELLEE dispositive motions are due on March 5, 2018.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants DL; Tameka Ford, Parent and Next Friend of D.L.; JB; Leah Bland, Parent and Next Friend of JB; FD; Frederick Davy, Parent and Next Friend of FD; Monica Davy, Parent and Next Friend of FD; TF; and Angelique Moore, Parent and Next Friend of TF - On their own behalf and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals; HW; Timothy Lantry; Arlette Mankemi; Kerianne Piester; TL; Ronald Wisor; XY; Bryan Young; and Tammika Young are represented by: Todd Gluckman, Esq. Kathleen L. Millian, Esq. Carolyn Smith Pravlik, Esq. TERRIS, PRAVLIK & MILLIAN, LLP 1816 12th Street, NW, Suite 303 Washington, DC 20009-4422 Telephone: (202) 682-2100 E-mail: tgluckman@tpmlaw.com kmillian@tpmlaw.com cpravlik@tpmlaw.com - and - Cyrus Mehri, Esq. MEHRI & SKALET, PLLC 1250 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 822-5100 E-mail: cmehri@findjustice.com Plaintiffs-Appellants DL; Tameka Ford, Parent and Next Friend of D.L.; JB; Leah Bland, Parent and Next Friend of JB; FD; Frederick Davy, Parent and Next Friend of FD; Monica Davy, Parent and Next Friend of FD; TF; and Angelique Moore, Parent and Next Friend of TF - On their own behalf and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, are represented by: Margaret A. Kohn, Esq. MARGARET A. KOHN, ATTORNEY AT LAW 619 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE, 2nd Floor Washington, DC 20003 Telephone: (202) 544-1200 E-mail: Margaret.Kohn07@gmail.com Defendants-Appellees District of Columbia, A Municipal Corporation; Michelle Rhee, Chancellor; and Deborah Gist, District of Columbia State Superintendent of Education, are represented by: Loren L. AliKhan, Esq. DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 441 4th Street, NW One Judiciary Square, Sixth Floor Washington, DC 20001-2714 Telephone: (202) 727-3400 E-mail: loren.alikhan@dc.gov DNB: Norway's Consumer Council to Appeal Class Action Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------ Terje Solsvik, writing for Reuters, reports that Norway's Consumer Council will appeal against a court ruling which found that banking group DNB did not overcharge customers who invested in its funds, the watchdog said in a statement on Feb. 1. The council had sought to reclaim 690 million crowns on behalf of 180,000 DNB customers who had placed money in three funds between January 2010 and December 2014, in what had been billed as a class action test case. DNB Asset Management was alleged to have charged customers for actively managing the funds, while in reality simply tracking a stock market index, a claim DNB denied. [GN] DUKE UNIVERSITY: Antitrust Lawsuit Can Proceed as Class-Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Ray Gronberg, writing for The Herald Sun, reports that if a former Duke University radiology professor wins her anti-trust lawsuit against the school, all the medical school professors at Duke and UNC-Chapel Hill may receive compensation for damages. U.S. District Court Judge Catherine Eagles ruled February 1 that radiologist Danielle Seaman's case against Duke can proceed as a class-action lawsuit on behalf of anyone on faculty who's held an "academic appointment" in the Duke or UNC medical schools from Jan. 1, 2012, to the present day. Eagles ruled out including non-faculty physicians at Duke or UNC, or the nurses and "other skilled medical staff" Seaman and her lawyers wanted to also represent. Their inclusion would "make it very difficult" to manage the case and might confuse a jury, the judge said. Moreover, the case is "substantially weaker" that non-faculty employees at the medical schools suffered from the alleged hiring collusion between the universities that Seaman claims limits opportunities to swap a job on one campus for a job at the other, Eagles said. Even with their exclusion, class-action status will entitle Seaman and her San Francisco-based lawyers to speak for about 5,649 Duke and UNC professors who might have had their salaries depressed if the medical schools actually tried to restrict the so-called lateral movement of faculty, Eagles said. The judge's ruling February 1 was the latest development in a lawsuit that's been pending since 2015 and began after Seaman lost out on a chance to move from Duke to UNC. An administrator at the UNC School of Medicine later emailed her to say he couldn't give her a job because "lateral moves between Duke and UNC are not permitted" thanks to an agreement between their medical deans. Lateral moves are job switches into same- rank positions, for instance a move from an assistant professor's post at Duke into an assistant professorship at UNC. The dean of UNC's medical school, Bill Roper, last year told lawyers he'd urged subordinates with hiring authority to avoid "engaging in what I would view as a hostile, unneighborly behavior" toward Duke. And he admitted having urged former Duke Chancellor for Health Affairs Victor Dzau to consider formalizing "some kind of understanding between us about the movement of faculty." But Roper denied that there was a formal agreement or policy on the matter at UNC, and told lawyers that Dzau ultimately told him people on Duke's side "just don't think that's something we ought to enter into." Seaman's lawyers eventually negotiated an out-of-court settlement with UNC-CH that bars it from colluding with anyone to suppress the competition for labor, and that requires it to train senior administrators on the relevant points of federal anti-trust law. Duke's lawyers, meanwhile, are poised to deny any wrongdoing by the Durham institution. A former dean of the Duke School of Medicine, Nancy Andrews, has told Eagles she's unaware of any lid on the school's hiring people from UNC. But Seaman and her attorneys contend the absence of a formal agreement between the schools masks under-the-table practices that amount to the same thing. They'd argued that any collusion affecting faculty hirings would also have spillover effects up and down the payroll, as medical professors typically assemble regular teams of nurses and other personnel to support their work. When the leading faculty member switches jobs, the rest of the team often comes along and benefits from increased pay, the lawyers claimed. Eagles, however, said the argument depends on "several inferences-on-inferences" and raises the possibility "that the strength of the faculty claim or the weakness of the non-faculty claims might tend to bleed over to the other [in] the jury's mind." That would create "a real potential for unfairness" to professors and to Duke, she said. In a footnote, Eagles also signaled that Duke wouldn't necessarily win by pointing to examples of successful hiring raids on the UNC faculty -- a strategy the university's lawyers have already deployed. Seaman's case "does not require her to prove that the movement of every faculty member was restrained," the judge said as she analyzed the merits of giving the lawsuit class-action status. [GN] ENTELLUS MEDICAL: "Horstman" Suit Alleges Exchange Act Violation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pete Horstman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Entellus Medical, Inc., John K. Bakewell, Joshua Baltzell, Brian E. Farley, Shawn T. McCormick, David S. Milne, Guido Neels, James Momtazee, Duke Rohlen, Robert S. White, Explorer Merger Sub Corp., and Stryker Corporation, Case No. 18- cv-00109 (D. Minn., January 16, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising out of the Board's attempt to sell the Company to Stryker Corporation through its wholly-owned subsidiary Explorer Merger Sub Corp. Plaintiff Pete Horstman is the owner of shares of common stock of Entellus. Defendant Entellus is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware. The Company's principal executive offices are located at 3600 Holly Lane North, Suite 40, Plymouth, Minnesota 55447. Entellus common stock trades on NASDAQ under the ticker symbol "ENTL." Entellus develops products for treating ear, nose and throat issues such as sinusitis, nasal airway obstruction and Eustachian tube dysfunction. Individual Defendants are board members of Entellus. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregg M. Fishbein, Esq. Richard A. Lockridge, Esq. Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis. MN 55401-2159 Tel: (612) 339-6900 Fax: (612) 339-0981 E-mail: gmfishbein@locklaw.com ralockridge@locklaw.com kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com - and - Shane T. Rowley, Esq. Danielle Rowland Lindahl, Esq. ROWLEY LAW PLLC 50 Main Street, Suite 1000 White Plains, NY 10606 Tel: (914) 400-1920 Fax: (914) 301-3514 EQUIFAX INC: Invasion of Privacy Class-Action Proceeds in Ontario ----------------------------------------------------------------- Greg Meckbach, writing for the Canadian Underwriter, reports that a class-action lawsuit arising from last year's Equifax cyber breach is proceeding in Ontario on the basis of a new invasion- of-privacy tort that has caught the eye of Canada's property and casualty insurers because it allows courts to award damages even when no economic loss is proven. In a ruling released Jan. 24, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled that law firm Sotos can proceed with a class action against Equifax Inc. and Equifax Canada Co. The representative plaintiffs are Bethany Agnew-Americano and a "Jane Doe" plaintiff who is requesting anonymity from the court because of the sensitivity of information that Jane Doe says fell into the wrong hands. In the Jan. 24 ruling -- Agnew-Americano v. Equifax Canada -- Justice Benjamin Glustein stayed a separate class action lawsuit against Equifax filed by Merchant Law Group on behalf of Laura Ballantine. Allegations that Equifax failed to take adequate steps to protect consumers' privacy have not been proven in court. The Jan. 24 ruling was not on the merits of the lawsuit but rather on which of two class-actions would proceed. Merchant Law -- whose lawsuit is now pretty much dead in the water -- had argued unsuccessfully that the Sotos lawsuit should not proceed. This is because Sotos wants one cause of action to be "intrusion upon seclusion," which was recognized in 2012 by the Court of Appeal for Ontario as a new tort in 2012. Justice Glustein decided it was not obvious that an intrusion- upon-seclusion lawsuit against Equifax would fail. The tort of intrusion upon seclusion is significant for liability insurance providers because "if your personal privacy has been invaded, even if you haven't suffered any economic harm, you could still sustain an action," Brian Rosenbaum, senior vice president and national cyber and privacy practice leader at Aon Canada Inc., said during the International Cyber Risk Management Conference, held in March, 2017. Equifax announced in 2017 that cyber criminals were able to access personal information through a security vulnerability on its website. Information on Canadians that may have been compromised included names, addresses, social insurance numbers and -- in some cases -- credit card numbers. An intrusion upon seclusion lawsuit, "if viable, provides a broader claim" than one of negligence, 'which opens up a defendant's exposure," Justice Glustein wrote Jan. 24, 2018 in Agnew-Americano v. Equifax Canada. The ruling that established intrusion upon seclusion was Jones v. Tsige, released in 2012 by the Court of Appeal for Ontario. Bank of Montreal employee Winnie Tsige has accessed Bank of Montreal customer records for Sandra Jones, who was also a BMO employee. Tsige was in a relationship with Jones's former husband. Jones sued Tsige and in 2011 the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled against Jones, finding there is no common-law tort of invasion of privacy in Ontario. That finding was overturned on appeal, with Jones being awarded $10,000 in damages. [GN] FACEBOOK INC: Challenges Class Action Certification in BIPA Suits ----------------------------------------------------------------- BiometricUpdate.com's Chris Burt, writing for Law360, reports that Facebook has told a federal judge in California that plaintiffs attempting to certify a pair of related class action suits against the company have failed to show common harm, and that the certification attempts are last-ditch efforts to save their claims. The claim was made by Facebook in response to a motion filed by users and non-user Frederick Gullen to certify their suits under Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) as class actions. Facebook argues that there is no simple or unified way to show identical harms for the proposed classes, or that it had analyzed and stored facial scans. If the proposed class members' biometrics data was not captured by Facebook, they would not be eligible to sue under BIPA. Facebook also referred to an Illinois appellate court decision in Rosenbach v. Six Flags that a consumer must show "injury or adverse effect" to qualify as "aggrieved" under BIPA. "Each plaintiff admitted at his deposition that he has suffered no harm from Facebook's alleged conduct, and plaintiffs do not give a reason to believe that any class member is different in that respect," Facebook said, per Law360. "Yet they claim entitlement to billions of dollars based on an aggregation of BIPA's statutory damages provision. Neither Rule 23 nor federal due process permits certification of a no-injury class seeking an aggregate award in the billions." Facebook also contends that the plaintiffs have forwarded a fundamentally different class definition in their latest filing than in the consolidated complaint. The company says the latest filings violate procedure and highlight the problems that have characterized the attempt at class treatment. It also says Gullen's action is "in shambles," and that it has no identifying information about non-users who appear in images uploaded to the site, and no feasible way to identify or obtain consent from them. Both class action certification attempts are expected to be considered at a March 29 hearing. As previously reported, U.S. District Judge James Donato expressed skepticism of Facebook's position that harm had not been demonstrated in a November hearing. [GN] FACEBOOK INC: Alston & Bird Attorney Discusses EU Case Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Felz, Esq. -- daniel.felz@alston.com -- of Alston & Bird, in an article for JDSupra, wrote that in late 2015, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) issued its initial Schrems decision, invalidating the EU/US Safe Harbor and leading to important developments in the rules for transferring personal data from the EU to the US. Since that decision, Mr. Schrems has pursued two further legal proceedings in the EU. The first involves Mr. Schrems' challenge in the Irish courts to EU Standard Contractual Clauses, which permit data to be transferred internationally between contract parties. In the trial, Alston & Bird Special Counsel Peter Swire testified as an expert on US national security law, and the case is now being referred to the ECJ. This post relates to Mr. Schrems's second action, an attempt to consolidate an EU-wide consumer class action against Facebook before the Austrian courts. To support a class action, Mr. Schrems has been actively soliciting claim assignments from consumers throughout the EU, with the intent to assert them in a single proceeding before the Austrian courts. As part of his solicitation efforts, Mr. Schrems maintains a "submit-your- claim"-style website, accepts donations, gives paid speeches, and has written a book. Mr. Schrems's class action is structured differently than US class actions due to the fact that the Austrian courts -- like most systems outside the US -- do not have a certification mechanism akin to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Instead, individual claimants must personally assign their claims to Mr. Schrems, who appears as the single plaintiff in the action asserting both his own claims, as well as those that have been assigned to him. This structure resulted in complex procedural questions under the Brussels I Regulation, which regulates jurisdiction among EU member states. Mr. Schrems's class action is directed against Facebook Ireland Ltd., an EU company. As Brussels I's baseline rule, EU defendants must be sued in the Member State where they are "domiciled," which for a dispute between Mr. Schrems and Facebook Ireland would mean Irish jurisdiction. However, Art. 16 Brussels I contains special jurisdiction provisions for "consumer contracts" that permit consumers to sue in their home state -- which for Mr. Schrems would mean Austria. Mr. Schrems contended that he is a consumer who concluded a contract with Facebook and was entitled to sue in Austria. He further contended that since he received full assignments of other consumers' claims against Facebook, he was entitled to assert those in Austria as well. A. The ECJ Decision The ECJ faced two questions. It resolved the first in Mr. Schrems's favor, but found against him in regards to the second -- and in doing so, established precedent that will likely make for further litigation once the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) enters into force: 1. Under the Brussels I Regulation, is Mr. Schrems still considered a "consumer" if he has operated a website, published books, delivered paid speeches, and collected donations in connection with soliciting and asserting third-party claims? One of Facebook's arguments was that Mr. Schrems's systematic solicitation of claims had shaded into 'professional' territory, such that Mr. Schrems should no longer be considered a "consumer" needing the protection of the special jurisdiction provisions of Art. 16 Brussels I. The ECJ disagreed. On the one hand, it held that an individual who starts using Facebook as a "consumer" could lose consumer status if his use of Facebook "subsequently become[s] predominantly professional." But the Court ultimately reasoned that the term "consumer" was defined by contrast to the term "economic operator" -- and that a "consumer" does not lose his status due to (a) "the knowledge and information" he possesses, (b) "the expertise [he] may acquire in the field covered by [] services" provided by an economic operator, nor (c) "his assurances given for purposes of" representing other consumers' claims. The ECJ expressed concern that stripping well-informed consumers of their consumer status would hinder consumers' attempts to organize to assert their rights. As a result, the Court held that Mr. Schrems did not lose consumer status because he had "publish[ed] books, lectur[ed], operat[ed] websites, fundrais[ed] and be[en] assigned the claims of numerous consumers for the purpose of their enforcement." Thus, Mr. Schrems's own claims against Facebook can proceed. 2. Under the Brussels I Regulation, is Mr. Schrems entitled to assert claims assigned to him by consumers who reside in other EU member states or in non-EU states, if all claims are asserted against the same defendant? For many observers, this second question was the more important question: Was Mr. Schrems permitted to consolidate EU jurisdiction over numerous individual consumer claims from around the EU in Austria by virtue of a straightforward civil-law assignment of rights? The ECJ ruled he was not. The Court relied on two main arguments: -- Only One Contract per Consumer Suit. By its express wording, Art. 16 Brussels I only creates special local jurisdiction over "matters relating to a contract concluded by a . . . consumer" and a business. As a result, the Court stated that "an applicant who is not himself a party to the consumer contract in question cannot enjoy the benefit of the jurisdiction relating to consumer contracts." Thus, the Court held that only Mr. Schrems's contract with Facebook was at issue, and that individuals who assigned claims to Mr. Schrems could not piggyback on the jurisdiction Mr. Schrems's claim created. The Court held that this rule "makes it possible to make sure the attribution of jurisdiction is predictable" -- e.g. by preventing consumer claims from being transferred to a plaintiff-friendly EU jurisdiction where the defendant has no assets or operations. -- Jurisdiction does not Follow Assignment. The Brussels I Regulation sets forth the exclusive list of EU fora having jurisdiction over litigation involving EU parties. In the lead- up to the ECJ's decision, the Court's Advocate General argued that permitting jurisdiction over consumer claims to follow their assignment into a new EU member state would create a "new specific forum" for consumer claims not foreseen in the Brussels I framework. The ECJ agreed: Brussels I's framework for jurisdiction remains exclusive; jurisdiction of courts "other than those expressly referred to by [Brussels I] cannot be established [by] the concentration of several claims in the person of a single [plaintiff]." As a result, "the assignment of claims cannot, in itself, have an impact on the determination of the court having jurisdiction" over a claim. As a result of the Court's holding, Mr. Schrems's individual claims will be able to proceed before the Austrian courts. However, his class action may be finished in its present form B. Looking Forward under the GDPR The ECJ's reasoning in regards to Mr. Schrems's attempted class action may make it more difficult to assert EU-wide class actions under the GDPR. The GDPR provides a new and different avenue for seeking collective relief against companies that hold personal data: Article 80 GDPR permits individuals to "mandate" a nonprofit consumer-rights organization to assert their privacy claims against companies in EU courts. As a result, nonprofit organizations could find themselves overseeing "opt-in" style class actions, where the organization acts analogously to "class counsel" asserting the claims of all individuals who have mandated its services. These nonprofit-led suits will differ from Mr. Schrems's current class-action because there will be no assignments of claims. Instead, the nonprofit will be asserting claims "on behalf of" individuals - so the individuals themselves will appear as parties, not the nonprofit. Still, the ECJ's holding in Mr. Schrems's case may have effects on these nonprofit-led collective suits. The ECJ's holding in Mr. Schrems's case was based on Art. 16 Brussels I Regulation, which provides special jurisdiction provisions permitting consumers to sue in their home state. Similarly, Art. 79(2) GDPR contains special jurisdiction provisions permitting data subjects to file privacy claims in their home state. This brings up a similar question as to what the ECJ answered in its most recent Schrems decision: Can EU consumers consolidate jurisdiction over a nonprofit-brought GDPR class action in a single member state? In its Schrems holding, the ECJ found that "consumer contract" jurisdiction cannot be consolidated in a single member state via assignment of claims. Could jurisdiction over GDPR claims be consolidated in a single member state via "mandating" those claims to a single nonprofit entity? For example, could Austrian, German, French, and Belgian consumers all retain a German nonprofit to assert their GDPR claims before German courts -- even though the GDPR only permits Austrians to sue in Austria, Belgians to sue in Belgium, etc.? In such a situation where an EU-wide consolidated GPDR class action is attempted in a single EU jurisdiction, the ECJ's holding that "the assignment of claims cannot, in itself, have an impact on the determination of the court having jurisdiction" may reappear. If assigning a claim to an Austrian resident cannot create Austrian jurisdiction, an individual mandating his GDPR claim to an Austrian nonprofit may also be insufficient to permit the Austrian nonprofit to assert it in Austria. If so, it may be that if an EU-wide class action is to be brought, the nonprofit representing plaintiffs from multiple EU states would either have to (a) bring separate class actions within each member state, or (b) fall back to baseline Brussels I jurisdictional grounds, and consolidate jurisdiction over the class action in the defendant's home state. As with a number of issues under the GDPR, this question may have to be separately answered by the ECJ. [GN] FIELDTURF: Montgomery County Joins Class Action ----------------------------------------------- Bethany Rodgers, writing for Bethesda Magazine, reports that the Montgomery County Parks system is joining a class action lawsuit against the makers of the artificial turf fields that are installed in several locations in the county, including Montgomery Blair High School in Silver Spring. As yet, Montgomery County Public Schools hasn't jumped onboard. Artificial turf fields are at seven public schools in Montgomery County: Blair, Richard Montgomery High, Walter Johnson High, Gaithersburg High, Paint Branch High, Thomas S. Wootton High and Somerset Elementary. MCPS owns all of the fields except the one at Blair, which is maintained by the parks system. In a statement, Director of Parks Mike Riley said the parks system is joining the lawsuit because the company, FieldTurf, violated the Maryland Consumer Protection Act by misrepresenting the reliability, performance and cost effectiveness of its fields. The Canada-based company also "knowingly provided turf fields which contained defects in materials that were never disclosed . . . and, otherwise, asserted that the fields were in merchantable condition and fit for their intended purpose, in breach of its express and implied warranties." School board President Michael Durso said he and his colleagues haven't officially discussed joining the class action lawsuit, but would be monitoring developments in the case. "It certainly is interesting, but as to what's going to happen further down the road or what our role may or may not be, I'm just not sure," Mr. Durso said on Jan. 31. Last year, after finding Blair's turf field had become heavily worn, the parks system had to replace the playing surface with one that featured organic infill and a shock absorption pad. Riley informed County Council member Marc Elrich that the field had still been under warranty at the time of the $725,000 replacement project. MCPS spokesman Derek Turner said the school system checks the condition of its fields on an ongoing basis. "We will continue to evaluate all options with regards to our fields," he wrote in an email on Jan. 30. The parks department will become a defendant in a federal lawsuit that was opened in June to consolidate five different cases against FieldTurf. The plaintiffs, governments and school districts across the country, are alleging the company knowingly sold defective synthetic turf from 2005 to at least 2012. A federal order states the allegedly defective turf was installed in more than 1,400 locations. Attorneys representing FieldTurf in the case could not immediately be reached for comment. A FieldTurf spokesperson wrote in a prepared statement that Blair's synthetic field was installed in 2009 and lasted for its full, eight-year warranty term. However, the spokesperson, Darren Gill, acknowledged the company had experienced problems with Duraspine, grass fibers used in the synthetic fields. In 2011, FieldTurf sued the Chinese company, TenCate, that made the grass fibers for many of its Duraspine fields because FieldTurf found the fibers withered away under ultraviolet light. "Since we first became aware of the issue with Duraspine, we have tried to be forthcoming with our customers and we have not hid from this problem. Additionally, it is important to note that the issue with Duraspine has not impacted safety-- only how a field looks as it wears -- and has been limited to high-UV environments. We are committed to honoring our warranties and working with our customers to address any issues if they arise," Gill wrote in the prepared statement. Montgomery Parks' decision to enter the lawsuit was first reported by Forbes. Members of local civic groups have been vocal in their concerns about the safety of synthetic turf fields in Montgomery County parks and schools. Danila Sheveiko, a member of the Montgomery County Civic Federation, said worn fields don't adequately cushion athletes when they fall, increasing the risk of concussion and other injuries. Ms. Sheveiko said federation members question why the county can't stick with grass playing surfaces. "Natural grass is healthier and more cost-effective," he said. The MCPS website states that artificial fields have a wide range of benefits, such as needing less maintenance, allowing safer year-round use and offering more equity between schools. But federation members spoke up in 2016 after discovering that the synthetic field at Richard Montgomery had failed a safety test. Another firm that conducted two subsequent tests at the field found that it passed both times. A school system spokeswoman at the time said the field had been repaired after the first test found safety concerns. The MCPS spokeswoman said FieldTurf pays consulting firms to conduct GMAX tests, which evaluate a playing surface's ability to absorb impact. MCPS posts GMAX test results online, along with periodic maintenance reports. [GN] FIRE INSURANCE: Denial of Summary Adjudication Bid Upheld --------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CRAIG STREIT et al., Plaintiffs, Cross-defendants and Appellants, v. FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE et al., Defendants, Cross-complainants and Respondents, Case No. B276430 (Cal. App.), Judge John Segal of the Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Seven, (i) reversed the trial court's order granting the motion for summary adjudication by Streit and Eric Lucan; and (ii) affirmed the trial court's order denying Farmers' motion for summary adjudication. Streit and Lucan filed the action on behalf of themselves and others to whom Farmers Insurance Group, Inc. had issued insurance policies. Streit paid an annual premium of $1,159.24 for a Farmers homeowners or landlord insurance policy, but he canceled it 39 days into the policy period. He expected a refund of $1,035.38, which he calculated as 326 days (365-39) at $3.176 per day ($1,159.24/365). Instead, Streit received only $915.80, or approximately $119 less than he thought he should have received. Lucan paid $360.76, the first six-month installment of his $743.85 annual premium for a Farmers homeowners insurance policy, but he canceled it 81 days into the policy period. He expected a refund of approximately $196, but he received a refund of only $118, or approximately $77 less than he thought he should have received. In their first amended class action complaint, Streit and Lucan alleged that Farmers' practice of charging them and the other members of the class the higher Short Rate to determine the amount it would return as their unused portion of their premium was unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent. They claimed the short rate is an insurance premium rate that is higher than the rate Farmers stated in its solicitations and policies. They also alleged Farmers' policies did not define "short rate," explain how Farmers used it to calculate returns of premiums, or disclose that imposing a "short rate penalty" made the premiums more than those stated in the policies. They also claimed the use of the term "short rate" was ambiguous and prevented policyholders from understanding a material term of their policies. Streit and Lucan pointed out that Farmers did not disclose or make available to its insureds or its agents the RONOCO Six and Twelve Month Calculator apparently used to calculate short rate returns of premiums. Streit and Lucan alleged six causes of action in their first amended complaint, including three unfair competition causes of action under Business and Professions Code section 17200: one for unlawful practices, one for unfair practices, and one for fraudulent practices. These causes of action were based on alleged violations of sections 330 (concealment by neglecting to communicate), 332 (failing to communicate required disclosures), and 381, subdivision (f) (failing to specify the premium in an insurance policy), and Civil Code sections 1573 (constructive fraud), 1709 (deceit), 1710 (deceit), 1670.5 (unconscionable contract), and 1671, subdivision (d) (void liquidated damages provision). They also alleged causes of action for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, "unconscionability," and unjust enrichment. Farmers demurred which the trial court sustained without leave to amend. The Appellate Court reversed. Streit and Lucan's allegations in the third amended complaint focused more specifically on section 481, subdivision (a). Quoting the Appellate Court's opinion in Streit v. Farmers Group, Inc. ("Streit I"), Streit and Lucan alleged Farmers' policies violated section 481, subdivision (a), as well as the statutes they had identified in prior versions of their complaint: sections 330 and 332 (but not section 381) and Civil Code sections 1573, 1709, 1710, (but not Civil Code sections 1670.5 and 1671, subdivision (d)). They also amended their cause of action for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing to reference section 481, subdivision (a), and the Appellate Court's opinion in Streit I. Finally, they added a new cause of action for breach of contract alleging that section 481, subdivision (a), was read into and deemed a part of each insurance policy contract issued by Farmers and that Farmers breached the terms of its policies because the insureds did not agree in the insurance policy contract that return of premium would be calculated pursuant to a particular formula other than pro rata. Streit and Lucan moved for summary adjudication against Fire Insurance Exchange and Mid-Century Insurance Co. (but not Farmers Group) on the first cause of action for unfair competition based on unlawful business practices and the fifth cause of action for breach of contract. Meanwhile, Farmers filed a motion for summary adjudication on the first and fifth causes of action based on the same arguments they made in opposition to Streit and Lucan's motion for summary adjudication. The trial court granted the motion by Streit and Lucan for summary adjudication and denied the motion by Farmers. The trial court subsequently held a hearing on the damages "phase" of the motion by Streit and Lucan for summary adjudication. The court ruled the appropriate amount of damages against Mid-Century Insurance was $6,597,814.20 and the appropriate amount of damages against Farmers Insurance Exchange was $7,522,150.04, plus interest. The court entered judgment against Fire Insurance Exchange and Mid-Century Insurance. Fire Insurance Exchange and Mid-Century Insurance challenge the trial court's orders granting Streit and Lucan's motion for summary adjudication and denying Farmers' motion for summary adjudication. Streit and Lucan challenge the trial court ruling at the damages phase of the hearing on their motion for summary adjudication. As a preliminary matter, Judge Segal finds that he has serious reservations about whether the trial court's judgment is appealable because there are outstanding causes of action between the parties to the appeal. There are still causes of action remaining between Streit and Lucan (and the class members), on one side, and Fire Insurance Exchange and Mid-Century Insurance, on the other. Nevertheless, assuming the Court has jurisdiction to review the trial court's ruling, either by appeal or by extraordinary writ, the trial court erred. He says the trial court's ruling was based on its belief that the Appellate Court held in Streit I that under section 481, subdivision (a), insurers cannot adopt a `short rate' formula unless they define that term in the contract itself. It did not. It held only that Streit stated a cause of action for, among other things, unfair competition based on unlawful practices because, by alleging Farmers concealed and did not communicate what "short rate" meant or how Farmers used it to calculate return of premium, Streit had alleged violations of several statutes. Contrary to the trial court's ruling, the Judge says the Appellate Court's in Streit I did not mandate summary adjudication in favor of Streit and Lucan. The Judge also finds that disputed factual issues precluded summary adjudication. He says the trial court erroneously ruled the Appellate Court's decision in Streit I had decided the issue, created factual issues that precluded summary adjudication on Streit and Lucan's first cause of action for unfair competition. Whether the disclosures and explanations on the websites of Farmers and the Department of Insurance of the short rate return of premium were sufficient, or whether Fire Insurance Exchange and Mid-Century Insurance concealed or breached their duties to communicate, are questions for the trier of fact. Finally, Farmers also moved for summary adjudication on the first and fifth causes of action. Judge Segal finds that the trial court properly denied that motion because, as discussed, there were factual issues on both of those causes of action. Whether Farmers adequately disclosed and explained that short rate did not mean pro rata does not determine whether Farmers adequately disclosed and explained what short rate meant and how Farmers used it to calculate a return of premium. For these reasons, Judge Segal reversed the trial court's judgment (to the extent it is one). He directed the trial court to vacate its order granting the motion for summary adjudication by Streit and Lucan and to enter a new order denying that motion. He affirmed the order denying Farmers' motion for summary adjudication. The parties are to bear their costs on appeal. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 24, 2018 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/iK0rfp from Leagle.com. Eppsteiner Law, Stuart M. Eppsteiner -- stuarteppsteiner@eppsteiner.com; The Kralowec Law Group and Kimberly A. Kralowec -- kkralowec@kraloweclaw.com -- for Plaintiffs, Cross-defendants and Appellants. Hinshaw & Culbertson, Kent Keller -- kkeller@hinshawlaw.com -- and Larry M. Golub -- lgolub@hinshawlaw.com; Locke Lord, Stephen A. Tuggy, and Matthew B. Nazareth -- nazareth@lockelord.com -- for Defendants, Cross-complainants and Respondents. FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Super Duty Diesel Emissions --------------------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Bradley, writing for Daily Hornet, reports that Ford and parts-supplier Bosch have been hit with a class action lawsuit alleging that Ford F-250 and F-350 Super Duty diesel pickup truck spew nitrogen oxide emissions that hit 50-times the legal limit. Over 500,000 of the diesel trucks were sold from 2011 to 2017, costing $8,400 more than their gasoline-fueled counterparts. The lawsuit states that on-road testing showed that Ford's diesel trucks polluted at levels far exceeding legal limits. Bosch is accused of developing the software that enabled the Ford Super Duty diesel vehicles to sense when they were being tested for emissions and adjust fuel levels, exhaust re-circulation, air pressure and urea injection, allegedly for the purpose of cheating the test. Specifically, the lawsuit states that the technology allowed Super Duty trucks to reverse the order of exhaust treatment during emissions testing, allowing Ford to advertise fuel- efficiency as well as power. If the lawsuit prevails, Ford Super Duty trucks may need changes to the exhaust system that will reduce power, torque, and fuel efficiency. Daniel Barbosa, a spokesman for Ford, told Bloomberg: "All Ford vehicles, including those with diesel engines, comply with all U.S. EPA and CARB emissions regulations. Ford vehicles do not have defeat devices. We will defend ourselves against these baseless claims." Ford is at least the 5th auto-maker accused of cheating on emissions for diesel vehicles in the U.S., a country with some of the strictest laws in the world for nitrous oxide (NOx) pollution. Diesel engines are more fuel-efficient than gasoline- fueled vehicles, but they emit more NOx. Bosch faces similar allegations in lawsuits against VW, Fiat Chrysler and GM. [GN] FORSTER & GARBUS: Seeks 2nd Cir. Review of Order in "Winslow" ------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Forster & Garbus, LLP, Mark A. Garbus and Forster Ronald, Esq., filed an appeal from the District Court's memorandum and order entered on December 13, 2017, in the lawsuit styled as BARBARA WINSLOW, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FORSTER & GARBUS, LLP, RONALD FORSTER, Esq. and MARK GARBUS, Esq., Defendants, Case No. 15-cv- 2996, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The appellate case is captioned as Winslow v. Forster & Garbus, LLP, Case No. 18-116, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Jan. 18, 2018, the U.S. Magistrate Judge Anne Y. Shields granted the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The action is commenced by the Plaintiff pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the New York State General Business Law. The class and two subclasses are: a. The Class: i. Natural persons; ii. Who were sued by National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2005 ("National Collegiate"); iii. In a New York state court consumer collection action; iv. In an action in which F&G represented National Collegiate; v. And in which the Complaint states that (a) "Plaintiff is authorized to proceed with this actions" and/or (b)"Plaintiff is the original creditor." b. The FDCPA Subclass: i. All those who meet the class criteria set forth in the class description above and who, in addition, were sent the said complaint within one year of the initiation of the instant class action; and c. The NYGBL Section 349 Subclass: i. All those who meet the class criteria set forth in the class description above and who, in addition, were sent the said complaint within three years of the initiation of the instant class action.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee Barbara Winslow, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Daniel Adam Schlanger, Esq. KAKALEC & SCHLANGER, LLP 85 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 500-6114 Facsimile: (646) 612-7996 E-mail: daniel.schlanger@schlangerlegal.com Defendants-Appellants Forster & Garbus, LLP, Forster Ronald, Esq., and Mark A. Garbus, Esq., are represented by: Glenn M. Fjermedal, Esq. DAVIDSON FINK LLP 28 East Main Street Rochester, NY 14614 Telephone: (585) 756-5950 E-mail: gfjermedal@davidsonfink.com FOWLER PACKING: Court Partly Certifies "Aldapa" Classes ------------------------------------------------------- In the case, BEATRIZ ALDAPA and ELMER AVALOS, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FOWLER PACKING COMPANY, INC., a California corporation; AG FORCE LLC, a California limited liability company; FOWLER MARKETING INTERNATIONAL LLC, a California limited liability company; and DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-00420-DAD-SAB (E.D. Cal.), Judge Dale A. Drozd of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California granted in part the Plaintiffs' motion to certify one main class and 13 subclasses. The lawsuit stems from a variety of alleged state and federal labor law violations by the Defendants, who employ seasonal workers for a variety of tasks necessary in commercial agricultural operations. Some of the farms on which the agricultural workers are employed are owned by the Defendants, while others are owned by third-party growers who contract with defendants to provide a labor force. Defendant Fowler Packing is a commercial grower, packer, and shipper of various fruits, while Defendant Ag Force is a farm labor contractor. Defendant Fowler Marketing International is responsible for marketing and selling the crops owned by Fowler Packing and harvested by the employees of Ag Force. These three corporate entities are all owned by Grant Parnagian and members of the Parnagian family. The wage-and-hour class action suit was initially filed by the Plaintiffs in the Court on March 17, 2015, and currently proceeds on the Plaintiffs' first amended complaint ("FAC") filed on Oct. 20, 2016. On Feb. 3, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify one main class and 13 subclasses. A hearing on the motion was held May 17, 2017, following which the Court ordered additional briefing, which the parties timely submitted. In their FAC, the Plaintiffs allege 13 separate claims: (1) violations of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act for failing to pay all wages due or provide necessary tools; (2) failure to compensate for rest breaks in accordance with California Labor Code Section 226.71 and Wage Order 14; (3) failure to pay all wages due under the employment contract by requiring off-the-clock work and allowing the use of "ghost workers"; (4) failure to pay overtime, as required by state law; (5) failure to pay the minimum wage, in violation of Labor Code Section 1194; (6) failure to pay waiting time penalties in violation of Labor Code Section 203; (7) failure to provide necessary tools or reimburse for tools in violation of Labor Code Section 2802; (8) violations of California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 by underpaying workers, failing to provide rest periods, and retaining the benefits of the labor without reasonable compensation; (9) violations of Labor Code Section 226 by failing to keep accurate records or provide accurate statements to the employees; (10) failure to record and/or pay for travel time and wait time, in violation of Labor Code Section 1194 and 29 U.S.C. Section 1801, et seq.; (11) failure to reimburse for vehicle expense, in violation of Labor Code Section 2802; and (12) failure to provide meal periods and keep accurate records of meal periods, in violation of Wage Order 14 and 29 U.S.C. Section 1801, et seq. The Plaintiffs seek certification of the following class and 13 subclasses: a. Main Class: All individuals who have been employed, or are currently employed, by Defendants Ag Force, LLC, Fowler Packing, Co. and/or Fowler Marketing, Int'l. as a non-exempt field worker or agricultural worker, any time from March 17, 2011 up to the present, excluding supervisors, swampers, office, clerical, or other non-agricultural workers. b. Subclasses: 1. Piece Rate Rest Period Subclass: All individuals who have been employed, or are currently employed, by the Defendants as a non-exempt field worker or agricultural worker, who worked on a piece rate basis at any time from March 17, 2011 up to the present, and were not separately compensated for rest periods during their piece rate shifts. 2. Ghost Worker Crew Subclass: All individuals who have been employed, or are currently employed, by Defendants as a non- exempt field worker or agricultural worker, any time from March 17, 2011 up to the present, who worked on a crew piece rate basis and were not compensated properly due to the inclusion of payments to ghost workers in their crew(s). 3. Unpaid Travel Time Subclass: All individuals who have been employed, or are currently employed, by the Defendants as a non-exempt field worker or agricultural worker, any time from March 17, 2011 up to the present, who worked at two or more fields in one day but were not compensated for their time spent travelling between fields. 4. Waiting Time Subclass: All individuals who have been employed, or are currently employed, by the Defendants as a non- exempt field worker or agricultural worker, any time from March 17, 2011 up to the present, who spent time waiting before harvest work would commence and were not paid for that waiting time. 5. Pre-Shift Work Subclass: All individuals who have been employed, or are currently employed, by the Defendants as a non-exempt field worker or agricultural worker, any time from March 17, 2011 up to the present, who performed uncompensated and unrecorded work before the fixed start time of a daily shift. 6. Post-Shift Work Subclass: All individuals who have been employed, or are currently employed, by the Defendants as a non-exempt field worker or agricultural worker, any time from March 17, 2011 up to the present, who performed uncompensated and unrecorded work after the fixed end time of a daily shift. 7. Tools Subclass: All individuals who have been employed, or are currently employed, by the Defendants as a non- exempt field worker or agricultural worker, any time from March 17, 2011 up to the present, who incurred unreimbursed tool expenses while working for the Defendants. 8. Meal Period Subclass: All individuals who have been employed, or are currently employed, by the Defendants as a non- exempt field worker or agricultural worker, any time from March 17, 2011 up to the present, who did not receive a meal period and/or for whom a meal period was not recorded. 9. Inaccurate Wage Statement Subclass: All individuals who have been employed, or are currently employed, by the Defendants as a non-exempt field worker or agricultural worker, any time from March 17, 2011 up to the present, who due to the violations claimed herein (other than the violations in subclasses 4 and 8), received an inaccurate itemized wage statement. 10. Vehicle Expense Subclass: All individuals who have been employed, or are currently employed, by the Defendants as a non-exempt field worker or agricultural worker, any time from March 17, 2011 up to the present, who worked at two or more fields in one day and drove their own cars between fields but were not reimbursed by the Defendants for their vehicle expenses. 11. AWPA Subclass: All individuals who have been employed, or are currently employed, by the Defendants as a non- exempt field worker or agricultural worker, any time from March 17, 2011 up to the present, who, due to the violations claimed, were not provided employment consistent with the terms of the working arrangements made with them by the Defendants. 12. Section 17200 Subclass: All individuals who have been employed, or are currently employed, by the Defendants as a non-exempt field worker or agricultural worker, any time from March 17, 2011 up to the present, who, due to the violations claimed, were employed under unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices. 13. Final Paycheck Subclass: All individuals who have been employed, or are currently employed, by the Defendants as a non-exempt field worker or agricultural worker, any time from March 17, 2011 up to the present, who were not paid all wages due when they were laid off each season, discharged, or quit, as required by the California Labor Code. Judge Drozd granted in part the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and the following subclasses are certified: a. Piece Rate Rest Period Subclass: All individuals who were employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt field worker or agricultural worker from March 17, 2011 to present, and were compensated on a piece rate basis. b. Unpaid Travel Time Subclass: All individuals who were employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt field worker or agricultural worker from March 17, 2011 to present, and worked at two or more fields in one day. c. Vehicle Expense Subclass: All individuals who were employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt field worker or agricultural worker from March 17, 2011 to present, worked at two or more fields in one day, and drove their own cars between fields. d. Meal Period Subclass: All individuals who were employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt field worker or agricultural worker from March 17, 2011 to present, for whom no meal period was recorded on at least one day in which the employee worked more than five hours. e. Tools Subclass: All individuals who were employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt field worker or agricultural worker from March 17, 2011 to present who purchased gloves, files, oil, safety glasses, shears, clippers, scissors, sheaths, or replacement parts for their work for the Defendants. f. Unpaid Work Subclass: All individuals who were employed by Defendants as a non-exempt field worker or agricultural worker from March 17, 2011 to present who were required to arrive before their shift or perform duties after their shift, or wait for fruit to dry before beginning work. g. Inaccurate Wage Statement Subclass: All individuals who were employed at any of the Defendants between March 17, 2012 and present as non-exempt field or agricultural workers for the Defendants. Because he separately certified each of the subclasses under Rule 23, the Judge denied certification of an overarching main class. Additionally, pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3), he denied certification as to all other subclasses not specifically addressed in clause 1, paragraphs a through g, particularly the Ghost Worker Crew Subclass and each of the subclasses proposed solely for the purpose of bringing a derivative claim. Judge Drozd denied the Plaintiffs' motion to certify any of the subclasses under Rule 23(b)(2) for the purpose of seeking injunctive relief based upon its conclusion that the Named Plaintiffs lack standing to seek injunctive relief. The Judge finds that Plaintiffs Avalos and Aldapa to be adequate class representatives, and confirmed them as the class representatives for each of the certified subclasses, except for the Vehicle Expense Subclass, for which only Plaintiff Avalos is a class representative. He also finds that the Plaintiffs' counsel to be adequate to represent the class in this proceeding, and the firms of Martinez, Aguilasocho, & Lynch APLC (MAL) and Bush Gottlieb ALC are confirmed as the class counsel. Judge Drozd denied without prejudice the Defendants' motion for a trial planto being re-raised following the conclusion of merits- phase discovery. He also denied the Plaintiffs' request for the imposition of sanctions under 28 U.S.C. Section 1927. The Judge directed the parties to meet and confer promptly upon service of the Order concerning the submission of a joint stipulated class notice and distribution plan, based on the subclasses as certified in the Order. The parties will file either a stipulated class notice and distribution plan or a notice that no stipulation can be reached within 21 days of service of the Order. If the parties cannot agree to a class notice or distribution plan, the Plaintiffs will submit a proposed class notice and distribution plan within 35 days of service of the Order. The Defendants will have 14 days following the Plaintiffs' submission of a proposed class notice and distribution plan to file any objections thereto. The Plaintiffs will have seven days thereafter to submit a reply. The matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further scheduling and other proceedings consistent with the Order. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 24, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/QLmlam from Leagle.com. Beatriz Aldapa, Plaintiff, represented by Dexter Flood Rappleye - - drappleye@bushgottlieb.com -- Bush Gottlieb, ALC, Erica Deutsch -- edeutsch@bushgottlieb.com -- Bush Gottlieb, Mario Martinez -- mmartinez@farmworkerlaw.com -- Martinez Aguilasocho & Lynch Aplc & Ira L. Gottlieb -- igottlieb@bushgottlieb.com -- Bush Gottlieb, A Law Corporation. Elmer Avalos, Plaintiff, represented by Erica Deutsch, Bush Gottlieb, Mario Martinez, Martinez Aguilasocho & Lynch Aplc & Ira L. Gottlieb, Bush Gottlieb, A Law Corporation. Fowler Packing Company Inc., a California Corporation, AG Force LLC, a California Limited Liability Company & Fowler Marketing International LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, Defendants, represented by Howard A. Sagaser -- has@sw2law.com -- Sagaser, Watkins & Wieland, PC & Ian Blade Wieland -- ian@sw2law.com -- Sagaser, Watkins & Wieland, PC. GENERAL ELECTRIC: Faces Class Action in Connecticut --------------------------------------------------- Yamil Berard, writing for Guru Focus, reports that investors who want to know what went wrong in the accounting department at General Electric Corp. can read about it in a class-action lawsuit. The suit in the U.S. District of Connecticut was filed just two days after GE divulged a $6.2 billion mistake in calculating costs for its run-off insurance business. It accuses the company's former leadership of being aware of the problems for years and doing nothing to fix them, or tell anybody about it. It's a juicy read, especially if you like accusations backed up by old earnings reports. Problems, the suit says, erupted over five years ago when the GE Capital program began losing ground. Since 2013, it had been experiencing increasingly low earnings and revenues. Over time, GE didn't disclose problems to investors even as the fund continued to amass shortages. Then, to make the problem even worse, it failed to allocate sufficient reserves to make up for growing payouts. The hole just got bigger and bigger. In the end, the company accrued "billions of dollars in unreported impairment charges." In recent days, the company has been barraged with bad publicity. Barclay's is calling for GE's removal from the Dow Jones Industrial, a spot it has held for over a century. (This has not happened. The stock is still part of the index.) What's more, the Securities and Exchange Commission is all over the company's books and file folders. And don't forget those lawsuits that are screaming "fraud" and making highly unfavorable allegations. But that's the nadir, says guru investor Mario Gabelli (Trades, Portfolio). Go buy it, Mr. Gabelli declared. At $16 a share, it hasn't been cheaper since 2016. It has never been a better time to buy it. Mr. Gabelli is buying GE. Why? He says key portions of the company are strong. He likes the new management. Once the SEC finishes its job, and some fixable issues get sorted out, the stock should go up. How far? The guru investor predicts the stock will be in the $20s in two years. And perhaps, by then, the stock will be welcomed back into the ranks of the historic Dow Jones Industrial Average. [GN] GEORGE & FRANK'S: Failed to Pay Minimum Wages, "Cuizon" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ian Cuizon, Nan Aye Thida, Nia Williams, Pornping Theeradechakul, Pwint Su Wai Win and Suphichaya Sodwan, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. George & Frank's Japanese Noodle Rest. Inc., Thomas Hamada and Ichi Asakawa, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00549 (S.D. N.Y., January 22, 2018), seeks unpaid minimum wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. Defendants own, operate, or control a Japanese restaurant, located at 152 West 49th Street, New York, New York 10019 under the name "Sapporo Restaurant" where Plaintiffs have been employed as food packers and ostensibly as food runners and servers. They claim to have worked without appropriate minimum wage compensation for the hours that they have worked and have been paid a lowered 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 GETSWIFT: Flunks Deadline, Faces Class Action --------------------------------------------- Michael Bailey, writing for Financial Review, reports that logistics software maker GetSwift may face a class action from global law firm Squire Patton Boggs, as the drama around the company built on February 2 with its failure to release a promised answer to regulator queries before the close of trade. The class action threat capped a dramatic day in which the Wall Street Journal was told by "a person familiar with GetSwift's situation" that it was set to launch a formal process to evaluate takeover approaches. However no announcements had been made by GetSwift by late February 2, and the story was widely lampooned on social media as most likely a plant by an investor in the company. Squire Patton Boggs said in a statement that it had obtained funding for a class action against GetSwift, and invited shareholders that had purchased shares between 24 February 2017 and 18 January 2018 to register their interest. The firm noted that GetSwift's share price had risen above $4.00 on a series of bullish announcements about new clients, but had plummeted to just $1.61 on the United States over-the-counter market following an investigation by The Australian Financial Review casting doubt on their veracity. GetSwift's shares remained suspended for the eighth trading day in a row on February 2 at $2.92. On January 30 the company announced the appointment of PwC to review its continuous disclosure policy, and had flagged the release of a response to further ASX queries by the close of business on February 2. An $800,000 entry under 'Other' in the 'estimated cash flows for next quarter' section of GetSwift's quarterly update released on Wednesday was speculated on social media as payment for PwC's review, with some observers opining that would not be enough for a complete policy overhaul. Anticlimactically, the response to GetSwift's own deadline for its response to ASX queries was not met on February 2. "The GetSwift situation is a bit like school," tweeted Perth trader James Middleweek. "It's had to complete a 20 question test and write an essay. The teacher is also a slow marker," he said, referring to the belief in some quarters that the ASX was too slow to act on GetSwift (a claim the bourse refutes). Meanwhile Buddy Platform is another small cap to have endured a trading suspension while the ASX sought more clarity on its new contract announcements. Shares in the Adelaide-based environmental software company, which counted a venture capital firm set up by pop star Lady Gaga and her former manager among its early investors, were suspended on February 2 after the bourse was dissatisified with details it provided on four contracts which the company forecast in its September 2017 quarterly update to have aggregate revenues of $52 million. The bourse had sent Buddy Platform the 'aware query' letter on January 23, four days after publication of the Financial Review investigation of over-hyping of client win announcements by GetSwift. Buddy Platform's main product is Buddy Ohm, a real-time energy usage monitoring system which the company labels as a "Fitbit for buildings", which tracks energy usage and claims to help companies make savings on electricity, gas and water bills. By the December quarter update, released on January 31, management's revenue forecast for signed contracts had grown to $69.3 million, albeit only $428,000 of actual revenue was reported in the quarter (up 5 per cent from the previous quarter). Meanwhile operating cash outflows had ballooned to $3.21 million, up 25 per cent from the previous quarter's $2.56 million outflow. Buddy Platform's share price was suspended at $0.22, down from a high of $0.40 in November 2017. [GN] GLENWOOD LUXURY: "Camacho" Suit Alleges ADA Violations ------------------------------------------------------ Jason Camacho, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Glenwood Luxury Apartment Rental Corp., Case No. 1:18-cv-00281 (E.D. N.Y., January 16, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the American with Disabilities Act because the Defendant's website is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Plaintiff Jason Camacho, at all relevant times, is a resident of Brooklyn, New York. Plaintiff is a blind, visually-impaired handicapped person. Defendant operates Glenwood Luxury real estate sales offices as well as the Glenwood Luxury website. The Plaintiffs says the website must offer to the public features that should allow all consumers to access the facilities and services that Defendant offers regarding its sales offices. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel C. Cohen, Esq. DANIEL COHEN, PLLC 300 Cadman Plaza W., 12th Fl. Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (646) 645-8482 Fax: (347) 665-1545 E-mail: dan@dccohen.com - and - Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Tel: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: nyjg@aol.com danalgottlieb@aol.com HAIN CELESTIAL: Bid to Dismiss "Pecanha" Denied ----------------------------------------------- In the case, MAKINDE PECANHA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-04517- EMC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward M. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss the first amended class action complaint ("FAC") or, alternatively, to stay based on primary jurisdiction of the FDA. Plaintiffs Pecanha and Shaun Ray Bell have filed a class action against Defendants Hain and JASON(R) Natural Products, Inc. ("JNP"), asserting claims for, inter alia, false advertising and breach of warranty based on the Defendants' marketing of their JASON? deodorant products as "Naturally Fresh" and "Pure Natural" when in fact they contain synthetic ingredients. Hain is a company that focuses on food and personal care products. One of its brands is the JASON(R) brand, which covers personal care products. Hain, along with JNP, promote the JASON? brand as a leader in natural cosmetics. At issue in the instant case are JASON(R) deodorant products. The front packaging for the deodorant products use one or more of the following labels: "Naturally Fresh," "Pure Natural Deodorant," "Pure Natural Deodorant Stick," and/or "Natural Pioneer Since 1959." Although the labels use the term "natural" in some form, the deodorant products actually use synthetic ingredients -- namely, tocopheryl acetate, glycerin, and ethylhexylglycerin. Based on, inter alia, the allegations, the Plaintiffs have asserted the following causes of action: (i) violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"); (ii) violation of California Business & Professions Code Section 17200; (iii) violation of California Business & Professions Code Section 17500; (iv) breach of express warranty; (v) unjust enrichment; and (vi) fraud. The Defendants have moved to dismiss the first amended class action complaint ("FAC") or, alternatively, to stay based on primary jurisdiction of the FDA. They protest that the use of the term "natural" on the deodorant products cannot be viewed in a vacuum; rather, the term must be taken in context, in particular, other information on the front of the label. They contend that, at the very least, there is ambiguity because of the "no aluminum" language and, once there is ambiguity, it is, in essence, the duty of the consumer to look at the ingredient list on the back of the label to clarify any ambiguity. With respect to the fraud-based claims, the Defendants argue that, if the Court is not inclined to dismiss, then it should at the very least stay the claims (and presumably the entire case since it is largely predicated on the fraud claims) based on the primary jurisdiction doctrine. More specifically, the Defendants argue that the Court should stay the case to see what further guidance is given by the FDA with respect to the term "natural." According to them, there is ongoing FDA regulatory review of the meaning of the word natural based on the FDA's November 2015 request for comments on the use of the term 'natural' in the labeling of human food products, including foods that are genetically engineered or contain ingredients produced through the use of genetic engineering. Judge Chen finds, among other things, that even crediting their ambiguity argument, the Defendants still would not prevail at this juncture of the proceedings because, as the Plaintiffs point out, it is not readily apparent that the ingredient list would be helpful -- i.e., it is not clear that a reasonable consumer would be able to determine whether the ingredients on the ingredient list were natural or synthetic. The ingredient list provided by Defendants lists many chemicals but a chemical is not necessarily synthetic. Hence, the inclusion of an ingredient list does not warrant, at this 12(b)(6) juncture, judgment as a matter of law. The Judge thus will deny the Defendants' motion to dismiss the fraud-based claims. The Judge also finds that the Defendants point to no specific FDA action reasonably anticipated in the near future which warrants delaying the case. He therefore will decline to stay proceedings based on the primary jurisdiction doctrine. As to the Defendants' challenge on the unjust enrichment claim on the same basis as they contested the fraud-based claims -- i.e., "no reasonable consumer would be deceived, the Judge says it is a question of fact that cannot be resolved at the 12(b)(6) phase. Having considered the parties' briefs and accompanying submissions, as well as the oral argument of the counsel, Judge Chen denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss or stay. The Order disposes of Docket No. 29. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 24, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/jsKHdn from Leagle.com. Makinde Pecanha & Shaun Ray Bell, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Joel Dashiell Smith -- jsmith@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, Reuben D. Nathan -- rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com -- Nathan & Associates, APC & Lawrence Timothy Fisher -- ltfisher@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kenneth Kiyul Lee -- klee@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block LLP, Alexander Michael Smith -- asmith@jenner.com -- Jenner and Block LLP & Dean N. Panos -- dpanos@jenner.com -- Jenner And Block LLP, pro hac vice. Jason Natural Products, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kenneth Kiyul Lee, Jenner & Block LLP. HIGH TECH RAIL: "Campbell" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT ---------------------------------------------------------- Brandon Campbell, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. High Tech Rail and Fence, LLC, David Moffat, and Curtis L. Whitaker II, Case No. 3:18-cv-00004 (N.D. Ga., January 12, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid regular and overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Brandon Campbell resides in Griffin, Georgia. Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as installer. Defendants own and operate a construction business installing railing and fencing on residential and commercial construction as well as other improvements in Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Tyler B. Kaspers, Esq. THE KASPERS FIRM, LLC 152 New Street, Suite 109B Macon, GA 31201 Tel: (404) 944-3128 E-mail: tyler@kaspersfirm.com HMI INDUSTRIES: Seeks 7th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Rench" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- HMI Industries, Inc., filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Sabra Rench v. HMI Industries, Inc., Case No. 3:13-cv-00922-SMY-RJD, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. The appellate case is captioned as HMI Industries, Inc. v. Sabra Rench, Case No. 18-8003, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Respondent SABRA RENCH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Kevin P. Green, Esq. GOLDENBERG, HELLER, ANTOGNOLI, ROWLAND, SHORT & GORI 2227 S. State Route 157 Edwardsville, IL 62025-0000 Telephone: (618) 656-5150 Facsimile: (618) 656-6230 E-mail: kevin@ghalaw.com Defendant-Petitioner HMI INDUSTRIES, INC., is represented by: Gary K. Shipman, Esq. SHIPMAN & WRIGHT, LLP 575 Military Cutoff Road Wilmington, NC 28405 Telephone: (910) 762-1990 Facsimile: (910) 762-6752 E-mail: gshipman@shipmanlaw.com HOTEL ON RIVINGTON: Faces "Olsen" Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Hotel on Rivington Managing Corp. The case is styled as Thomas J Olsen, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Hotel on Rivington Managing Corp. agent of The Hotel on Rivington, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv- 01118 (S.D. N.Y., February 7, 2018). The Hotel on Rivington is a 20-story luxury hotel on Rivington Street between Ludlow and Essex Streets in Downtown Manhattan. Completed in 2005, the hotel's expensive rates, ultramodern design, upscale bar, and trendy clientele have made it a trademark of gentrification in the Lower East Side.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. HUHTAMAKI INC: Goodwin Seeks to Recoup Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------- Ashley Goodwin, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Huhtamaki, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00016 (W.D. Ky., January 22, 2018), seeks to recover compensation, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the provisions of Sections 207 and 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and Kentucky Revised Statute. Huhtamaki, Inc. produces packaging for consumer products and foodservice, plastic and paper cups, bowls, cutlery, and takeout packaging. Goodwin worked taking finished products off the assembly line and loading them into crates for shipment from April to August 2017. Plaintiff routinely worked in excess of forty hours per workweek and was subject to improper meal-period deductions. Huhtamaki automatically deducted 30 minutes from Plaintiff's hours for meal breaks whether or not it was availed of or not. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. ANDERSON2X, PLLC 819 N. Upper Broadway Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Tel: (361) 452-1279 Fax: (361) 452-1284 Email: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com HYUNDAI MOTORS: Montgomery Attorney Discusses Class Action Ruling ----------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Breslauer, Esq. -- pbreslauer@mmwr.com -- of Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhoads LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote that in an opinion that could make certification of nationwide class action settlements considerably more difficult, a divided panel of the Ninth Circuit has ruled that when deciding whether to certify a multistate settlement class, the district court must consider whether differences in state laws cause individual questions of law to predominate over common questions of law and fact. In re Hyundai and Kia Fuel Economy Litig., No. 15-56014, 2018 WL 505343 (9th Cir. Jan. 23, 2018). The Ninth Circuit reaffirmed that the burden of proving common legal questions predominate is, like all of the Rule 23(b)(3) requirements, on the plaintiff, and the relaxation of Rule 23(b)(3) for settlements that the Supreme Court recognized in Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997), extends only to those questions of trial manageability that will not arise once a case settles. The court ruled that state-law variation is not merely a question of manageability, but also implicates the substantive rights of class members. Therefore, before a nationwide class can be certified, the plaintiffs must establish -- even in a settlement -- that the substantive state-law variations do not predominate over common questions. Because the district court in Hyundai failed to consider variation in state substantive consumer-protection laws, the Ninth Circuit vacated certification of the settlement class and remanded for further proceedings. In addition, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the record did not support including used car owners in the settlement class, because there was no evidence used car owners were subject to a massive advertising campaign justifying a presumption of reliance on that that advertising, or that they were uniformly exposed to mileage stickers on the windows of the cars they bought; unlike for new cars, there is no requirement that used cars have mileage stickers. Judge Ikuta's opinion for the court drew a sharply worded dissent on grounds that the majority opinion could prevent class members from realizing substantial recoveries, and that assignment of the multistate-law issues to the plaintiffs was contrary to California's choice-of-law rules. As Judge Nguyen's dissent saw it, the proponents of applying non-California law to class members outside California -- here, objectors to the settlement - - had the burden of establishing that individual state-law questions predominated. Because, in the dissent's view, the objectors did not meet that challenge, the panel should not have reached the choice-of-law issues at all, and instead should have affirmed the district court's order certifying a nationwide class. Hyundai involved allegations originally made by a large group of plaintiffs (the "Espinosa" plaintiffs) that Hyundai and Kia inflated the mileage performance posted on the windows of certain 2011-13 vehicles. As often happens, the defense argued that the state-by-state variation in consumer-protection statutes precluded certification of a nationwide class, because individual issues in the law applicable to the members of a nationwide class would predominate over common questions at a trial. Accepting this argument, the district court issued a tentative ruling denying the plaintiffs' class certification motion. Following the tentative ruling, plaintiffs in another nationwide class action in the Central District of California, Krauth v. Hyundai Motor Am., moved the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to consolidate twelve nationwide class actions asserting substantially the same claims. The MDL panel granted the motion and transferred the cases to the judge presiding over the Espinosa case and who had issued the tentative ruling denying class certification. Ultimately 56 cases were consolidated in that court as "tag-along" cases. A week after the MDL panel's transfer order, the Espinosa plaintiffs, along with plaintiffs in two of the other nationwide class actions, announced that they had agreed to settle with Hyundai and Kia on a nationwide basis, with several options for relief to be provided to the members of the settlement class. The district court certified the nationwide class for settlement purposes, with the parties predicting that the value of the relief would be $353 for class members who owned or leased a new Hyundai and $667 for those who owned or leased a new Kia. Those with used cards would receive about half those amounts. Upon final approval of the settlement, all of the other cases in the MDL proceeding would be dismissed. During an eight-month period of "confirmatory" discovery after the settlement, a set of plaintiffs commenced a separate class action against Hyundai. Gentry v. Hyundai Motor Am., in the Western District of Virginia. The Gentry plaintiffs claimed relief under Virginia's consumer-protection, false advertising, and vehicle warranty laws. Notably, their false advertising claims sought the greater of $1,000 or treble damages, which would substantially exceed the value of the settlement as described by the Espinosa plaintiffs. The MDL panel transferred the Gentry action to the Central District of California as a "tag-along" case. After confirmatory discovery closed, the settling plaintiffs moved for preliminary approval of their nationwide settlement. The Gentry plaintiffs, however, opposed certification of the nationwide class and sought remand of their case to Virginia. They argued that under the California's choice-of-law rules, Virginia law applied to their claims, on grounds that there was a Virginia choice-of-law clause in their vehicle-purchase contracts, and Virginia had a strong governmental interest in having Virginia law apply to the claims of Virginia citizens. The district court disagreed and preliminarily certified the nationwide settlement class. The district court declined to undertake a choice-of-law analysis, stating that this was unnecessary because the case was not going to trial. The district court regarded the substantive differences between state laws as of lesser importance in a settlement and something that could be addressed at the final approval hearing. After a period for notice to the class and submission of claims, the district court granted final approval of the settlement in June 2015. Hyundai, 2018 WL 505343, at *11. After the district court granted final approval, objectors -- including plaintiffs in Gentry -- appealed, principally on grounds that in certifying the nationwide settlement class, the district court abused its discretion by failing to perform a choice-of-law analysis or consider the variations in state consumer-protection laws. The Ninth Circuit observed -- and this was undisputed by the parties -- that "the district court did not conduct a choice of law analysis, and did not apply California law or the law of any particular state in deciding to certify the class for settlement." Id. at *12. The Ninth Circuit then held that this led to three legal errors, requiring certification to be vacated and the case remanded to the district court for further consideration of the certification question. First, "[i]n failing to apply California choice of law rules, the district court committed a legal error." Id. This followed directly from the Ninth Circuit's prior opinion in Mazza v. Am. Honda Motor. Co., 666 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2012), which stated the familiar principle that "[a] federal court sitting in diversity must look to the forum state's choice of law rules to determine the controlling substantive law." Hyundai, 2018 WL 505343, at *12 (quoting Zinser v. Accufix Research Inst., Inc., 253 F.3d 1180, 1187 (9th Cir. 2001)). Second, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the district court erred "by failing to acknowledge, as it had in its tentative ruling, that Hyundai and the Gentry plaintiffs submitted evidence that the laws in various states were materially different than those in California, and that these variations prevented the court from applying only California law." Id. This led to the third error that the Ninth Circuit identified, that the district court failed "to make a final ruling as to whether the material variations in state law defeated predominance under Rule 23(b)(3)." Noting the Fifth Circuit's opinion in Castano v. Am. Tobacco Co., 84 F.3d 734, 741 (5th Cir. 1996), that "variations in state law may swamp any common issues and defeat predominance," the Ninth Circuit ruled that the district court was required to "analyze whether 'the consumer-protection law of the affected States vary in material ways.'" Hyundai, 2018 WL 505343, at *12 (quoting Pilgrim v. Universal Health Card, LLC, 660 F.3d 943, 947 (6th Cir. 2011)). The Ninth Circuit made clear that settling does not dilute the need to assess whether state-law variations will cause individual questions to predominate before granting class certification. "While the district court was correct that it need not consider litigation management issues in determining whether to certify a class, the Rule 23(b)(3) predominance inquiry focuses on whether common questions outweigh individual questions, an issue that preexists any settlement." Id. (citing Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 623 (1997)). Notably, the Ninth Circuit stated that unsatisfied class members' right to opt-out was "irrelevant" to the certification question. Id. Although the Ninth Circuit did not explain in detail why state- law variations, which traditionally have acted as a barrier to class certification because of difficulties in trial manageability -- for example different evidence for different state-law violations, and proliferation of jury instructions tailored to each statute -- the court did provide some policy reasons why "undiluted, even heightened, attention in the settlement context," Amchem, 521 U.S. at 620, was needed where individual state-law variations were present. Noting that "the district court made clear that it would be unlikely to certify the same class for litigation purposes," the Ninth Circuit observed that this opened the possibility that the nationwide class settlement would sell the class members short: again quoting the Supreme Court's opinion in Amchem, the court noted that the class representatives were well aware that they would be unlikely to succeed in any efforts to certify a nationwide litigation class. Thus, by "permitting class designation despite the impossibility of litigation, both class counsel and court [were] disarmed." Hyundai and Kia knew that there was little risk that they would face a nationwide litigation class action if they did not reach a settlement agreement. Accordingly, "[c]lass counsel confined to settlement negotiations could not use the threat of litigation to press for a better offer, and the court [faced] a bargain proffered for its approval without benefit of adversarial investigation. Hyundai, 2018 WL 505343, at *13 (quoting Amchem, 521 U.S. at 621). Finally, the Ninth Circuit observed that a fairness hearing, as would occur at proceedings on final approval, was "no substitute for rigorous adherence to those provisions of [Rule 23] designed to protect absentees." Id. (quoting Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp., 527 U.S. 815, 849 (1999)). The Ninth Circuit accordingly vacated the district court and remanded the case for further proceedings on certification. In doing so, the court stated that "[w]e make no ruling on this issue, and merely note that Mazza determined that no such class was possible in a closely analogous case." Id. The Ninth Circuit also reiterated important guidance about when a district court may presume reliance on advertising or other messaging when certifying a class. The Hyundai class included persons who owned or leased new as well as used cars. With regard to new cars, the court appeared satisfied that reliance on the defendants' mileage numbers could be presumed because new cars all bore federally required mileage stickers on their windows, even if the record did not show that the advertising campaigns for the vehicles rose to the level of pervasiveness that would permit an inference of uniform exposure under Mazza and the California Supreme Court's opinion in In re Tobacco II Cases, 207 P.3d 29 (Cal. 2009). Hyundai, 2018 WL 505343, at *13. In contrast, there was no requirement of mileage stickers for used cars, leading the Ninth Circuit to conclude that the record failed to support any inference of reliance based on uniform exposure to false statements. The Ninth Circuit accordingly concluded that persons owning or leasing used cars should not have been included in the class. Id. Hyundai underscores the importance that proponents of class certification based on uniform representations point to actual representations that were provided to all class members, such as the mileage stickers on new cars, or an advertising campaign whose pervasiveness can justify an inference of uniform exposure and reliance by the class members. Dissenting, Judge Nguyen strongly disagreed, stating that the majority opinion "deprives thousands of consumers of any chance to recover what is, conservatively speaking, a more than $159 million settlement." As the dissent saw it, the majority departed sharply from case law in the Ninth and other circuits, by shifting "the burden of proving whether foreign law governs class claims from the foreign law proponent -- here, the objectors -- to the district court or class counsel. This newly invented standard significantly burdens our overloaded district courts, creates a circuit split, and runs afoul of the doctrine established long ago in Erie R.R. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 65 (1938)." Id. at *16. The dissent therefore regarded the majority as improperly demanding that the plaintiffs, who proposed the settlement (as well as the district court), unrealistically take on the task of proving that state-law variations do not predominate, when the party actually advocating that foreign law applies, here the objectors, did not in her view demonstrate that the variations do predominate. Id. at 17-18. Whereas the majority saw the issue requiring the plaintiff -- as advocate of certification -- to establish that common questions of law predominated despite the variations in the applicable state substantive laws, the dissent would strictly relegate discussion of those differences to the objectors, who failed to carry their burden. The majority opinion in Hyundai may significantly raise the bar for certification of multistate class action settlements in the Ninth Circuit. By narrowing the range of manageability issues that the district court, under Amchem, may disregard -- and by specifically requiring that state-law variations must be considered when deciding a motion to certify a settlement class - - the Ninth Circuit has at least complicated, if not made impossible, the possibility of certifying a nationwide consumer- protection class action for settlement. [GN] INFUSYSTEM HOLDINGS: Court Dismisses Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ InfuSystem Holdings, Inc. (NYSE American: INFU) ("InfuSystem" or the "Company"), a national provider of infusion pumps and related services for the healthcare industry in the United States, on Jan. 31 disclosed it has received notice that on January 29, 2018 the United States District Court for the Central District of California has issued an order dismissing, with prejudice, a putative class-action lawsuit against the Company. The dismissal relates to an action brought on November 8, 2016 by a purported shareholder of the Company (Case No. 2:16-cv-08295- ODW) against the Company and two individual defendants: Eric Steen, the Company's former Chief Executive Officer, President and Director; and Jonathan Foster, the Company's former Chief Financial Officer. The complaint asserted claims against all defendants under the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws and against Messrs. Steen and Foster as control persons. On June 19, 2017, the Company and all defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the amended complaint. On December 15, 2017, the Court dismissed the plaintiff's first amendment to the class action compliant ("FAC"), with leave to amend. On December 20, 2017, the parties stipulated, and the Court extended, the plaintiff's time to amend the FAC up to January 19, 2018. As of January 19, 2018, the plaintiff never filed an amended complaint and the Court dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice on January 29, 2018. About InfuSystem Holdings, Inc. InfuSystem Holdings, Inc. is a provider of infusion pumps and related services to hospitals, oncology practices and other alternate site healthcare providers. Headquartered in Madison Heights, Michigan, the Company delivers local, field-based customer support and also operates Centers of Excellence in Michigan, Kansas, California, Texas, Georgia and Ontario, Canada. The Company's stock is traded on the NYSE American under the symbol INFU. [GN] INTEREXCHANGE INC: Court Denies Bid to Exclude Kerr Testimony ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JOHANA PAOLA BELTRAN, LUSAPHO HLATSHANENI, BEAUDETTE DEETLEFS, DAYANNA PAOLA CARDENAS CAICEDO, ALEXANDRA IVETTE GONZALEZ, SARAH CAROLINA AZUELA RASCON, LAURA MEJIA JIMENEZ, JULIANE HARNING, NICOLE MAPLEDORAM, and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. INTEREXCHANGE, INC, USAUPAIR, INC., GREAT AUPAIR, LLC, EXPERT GROUP INTERNATIONAL INC., d/b/a Expert AuPair, EURAUPAIR INTERCULTURAL CHILD CARE PROGRAMS, CULTURAL HOMSTAY INTERNATIONAL, CULTURAL CARE, INC. d/b/a Cultural Care Au Pair, AUPAIRCARE INC., AU PAIR INTERNATIONAL, INC., APF GLOBAL EXCHANGE, NFP, d/b/a AuPair Foundation, AMERICAN INSTITUTE FOR FOREIGN STUDY d/b/a Au Pair in America, AMERICAN CULTURAL EXCHANGE, LLC, d/b/a GoAuPair, GOAUPAIR OPERATIONS, LLC, d/b/a GoAuPair, AGENT AU PAIR, A.P.EX. AMERICAN PROFESSIONAL EXCHANGE, LLC d/b/a/ ProAuPair, and 20/20 CARE EXCHANGE, INC. d/b/a The International Au Pair Exchange, Defendants, Civil Action No. 14- cv-03074-CMA-KMT (D. Colo.), Magistrate Judge of the Kathleen F. Tafoya of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado denied the Defendants' Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of William Kerr Pursuant to F.R.E. 702. A detailed and lengthy motion for Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 class certification has been filed by the Plaintiffs. The Defendants vigorously oppose such certification. In attempting to meet the burden to show treatment as a class action is justified in the case, the Plaintiffs presented two expert reports from William O. Kerr, the Expert Report of William O. Kerr and the Rebuttal Expert Report of William O. Kerr. As it relates to Dr. Kerr's reports and expert testimony, the District Court will be required to consider the common impact on the members of the proposed class from the complained-of activities. The activity is allegedly conspiring to fix the stipend paid to au pairs at an artificially and illegally low $195.75 per week. Dr. Kerr, an economist, presents two models which address the harm (or damages) to the au pair class(es) caused by the Defendants' alleged anti-competitive behavior. Both models utilize the so-called "but-for" comparative analysis, meaning that the expert looks to the economic circumstances that would likely have transpired absent the wrongdoing by Defendants. Dr. Kerr concludes that "but-for the actions of the defendants, standard au pairs would have been paid at least the legally required amount of weekly stipend. Given this conclusion, he presents the Court with a model for calculation of damages for the proposed classes at the floor -- to wit: at least the legally required amount of stipend pursuant to federal and state minimum wage laws -- and another model applicable to the competitive ceiling -- to wit: comparing the au pair class in this case against benchmark groups of workers operating in the free market of the United States, which includes within it, the market's legislative restrictions such as minimum wage laws. The Defendants assert Dr. Kerr's opinions should be disallowed because he lacks any workable methodology for calculating damages on a class-wide basis. As a preliminary challenge, they claim that a survey Dr. Kerr relied upon in determining that all the au pair classes nearly uniformly received $195.75 per week as a stipend did not comply with professional standards that govern survey research. Second, the Defendants claim Dr. Kerr's "Wage and Hour Law Compliance Model" for computing damages for the classes is a mere restatement of the Plaintiffs' legal position concerning labor law violations and is therefore inapplicable to an antitrust class. Third, they claim Dr. Kerr's "Price Competition Model" lacks a reliable basis for calculating damages because the benchmark comparative groups chosen by Dr. Kerr are flawed and the Price Competition Model does not live up to the standards set by Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms. for the admissibility of expert opinion testimony. They therefore urge that Dr. Kerr's reports and testimony should be stricken and not considered for any purpose in the Court's determination regarding Rule 23 class certification. Magistrate Judge Tafoya finds that even if the survey and its results were discounted entirely, Dr. Kerr's conclusion that all, or a substantial majority of, au pairs were offered and paid a weekly stipend of approximately $195.75 is amply supported by the other overwhelming evidence he considered. For class certification purposes, Dr. Kerr's expert opinion that the record demonstrates commonality with regard to the weekly stipend amount is based on sufficient facts, data and testimony to render it reliable. The Magistrate Judge also finds that finds the Wage and Hour Compliance model set forth by Dr. Kerr is appropriate under the holding of Comcast Corp. v. Behrend and supports one theory of antitrust injury derived from the Defendants' alleged antitrust behavior. She finds that Comcast does not bar a model of damage calculation based on au pairs' entitlement to at least the federal, state and local minimum wage laws, simply because a similar method would be used to calculate damages for the labor law claims involving the same classes of au pairs also brought in the case. The antitrust laws' underlying policy is to assure that anticompetitive conduct does not go unpunished for mere uncertainty in the amount of loss inflicted. Finally, the Magistrate Judge finds that, in the case, Dr. Kerr's Report and Rebuttal Report meet the criteria for consideration by the District Court at this stage of the class certification analysis and that striking them on an over-technical application of Daubert is inappropriate at this time. For these reasons, Magistrate Judge Tafoya denied the Defendant's Motion. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 24, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/kNZUwk from Leagle.com. Johana Paola Beltran, Lusapho Hlatshaneni, Beaudette Deetlefs & Alexandra Ivette Gonzalez, and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Byron Pacheco -- bpacheco@bsfllp.com - - Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Dawn Smalls -- dsmalls@bsfllp.com -- Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Joshua James Libling -- jlibling@bsfllp.com -- Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Juan Pablo Valdivieso -- jvaldivieso@bsfllp.com -- Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Lauren Fleischer Louis -- llouis@bsfllp.com -- Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Matthew Lane Schwartz -- mlschwartz@BSFLLP.com -- Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Peter Murray Skinner -- pskinner@bsfllp.com -- Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Randall Wade Jackson -- rjackson@bsfllp.com -- Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Sabria Alexandria McElroy -- smcelroy@bsfllp.com -- Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Sean Phillips Rodriguez -- srodriguez@bsfllp.com -- Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Sigrid Stone McCawley -- smccawley@bsfllp.com -- Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP & Alexander Neville Hood, Towards Justice. Juliane Harning, Nicole Mapledoram, and those similarly situated, Laura Mejia Jimenez & Sarah Carolina Azuela Rascon, Plaintiffs, represented by Byron Pacheco, Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Dawn Smalls, Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Joshua James Libling, Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Juan Pablo Valdivieso, Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Matthew Lane Schwartz, Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Peter Murray Skinner, Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Sean Phillips Rodriguez, Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP & Alexander Neville Hood, Towards Justice. InterExchange, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brooke A. Colaizzi -- bcolaizzi@shermanhoward.com -- Sherman & Howard, L.L.C., Raymond Myles Deeny -- rdeeny@shermanhoward.com -- Sherman & Howard, L.L.C., Alyssa Lauren Levy -- alevy@shermanhoward.com -- Sherman & Howard, L.L.C., Heather Fox Vickles -- hvickles@shermanhoward.com -- Sherman & Howard, L.L.C. & Joseph H. Hunt -- jhunt@shermanhoward.com -- Sherman & Howard, L.L.C. USAuPair, INC, Defendant, represented by Chanda Marie Feldkamp -- cfeldkamp@kellywalkerlaw.com -- Kelly & Walker, LLC & William James Kelly, III -- wkelly@kellywalkerlaw.com -- Kelly & Walker, LLC. GreatAuPair, LLC, Defendant, represented by Martin Jose Estevao - - mestevao@armstrongteasdale.com -- Armstrong Teasdale, LLP, Meshach Yustine Rhoades -- mrhoades@armstrongtea -- Armstrong Teasdale, LLP & Vance Orlando Knapp , Armstrong Teasdale, LLP. Expert Group International, Inc, doing business as Expert AuPair, Defendant, represented by Bogdan Enica, Bogdan Enica, Attorney at Law. EuRaupair InterCultural Child Care Programs, Defendant, represented by David Meschke -- dmeschke@bhfs.com -- Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP & Martha Louise Fitzgerald -- mfitzgerald@bhfs.com -- Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP. Cultural Homestay International, Defendant, represented by Adam A. Hubbard -- aahubbard@hollandhart.com -- Holland & Hart, LLP, James Edward Hartley -- jhartley@hollandhart.com -- Holland & Hart, LLP & Jonathan S. Bender -- jsbender@hollandhart.com -- Holland & Hart, LLP. Cultural Care, Inc., doing business as Cultural Care Au Pair, Defendant, represented by Diane Rebecca Hazel-- dhazel@lrrc.com - - Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, James Michael Lyons -- jlyons@lrrc.com -- Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, Jessica Lynn Fuller -- jfuller@lrrc.com -- Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, Joan A. Lukey -- joan.lukey@choate.com -- Choate, Hall & Stewart, LLP, Justin J. Wolosz -- jwolosz@choate.com -- Choate, Hall & Stewart, LLP, Kevin Patrick O'Keefe -- kokeefe@choate.com -- Choate Hall & Stewart, LLP, Lyndsey Marie Kruzer -- lkruzer@choate.com -- Choate, Hall & Stewart, LLP, Michael T. Gass -- mgass@choate.com -- Choate, Hall & Stewart, LLP, Robert M. Buchanan, Jr. -- rbuchanan@choate.com -- Choate, Hall & Stewart, LLP & Samuel Newland Rudman -- srudman@choate.com -- Choate Hall & Stewart, LLP. AuPairCare, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jennifer Arnett Roehrich -- jarnett-roehrich@grsm.com -- Gordon & Rees LLP, Nathan Andrew Huey -- nhuey@grsm.com -- Gordon & Rees LLP, Peggy E. Kozal -- pkozal@grsm.com -- Gordon & Rees LLP & Thomas Baker Quinn -- tquinn@grsm.com -- Gordon & Rees, LLP. APF Global Exchange, NFP, doing business as Aupair Foundation, Defendant, represented by Susan M. Schaecher -- sschaecher@fisherphillips.com -- Fisher & Phillips, LLP. JACOBS ENGINEERING: Court Dismisses "Kritch" Suit ------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Michael Wilner of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California dismissed without prejudice the case, JAMES KRITCH, as an individual, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiff, v. JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC., an Delaware corporation, and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-05666-MRW (C.D. Cal.). Having reviewed the Parties' Joint Stipulation to Dismiss Class Action Case Without Prejudice Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(e), and good cause appearing, the Magistrate Judge granted the Parties' Joint Stipulation. He directed that the Parties will be responsible for their own attorneys fees and costs expended in the action and neither will recover their attorneys fees and costs from the other. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 23, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/0k9H0K from Leagle.com. James Kritch, as an individual on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica Sun Choi -- jchoi@akgllp.com -- Alexander Krakow and Glick LLP, Michael S. Morrison -- mmorrison@akgllp.com -- Alexander Krakow and Glick LLP & Michael Ross Parker -- michael@mrparkerlaw.com -- M.R. Parker Law PC. Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by Betsy Johnson -- betsy.johnson@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak and Stewart PC, Ted Allan Gehring -- ted.gehring@ogletree.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak and Stewart PC & Thomas B. Song -- thomas.song@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak and Stewart PC. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Robbins Geller to Lead in Remicade Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE: REMICADE ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Civil Action No. 17-CV-4326 (E.D. Pa.), Judge J. Curtis Joyner of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (i) granted the Plaintiffs National Employees Health Plan ("NEHP") and Plaintiff Local 295 IBT Employer Group Welfare Fund ("Local 295")'s Motion to Appoint Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as Interim Class Counsel and Jayne A. Goldstein of Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP as Interim Liaison Counsel; and (ii) denied the remaining Applications. Multiple Plaintiffs appear before the Court asserting claims as direct-purchasers against Janssen and its parent, Johnson & Johnson. Each of these Plaintiffs have asserted individual claims on behalf of themselves and class action claims on behalf of those similarly situated. The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants have violated state and federal antitrust laws by undertaking anticompetitive conduct with regard to their pharmaceutical medication, Remicade. The Court has since consolidated these class action lawsuits into the single action. It then provided the Plaintiffs' counsel the opportunity to organize and seek the appointment as the interim class counsel. Before the Court are (i) NEHP's and Local 295's Motion to Appoint Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as Interim Class Counsel and Jayne A. Goldstein of Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP as Interim Liaison Counsel; (ii) Plaintiff UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund's Application to Appoint Gregory S. Asciolla of Labatton Sucharow LLP to Plaintiffs' Steering Committee ("PSC"); (iii) Plaintiff City of Providence, Rhode Island's Application to Appoint Whitney E. Street of Block & Leviton LLP to Plaintiffs' Steering Committee; (iv) Plaintiff Twin Cities Pipe Trades Welfare Fund's Application to Appoint Heidi M. Silton of Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P. to Plaintiffs' Steering Committee and Dianne Nast of NastLaw LLC as Interim Liaison Counsel; and the parties' responses thereto. Judge Joyner holds that the applications demonstrate, to the Court's satisfaction, that Robbins Geller and the members of the proposed PSC are adequate to serve as interim counsel under the factors set forth in Rule 23(g)(1). Both groups of attorneys have worked diligently in identifying and investigating potential claims. B oth groups have significant experience in handling complex antitrust class action litigation. Both groups appear to have a strong grasp on the applicable law. Lastly, he says both groups appear to have more than adequate resources at their disposal to represent the proposed class. Because there are two competing applications, both of which he finds adequate under the factors listed in Rule 23(g)(1), the Judge holds that at this point in the litigation, he believes the proposed class is best served under a single-firm structure advanced by NEHP and Local 295. The PSC applicants are correct that a multi-firm structure may, at times, promote effective representation of the class's interests. However, this is not such a case. With attorneys from three firms working on behalf of the proposed class, the PSC naturally runs a greater risk of increased costs, difficulties in managing the litigation, and efficiently delegating tasks. The PSC has not demonstrated how the possible benefits derived from a multi-firm structure outweigh these inherent risks. The Judge will therefore not burden the proposed class with the litigation-by-committee approach. Accordingly, he finds in favor of NEHP and Local 295's proposal and approve Robbins Geller as the interim class counsel, and Jayne A. Goldstein of Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP as the Interim Liaison Counsel. For these reasons, Judge Joyner granted Plaintiffs NEHP and Local 295's Motion, and denied the remaining Applications. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 23, 2018 Memorandum is available at https://is.gd/Gwxf8g from Leagle.com. NATIONAL EMPLOYEES HEALTH PLAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, represented by JAYNE A. GOLDSTEIN -- jgoldstein@sfmslaw.com -- SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH LLP, ALEXANDRA S. BERNAY -- xanb@rgrdlaw.com -- ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP, BRIAN O. O'MARA -- bomara@rgrdlaw.com - - ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP, CARMEN A. MEDICI -- cmedici@rgrdlaw.com -- ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP, DAVID W. MITCHELL -- davidm@rgrdlaw.com -- ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP, DEBORAH R. GROSS -- dgross@kcr-law.com -- KAUFMAN, COREN & RESS, PC, PATRICK J. COUGHLIN -- patc@rgrdlaw.com -- ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN DOWD LLP, RANDI D. BANDMAN , ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP & NATALIE FINKELMAN BENNETT -- nfinkelman@sfmslaw.com -- SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH LLC. JOHNSON & JOHNSON & JANSSEN BIOTECH, INC., Defendants, represented by LESLIE E. JOHN -- john@ballardspahr.com -- BALLARD SPAHR ANDREWS & INGERSOLL LLP, ADEEL A. MANGI -- aamangi@pbwt.com -- PATTERSON BELKNAP WEBB & TYLER LLP, JAMISON DAVIES -- jmdavies@pbwt.com -- PATTERSON BELKNAP WEBB & TYLER LLP, JONATHAN H. HATCH -- jhatch@pbwt.com -- PATTERSON BELKNAP WEBB & TYLER LLP, MATTHEW VAHEY -- vaheym@ballardspahr.com -- BALLARD SPAHR, SARA A. ARROW -- sarrow@pbwt.com -- PATTERSON BELKNAP WEBB & TYLER LLP & WILLIAM F. CAVANAUGH, Jr. -- wfcavanaugh@pbwt.com -- PATTERSON, BELKNAP, WEBB AND TYLER. THE CITY OF PROVIDENCE, RHODE ISLAND, Movant, represented by WHITNEY E. STREET -- whitney@blockesq.com -- BLOCK & LEVITON LLP. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Perth Mum Joins CA After Years of Pain --------------------------------------------------------- Emma Young, writing for WA Today, reports that a Perth woman has described the "12.5 years of hell" she went through as a mesh implant intended to treat mild incontinence slowly eroded her bladder. Katrina Strange shared her story in a bid to urge other affected women to add their voices to a class action launched by Shine Lawyers, alleging Johnson & Johnson failed to properly test mesh devices and played down their risk to both surgeons and patients. Australia's medical regulator recently banned vaginal mesh, used to treat prolapse and stress urinary incontinence, after finding the risks posed to patients by the devices outweighed any benefits. Perth mother of two Katrina Strange got her device implanted in 2005 after suffering from mild stress urinary incontinence. "The gyno said, 'oh we can do this, easy as -- everything will be fine," she said. She had little idea that she was about to embark on a journey of suffering that would last more than a decade. It would abort her career, absent her from her boys' teen years, place enormous stress on her marriage and ruin the family finances. Two days after the operation, her catheter came out and she was supposed to be able to urinate, she said. But she was unable to, and when the pain grew intolerable she sought medical help. An ultrasound showed her bladder was full and she was catheterised for a further two weeks. She was not given any reason. She assumed she was too bruised and swollen internally to urinate. When the catheter was removed she was left with an "overactive" bladder that left her frequently and urgently needing to urinate. Within a year she visited the doctor with sore hips. Normally an active 32-year-old who spent plenty of time bushwalking with her husband, she found herself too sore and tired to move much. An X- ray found nothing wrong with her bones. She kept up her job working in a government department, taking painkillers, getting physiotherapy to try to relieve her muscle aches and spending days off in bed in an attempt to recover enough for the next shift. She had to give up the outdoor activities she loved. After two years a doctor told her she had fibromyalgia. She had the feeling this diagnosis was a label used to mask bafflement at her symptoms. "It was a terrible way to live. I thought I was dying. I wrote out a will and thought, I don't care -- I've had enough," she said. She couldn't keep up her job as a public servant. She got a part- time job as a housekeeper in an effort to help make ends meet. "I couldn't sit, my husband had to buy me a special cushion. I was spending so much of my life lying down," she said. "Sometimes I had to get Mum to take the boys to school because I couldn't get out of bed. I had to buy them frozen meals. By age 11 and 12 they were cleaning, vacuuming for me, doing their own washing. "I had to quit the housekeeping job after a year and a half and did some housecleaning here and there ... but it got harder for me to travel distances or go out." Her husband, a mine worker, took on more and more work in an effort to keep the family afloat. "He has been so supportive. But his mental health has suffered a lot," Mrs Strange said. "We couldn't plan our future. I couldn't travel. Even standing was hard." By 2013 tests showed adrenal failure. Her body was no longer making enough cortisol, associated with complex processes including waking up, energy levels and exercise as well as stress responses. By early 2017 there were two weeks in which she struggled to walk. Her sons were now grown; one had his own daughter. But Mrs Strange was unable to lift up her granddaughter for a cuddle. In May, her husband saw television coverage of women from across Australia emerging to tell their stories as a Senate inquiry gathered evidence into problems vaginal mesh implants, also used to treat prolapse. Then they came across a local newspaper story about a neighbour suffering the same symptoms. She saw there was a support group, so she got online and began to read the women's stories. "They all sounded so familiar," she said. That September, Mrs Strange found out about a surgeon in Sydney with experience removing her particular brand of mesh, which was considered the easiest to remove, she said. She went home and gave evidence to the Senate Inquiry hearings in Perth. In December she had the mesh surgically removed. "It was considered the easiest type to remove," she said. "It still took 4 hours of surgery. "They found the thing had grown on to my pubic bone and eroded my bladder. "I woke up the same day with minimal bruising, and only mild period-type pain. I felt fantastic. I felt so much lighter." It is now eight weeks on. Mrs Strange said her bladder was functioning normally. Her pain was gone. "I have so much energy it is ridiculous," she said. I have been back on the paddleboard. I am so grateful every day to have a life now, a future I couldn't see before." She urged other women who had had gynaecological surgery and any ensuing problems to find out exactly what products had been used in their surgery and to "stand up and be counted". "They need more people to show this is not a small thing, it's a lot of women and it's disrupting lives," she said. More than 700 Australian women have joined in the product liability class action against Johnson & Johnson. More than 100,000 American women who were implanted with J&J devices have started legal action in the US, with proceedings also commencing in the UK and Canada, according to Shine Lawyers. "A lot of women may not realise they have these inside them. Doctors call them all different things," Mrs Strange said. "Mine called it a "hammock". I was only young, a bit naive, when I look back ... we tend to trust our surgeons. But you must be proactive in your own health and ask questions. Get a copy of your notes and see exactly what you had done. "This has been 12 and a half years of hell, with doctors looking at me like I was depressed, or I was looking for drugs, of my family looking at me and wondering if I was a hypochondriac." Now 44-years-old, Mrs Strange is looking forward to taking a more active role in the lives of her sons, now 21 and 22. "I was so down on myself before. I thought I was lazy and lacked self-discipline because everything was too hard," she said. "Now I have all this energy; I can't stop doing things. I now know I was beating myself up for something that wasn't my fault. I feel so sad for all these women who are still suffering and in pain." Mrs Strange had to wind up the interview to go to her Pilates class. If you believe you have been impacted by a Johnson & Johnson vaginal mesh implant, there is still time to join the action. [GN] LEXISNEXIS RISK: Dismissal of First Advantage's Suit Affirmed ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, FIRST ADVANTAGE LNS, INC., ET AL., Plaintiffs- Appellants, v. LexisNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant- Respondent, Case No. 653812/15, 5509, 5508 (N.Y. App. Div.), the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department, affirmed the dismissal of the amended complaint. Judge Kathryn E. Freed of the New York County Supreme Court entered Judgment on Feb. 17, 2017, which, among other things, dismissed the amended complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs. An appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered Feb. 2, 2017, which granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment. The Court holds that the Supreme Court correctly dismissed the Plaintiffs' indemnification claims for the cases Freckleton and Baker, as neither is within the Defendant's indemnification obligations under the Purchase Agreement. Neither case is among the specific matters set forth below in Schedule 9.1(j) of the agreement. Nor were the Freckleton and Baker cases resulting from, attributable to, based upon or arising out of Goode and Goodman v LexisNexis Risk & Information Analytics Group, Inc. (the G & G Action), one of the matters set forth below on Schedule 9.1(j). The Freckleton and Baker suits could have been brought even had the G & G Action never been commenced, and they result from, and are based on, defendant's alleged conduct, not the G & G Action. The Plaintiffs' construction of 9.1(j)(i) renders 9.1(j)(ii) redundant. The Court rejects the Plaintiffs' efforts to fit Baker, which postdated the limitations period of 9.1(j)(ii), into 9.1(j)(i). A contrary holding would impermissibly strip that provision of all force and effect. The Court also rejects the Plaintiffs' efforts to fit Freckleton into Schedule 9.1(j)(ii), as they disregard or contort that subsection's caveat that to the extent such matters below are claims by a Governmental Entity or private class-action. To fit within (j)(ii), Freckleton's claims needed to be the same or similar to the class-action claims asserted in the G & G Action, which they are not. Finally, the Court disagrees that Freckleton and the G & G class claims are substantially similar because both concern Fair Credit Reporting Act violations in the context of the Esteem database. Were this general category the intended scope of indemnification, the parties, sophisticated corporate entities on both sides, could have so indicated. However, the specific language of Schedule 9.1(j) shows that they did not, and the Court should not read the agreement to imply what they chose not to include. The Court have considered the Plaintiffs' remaining arguments and finds them unavailing. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 23, 2018 Decision and Order is available at https://is.gd/Nh2pmm from Leagle.com. Mayer Brown LLP, New York (Evan M. Tager -- etager@mayerbrown.com -- and Daniel F. Fisher -- daniel.fisher@mayerbrown.com -- of counsel), for appellants. Morrison & Foerster LLP, New York (Joseph R. Palmore -- jpalmore@mofo.com -- of counsel), for respondent. LG ELECTRONICS: Settles Class Action Over Phone Bootloop Problems ----------------------------------------------------------------- Alex Wagner, writing for phonedog, reports that some LG devices have had a nasty history of bootloops, so much so that LG ended up facing a class action lawsuit about it. Now it looks like a settlement has been reached. Law firm Girard Gibbs has set up a website dedicated to the settlement of a class action lawsuit against LG about the bootloop problems that affected many of its phones. According to the website, which was up earlier on Jan. 31 before disappearing, members of the class action lawsuit could get either $425 in cash or a $700 rebate toward a new LG phone. The class action lawsuit focused on the LG G4, LG G5, LG V10, LG V20, and Nexus 5X for their bootloop issues. The website included a proof of claim for those who took part in the class action lawsuit to fill out. That form must be filled out by February 12, 2018. Having your phone reboot over and over and over again is frustrating, as most people have a lot of personal data on their phone and rely on it to stay connected to what's happening in the world. It's good to see that customers affected by LG's bootloop issues will be compensated for dealing with the problem. [GN] LIFE TIME: "Lenardson" Suit Seeks to Recoup Minimum, OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Jack Lenardson and Todd Ortowski, Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Life Time Fitness, Inc. (MN), Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00293 (N.D. Ga., January 19, 2018), seeks declaratory relief, liquidated and actual damages for failure to pay federally mandated minimum and overtime wages to Plaintiffs in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Plaintiffs worked at Life Time Fitness in Johns Creek, Georgia as Personal Trainers within the past three years and were compensated using a commission-based system based on sales or services provided to Life Time members. Life Time allegedly did not keep accurate records of Plaintiffs' regular hourly rate, overtime rate of pay, hours worked each workday or workweek, all deductions made from their gross wages, and the settlement periods used to allocate the commissions over pre-determined periods of time. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Paul J. Sharman, Esq. THE SHARMAN LAW FIRM LLC 11175 Cicero Drive, Suite 100 Alpharetta, GA 30022 Phone: (678) 242-5297 Fax: (678) 802-2129 Email: paul@sharman-law.com LINCOLN NATIONAL: 6th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of ERISA Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Judge Deborah L. Cook of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the case, OLIVER HUSTON BARBER, III, on behalf of himself and two classes of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 17- 5588 (6th Cir.). Barber worked as a litigator at Stites & Harbison, PLLC. The firm's long-term disability insurance policy with Lincoln offers both Total and Partial Disability benefits. Under the policy, beneficiaries may qualify for disability benefits when they cannot perform one or more of the Main Duties of his or her Specialty in the Practice of Law on a full-time basis. If a beneficiary engages in Partial Disability Employment -- in other words, an employee continues working at his or her Own Occupation or any other occupation under reduced hours, duties, or pay -- then Partial Disability benefits apply. But if a disabled beneficiary stops working altogether, then he may be entitled to Total Disability benefits. After being diagnosed with Parkinson's disease, Barber applied for Total Disability benefits and Lincoln approved his application. When Lincoln later asked whether he had any other sources of income, Barber reported that he was working as an independent contractor for a political campaign. Lincoln thereafter began reducing his monthly benefits to reflect those consulting earnings. After Lincoln denied his requests to stop offsetting his benefits, Barber initiated the purported class action. Barber sued Lincoln under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") for (1) offsetting from his disability benefits his earnings as a political consultant and (2) calculating those offsets using figures he disclosed to Lincoln rather than the numbers he later reported for federal income tax purposes. The district court dismissed the first count for failure to state a claim and the second for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Barber now appeals the district court's dismissal of his complaint. Judge Cook finds that although the parties dispute whether Barber's benefits should be calculated under the policy's Total or Partial Disability benefits section, Barber's appeal turns on whether his consulting earnings qualify as "Other Income Benefits," which the policy incorporates into both sections. Per the policy, the Total Disability benefit equals the Insured Employee's Basic Monthly Earnings multiplied by the Benefit Percentage minus Other Income Benefits. And the Partial Disability benefit comprises the lesser of either the Insured Employee's Predisability Income, minus all Other Income Benefits (including earnings from Partial Disability Employment), or the Insured Employee's Predisability Income multiplied by the Benefit Percentage (limited to the Maximum Monthly Benefit); minus Other Income Benefits, except for earnings from Partial Disability Employment. The Judge says even evaluating Barber's claim under the Total Disability formula as he alleges it should be calculated, Barber fails to plausibly state a claim because the policy allows Lincoln to consider his earnings as Other Income Benefits under either section. Given the policy's clear language, the Judge cannot overlook language in the Other Income Benefits section that he deems contrary to the policy's purpose. The Judge also finds that because no ERISA provision requires Lincoln to use tax documentation in offsetting benefits, any such duty could only come from the policy itself. As Barber alleges a claim based on the policy, he must either administratively exhaust his claims or plead futility. He does neither. Although Barber exhausted his administrative remedies for his denial of benefits claim related to Count I, he concedes that his counts "do not overlap." Lincoln also underscores that before the lawsuit Barber never challenged Lincoln's decision to offset his earnings on a monthly basis using self-reported figures. Because Barber failed to administratively exhaust his remedies or plead futility for Count II, the district court correctly dismissed that count. Accordingly, Judge Cook affirmed the district court's dismissal. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 23, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/0ZfsOs from Leagle.com. LOOMIS ARMORED: "Hawkins" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages ---------------------------------------------------- Tony Hawkins, Paul Nigh, Shondell Ollison and Charlie Grice III, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. Loomis Armored US, LLC, Case No. 18-cv-00047, (E.D. Ark., January 19, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and expenses, and any other relief under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Hawkins worked for Loomis as an armored vehicle driver and guard from approximately December 2015 until October 2016. During the past three years, Hawkins has worked more than 40 hours in one or more workweeks, and he was not paid overtime compensation for all his overtime hours. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: John Hollerman, Esq. Timothy Steadman, Esq. Jerry Garner, Esq. HOLLEMAN & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 1008 West Second Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Tel: 501.975.5040 Fax: 501.975.5043 Email: jholleman@johnholleman.net tim@johnholleman.net jerry@johnholleman.net MARK GOBER: Faces "Darrough" Suit in E.D. of Arkansas ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mark Gober. The case is styled as Paul Darrough, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Mark Gober, individually and in his Official Capacity and John Does 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-00113-JLH (E.D. Ark., February 7, 2018).[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Luther Oneal Sutter, Esq. Sutter& Gillham, PLLC Post Office Box 2012 Benton, AR 72018 Tel: (501) 315-1910 Fax: (501) 315-1916 Email: luthersutter.law@gmail.com MARYLAND: Taxpayers to Appeal Class Action Dismissal ---------------------------------------------------- Anamika Roy, writing for The Daily Record, reports that an attorney representing a class of Maryland taxpayers who sued in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court striking down the state's "piggyback tax" said his clients plan to appeal a Baltimore judge's dismissal of the $38 million lawsuit. [GN] MDL 2804: Trade Group Responds to Opioid Crisis Lawsuits -------------------------------------------------------- Mitchell Kirk, writing for Pharos-Tribune Logansport, reports that prescription opioid distributors are being wrongfully charged in lawsuits being filed across the state casting blame for the nation's opioid epidemic, according to a trade group representing three of the defendants. Healthcare Distribution Alliance represents AmerisourceBergen, Cardinal Health and McKesson, three of the defendants in a class- action lawsuit accusing opioid manufacturers and distributors of dramatically increasing the use of prescription opioid pain medications through deceptive marketing. Logansport officials are considering joining other governments across the state in the litigation. John Parker, senior vice president of Healthcare Distribution Alliance, responded to the litigation in a statement. "The misuse and abuse of prescription opioids is a complex public health challenge that requires a collaborative and systemic response that engages all stakeholders," Mr. Parker said. "Given our role, the idea that distributors are responsible for the number of opioid prescriptions written defies common sense and lacks understanding of how the pharmaceutical supply chain actually works and is regulated. Those bringing lawsuits would be better served addressing the root causes, rather than trying to redirect blame through litigation." The statement goes on to describe distributors as logistics experts "tasked with the primary responsibility of delivering all medicines to licensed pharmacies and healthcare providers." "Distributors do not manufacture, prescribe, dispense or in any way, drive demand," the statement continues. "Further, distributors cannot make medical determinations about patient care or provider prescribing." The statement also indicates that the Drug Enforcement Administration "is responsible for setting the annual production of controlled substances in the market, approving and regulating the entities allowed to prescribe and handle opioids and sharing data with entities in the supply chain regarding potential cases of diversion." Distributors report all opioid orders to the DEA whether suspicious or not, the statement continues. "Greater communication and coordination with the DEA will help support real-time response against abuse and diversion where it occurs," according to the statement. [GN] MDL 2804: Wapello County Opts Out of Opioid Crisis Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Newman, writing for Ottumwa Courier, reports that questions about the wisdom -- and ethics -- of filing a lawsuit against big pharmaceutical companies were enough to keep the county out of a class-action lawsuit. Wapello County is part of a regional committee discussing action to reduce the dangers of opioids -- prescription painkillers found to be addictive. The supervisors said they find value in that conversation. But they had to decide whether they wanted to pile onto the civil suit. In this state, counties belong to ISAC, Iowa's State Organization of Counties. "ISAC would like us on board because the more litigants, the more powerful the suit will be," Supervisor Jerry Parker had said during a discussion. But he and fellow supervisors Brian Morgan and Greg Kenning said on Jan. 30 they let the deadline to join the suit come and go. There were too many questions. County Sheriff Mark Miller said it's not unusual for area resident to go "doctor shopping" until they get a cooperative physician to provide what they want. And there were a large number of people reporting their medicine stolen; they'd ask for a police report saying their Vicodin was gone. Then, they'd go to the nurse and get their meds "refilled." Mr. Kenning, whose son is a physician, got some basics on the subject. Information about the dangers of opioid use could help prevent future addiction, said Mr. Parker. Last time the subject came up, the Courier asked why the county would hesitate to get in on the suit. Especially if there was funding to be found. "It's the principle," said Mr. Parker. "Are we blaming the drug companies unfairly?" Mr. Kenning spoke to doctors and administrators to learn more, he said. "This isn't like the tobacco settlement," said Mr. Kenning. "In that, we had a product that is not needed, it is not good for you. There are times patients need an opioid pain reliever." "It was the state of medicine at the time," is what he learned, he said. "If the patient was experiencing any pain, you weren't doing your job as a medical entity." While Wapello County won't get anything in this particular settlement, if nearby counties bring in a few thousand dollars, the three said, they're not going to feel bad. [GN] MEDTRONIC INC: Judge Allows Class-Action Suit to Proceed -------------------------------------------------------- Joe Carlson and Jim Spencer, writing for the Star Tribune, reports that a federal judge in Minnesota has granted a group of investors permission to pursue a class-action lawsuit against Medtronic over allegations that the med-tech company inflated its stock value by secretly paying doctors millions of dollars to conceal adverse events associated with its bone-growth product Infuse. The last time a federal judge in Minnesota granted class-action status to an Infuse-related shareholder lawsuit, Medtronic and the plaintiffs quickly moved into settlement talks in 2012 that resulted in Medtronic agreeing to pay $85 million to the investors to resolve that litigation. On February 1 a Medtronic spokesman noted the ruling in the latest case, West Virginia Pipe Trades Health and Welfare Fund vs. Medtronic, limits the scope of the lawsuit, and the company continues to believe the litigants' claims are without merit. "We intend to pursue a vigorous defense in this matter and will continue efforts to obtain a complete dismissal of the case," Medtronic spokesman Eric Epperson said in an e-mailed statement. University of Minnesota Law School Prof. Brett McDonnell said the judge's decision to certify class-action status in a securities- law case like this one was an important step for the plaintiffs. "If you don't get a class certification, you're done," McDonnell said, "because it is not financially feasible to sue individually." In his 31-page ruling Jan. 30, U.S. District Chief Judge John Tunheim ruled that the West Virginia Pipe Trades class-action suit is limited to shareholders who bought stock between Sept. 8, 2010, and June 28, 2011. About 6.5 million shares of Medtronic stock were traded daily during that period, and nearly 1,200 major institutions owned Medtronic stock in that time. The only plaintiffs in the suit today are the West Virginia Pipe Trades Health and Welfare Fund, the state of Hawaii's retirement system and a German investment group called Union Asset Management Holding AG. Mitchell Hamline School of Law professor emeritus Dan Kleinberger said Thursday that the order to expand the pool of potential plaintiffs could fundamentally change the legal calculus behind a potential settlement. Class certification paves the way for a discovery process in which Medtronic might have to reveal internal company records on its handling of Infuse to legal adversaries, and eventually to the public, which company executives might want to avoid. "Even in situations where allegations are not as juicy as they are here," Kleinberger said, the prospects for disclosing company documents can be "fraught with bad publicity" and "are sometimes enough to induce reasonable corporate decisionmakers to start thinking about settling." Medtronic is working to finalize settlements with about 6,000 Infuse patients in unrelated lawsuits and claims, following a December agreement to pay $12 million to five states to end their investigations into the controversial biotech product. The company has admitted no wrongdoing or liability in those cases. Infuse is a complex product with a complicated legal history. The active ingredient is a genetically engineered biologic drug called recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2, or rhBMP- 2, which only Medtronic has approval to sell in the U.S. The Food and Drug Administration in 2002 approved sales of Infuse to treat lower back pain by using the chemical to spur bone growth to fuse vertebrae in the lower spine, but only from specific surgical approaches in combination with other devices. Using Infuse for spinal-fusion surgery is supposed to eliminate the pain and expense of having a secondary surgery to harvest living bone-graft material from the patient's own hip. In recent years, independent researchers have concluded that Infuse carries such serious potential side effects and higher costs that it's difficult to find a clear rationale to use it in spinal fusion. "Earlier disclosure of all relevant data would have better informed clinicians and the public than the initial published trial reports did," a team of researchers in Oregon concluded in a report in the Annals of Internal Medicine in 2013. Infuse was a key part of Medtronic's spine division, which reported $3.5 billion in revenue in 2008, 2009 and 2010. The West Virginia Pipe Trades plaintiffs say that safety risks discovered, but not reported, in the early clinical trials would have "threatened" Infuse sales goals if they were publicized. The West Virginia Pipe Trades litigation centers on allegations that Medtronic paid physicians millions of dollars to conceal adverse events and side effects associated with Infuse use in early studies. Specifically, they say Medtronic-affiliated doctors published research reports in medical journals that concealed Infuse adverse effects while overstating the disadvantages of traditional bone-graft procedures. The lawsuit accuses Medtronic employees of secretly editing those articles, while also concealing $210 million in company payments to the authors. Medtronic argued in court filings that at least some of those payments were disclosed in the fine print of the early journal articles, which noted certain authors had received Medtronic payments "in excess of $10,000." In his 31-page ruling Jan. 30, Tunheim wrote that describing millions of dollars in payments as simply being "more than $10,000" may be factual, but effectively omits conflict-of- interest information that could have tipped off doctors and investors. After the Spine Journal revealed in June 2011 that past Infuse study authors had omitted adverse events while accepting millions in payments, stock analysts said the revelation diminished the value of the studies, and in some people's eyes, completely invalidated them. "In the mind of the reasonable investor, payments totaling $210 million are something quite different than several payments 'in excess of $10,000,'" Tunheim wrote. Medtronic maintains that payments to physician-authors were for legitimate purposes, including royalties on patents. "Physician- inventors, whose groundbreaking medical devices improve patients' lives, are entitled to compensation for their intellectual property. Medtronic does not compensate physicians for the use or endorsement of our products, and disagrees with any suggestion to the contrary," the company's statement February 1 said. [GN] MO'S FISHERMAN: Bid to Consolidate FLSA Suits Denied ---------------------------------------------------- Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland denies the motion to consolidate the cases captioned ERICK RIVERA et al., Plaintiffs, v. MO'S FISHERMAN EXCHANGE, INC. et al., Defendants. CLEMENTE GALVEZ et al., Plaintiffs, v. MO'S FISHERMAN EXCHANGE, INC et al., Defendants, Civil Action Nos. ELH-15-1427, ELH-17-2901 (D. Md.). The Rivera Plaintiffs filed a collective action on May 19, 2015, against Mo's, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and other employment statutes. The Rivera Complaint has since been amended twice. On Jan. 15, 2016, the Rivera Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Conditional Certification and to Facilitate Notice Under the FLSA. In their motion, they proposed a 90-day opt-in period for other Plaintiffs to join the collective action. The Defendants opposed the motion, arguing, inter alia, that a 60-day opt-in period, rather than a 90-day opt-in period, was appropriate. In Judge Hollander's Memorandum Opinion and Orderof June 23, 2016, she granted, in part, the motion for conditional certification and approved the 90-day opt-in period. The Rivera Plaintiffs and the Defendants agree that the 90-date opt-in period for the collective action expired in November 2016, although they appear to disagree as to whether it expired on Nov. 2, 2016, or on Nov. 5, 2016. The Rivera Plaintiffs never moved to extend the opt-in deadline, although at least one Plaintiff joined the lawsuit after the deadline had passed, without an objection from the defense. The Discovery in Rivera was completed on Aug. 30, 2017. On Sept. 29, 2017, Clemente Galvez, Salvador Lopez, Juan Lopez, and Carlos Melgar filed a separate class action against the same Defendants, alleging roughly the same violations of the same statutes as the Rivera Plaintiffs. On the same day, the Galvez Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Consolidate Cases, which was mirrored by a motion filed by the Rivera Plaintiffs in their case. The two motions to consolidate are supported by memoranda of law. The Plaintiffs in both cases assert that consolidation is proper under Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a) because the cases involve common questions of law and fact, the risk of inconsistent adjudications of common issues is high, and the risk of prejudice and possible confusion is low. Further, they contend that consolidation furthers the FLSA's remedial purpose. They do not dispute that the opt-in deadline has passed. The Defendants oppose the Motion on the grounds that it is premature, and that the Motion is an unfair attempt to circumvent the opt-in deadline set by the Court. They do not deny that there are common questions of law and fact in the two cases. Judge Hollander finds that the Plaintiffs insist that the risk of prejudice or confusion is non-existent, because the Galvez Plaintiffs will submit answers to the Defendants' interrogatories and will seek only that written discovery pertaining to their individual claims that was previously requested by the Rivera Plaintiffs. However, the Judge says, discovery in the Rivera action has already closed, and a motion for partial summary judgment is currently pending. Adding more the Plaintiffs to the Rivera action, even for limited discovery, would necessitate the revision of the Court's scheduling order. Such a modification requires a showing of good cause. The Galvez Plaintiffs have offered no good cause why they could not have timely opted into the Rivera action. Accordingly, Judge Hollander declined to permit the Galvez Plaintiffs to join the Rivera action. The request was made more than 10 months after the opt-in deadline and a month after the close of discovery. She recognized, however, that judicial economy may counsel in favor of the consolidation of the two actions at a later time. Therefore, the Judge denied deny the Motion, without prejudice. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 23, 2018 Memorandum is available at https://is.gd/SLq80h from Leagle.com. Clemente Galvez, Salvador Lopez & Juan Lopez, Plaintiffs, represented by Andrew David Freeman -- adf@browngold.com -- Brown Goldstein and Levy LLP, Brooke E. Lierman -- BLierman@browngold.com -- Brown Goldstein Levy, Jessica Paulie Weber -- jweber@browngold.com -- Brown Goldstein and Levy LLP, Monisha Cherayil, Public Justice Center & Sally Jean Dworak Fisher, Public Justice Center Inc. Carlos Melgar, On behalf themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew David Freeman, Brown Goldstein and Levy LLP, Brooke E. Lierman, Brown Goldstein Levy, Jessica Paulie Weber, Brown Goldstein and Levy LLP, Monisha Cherayil, Public Justice Center & Sally Jean Dworak Fisher, Public Justice Center Inc. Mo's Fisherman Exchange, Inc., doing business as Mo's Towson doing business as Mo's, Mo's Pulaski Highway Corp., doing business as Mo's White Marsh doing business as Mo's Seafood Restaurant doing business as Mo's, Mo's Crab and Pasta Factory, Inc., doing business as Mo's Crab & Pasta doing business as Mo's Little Italy, Mo's Fisherman's Ritchie Highway, Inc., doing business as Mo's Seafood Factory, Mo's Belair Seafood, Inc., doing business as Mo's Fisherman's Wharf doing business as Mo's Inner Harbor, Mo's Eastern Avenue, Inc., doing business as Mo's Seafood Factory Neighborhood Bar & Grill doing business as Mo's Neighborhood Bar & Grill, Fisherman's Wharf Inner Harbor, Inc., doing business as Mo's Fisherman's Wharf doing business as Mo's Inner Harbor & Mohammed S. Manocheh, also known as Mohammad S. Manocheh doing business as Mo's Seafood Restaurant doing business as Mo's Fisherman's Wharf doing business as Mo's doing business as Mo's Inner Harbor doing business as Mo's Towson doing business as Mo's White Marsh doing business as Mo's Seafood Factory doing business as Mo's Crab and Pasta Factory doing business as Mo's Neighborhood Bar and Grill, Defendants, represented by Andrew Marc Dansicker -- ADANSICKER@DANSICKERLAW.COM -- Dansicker Law Firm. MONTRES BREGUET: Faces "Thorne" Suit in S.D. of New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Montres Breguet S.A. The case is styled as Braulio Thorne, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Montres Breguet S.A. d/b/a Breguet, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01108 (S.D. N.Y., February 7, 2018). Montres Breguet S.A. designs and manufactures watches and jewelry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Chaim Cohen, Esq. Daniel Cohen PLLC 407 Rockaway Avenue, 3rd Floor Brooklyn, NY 11212 Tel: (646) 645-8482 Email: dancohenlaw@gmail.com MORGAN STANLEY: Sued for Racial Bias a Decade After CA Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- Chris Dolmetsch, writing for Bloomberg, reports that a former Morgan Stanley wealth manager sued the bank saying he was terminated following a "campaign of harassment," even after the settlement a decade ago of a class-action discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed in federal court in New York by John Lockette, an African-American man from New Jersey who worked at Morgan Stanley as an assistant vice president in its wealth management division in 2013 until he was fired in August 2016. Lockette says the reforms obtained by the settlements of class-action suits have "utterly failed" and that the company's discriminatory policies and practices continue. "Morgan Stanley has no genuine intent to reform, to provide equal opportunities to African-Americans, or to abide by the spirit of its agreement" to settle the racial discrimination claims, Lockette says in his suit. Spokeswoman Christy Jockle said "Morgan Stanley denies the allegations in the complaint. The firm is strongly committed to nondiscrimination, and looks forward to addressing this former employee's claims on the merits." The bank agreed in 2007 to pay $16 million to settle claims that branch managers steered new and existing accounts to white male brokers, depriving black and Latino financial advisers in its global wealth management group the opportunity to earn commissions and promotions. [GN] NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Misleading Students About Loan Forgiveness ------------------------------------------------------------- Jackie Callaway, writing for ABC Action News, reports that former FSU teacher and national weather service meteorologist Bill Cottrill says he asked the right questions. Cottrill was 6 years into his student loan payments when he called Navient, then Sallie Mae, about the loan forgiveness program. According to a class-action lawsuit filed in federal court, Cottrill made 120 payments, about $130,000 worth, on time - moves that should have freed him from the remainder of his balance. But instead of loan forgiveness after 10 years he was told he had the wrong type of loan. Tampa student loan attorney Christie Arkovich, Esq. -- Christie@christiearkovich.com -- filed the suit. She accuses Navient of misleading Cottrill and others about the qualifications for debt forgiveness. For Cottrill it means delaying retirement another decade. We asked Navient to respond to the allegations in the suit, but they refused to comment on pending litigations. The suit says Navient failed to advise Cottrill and thousands of others to convert their loan into what's known as a direct loan in order to qualify for forgiveness. The forgiveness program just turned 10 years old. Many of those affected won't find out about their loss until they've paid a decade and stayed in a certain job in order to qualify. ABC Action News reached out to Navient who said they can't comment on either of the two pending cases or the specific consumer accounts. However, they did release the following statement: "At Navient we are on the front lines of repayment every day, so we know how complex the federal loan program can be. That is why we have made a series of recommendations to policymakers to simplify the program. In this case, Public Service Loan Forgiveness was created by Congress solely for Federal Direct Loans. A borrower's loan type is stated in the loan contract and on other multiple documents, and our representatives take care to explain Public Service Loan Forgiveness eligibility to interested borrowers and refer customers to complete an Employment Certification Form annually to ensure they are eligible." [GN] NORTH STAR: Peoplease Dismissed as Defendant in FLSA Suit --------------------------------------------------------- In the case, WILLIAM STEVE VALENCIA, an individual, and LUIS FERNANDEZ SOTO, an individual, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. NORTH STAR GAS LTD. CO., a California corporation; PEOPLEASE LLC, a South Carolina Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00250-GPC-JMA (S.D. Cal.), Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss Defendant Peoplease. On Feb. 8, 2017, Valencia and Soto filed a putative hybrid class action in federal court against the Defendants. On June 27, 2017, the Court granted Peoplease's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, but granted the Plaintiffs leave to amend. The Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint ("FAC") on May 30, 2017. The Plaintiffs bring a putative collective action for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), a putative class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 ("Rule 23") for violations of California state law, and a representative action under the Private Attorney General Act. They allege that North Star owns, operates, or otherwise manages a natural gas company responsible for distribution and supply of propane. In their FAC, the Plaintiffs have expanded their discussion of Peoplease's role. Peoplease served as the Plaintiffs' co- employer. Peoplease advised the Plaintiffs that they served as thelaintiffs' "co-employer" and had responsibility for paying their wages, administering some benefit programs, and working with site supervisors to administer all human resources functions. Peoplease offers human resource offerings, which include tasks such as recruiting, hiring, negotiating and setting pay rates, setting schedules and hours, and training. The Plaintiffs allege that Peoplease controlled substantial aspects of their rate and method of pay. In particular, Peoplease dictated whether the Plaintiffs received overtime on their piece rate earnings and did much more than just the ministerial task of handing out payroll. Finally, the Plaintiffs asserted that Peoplease is the co-employer responsible for all human resources functions and as a leading provider of administrative solutions and services for the transportation and logistics industry sets and negotiates rates of pay. The Plaintiffs bring the instant action on behalf of themselves and on behalf of current and former non-exempt employees who transported propane along certain routes for the Defendants. They assert nine claims for relief based on the Defendants' (1) failure to pay wages due under the FLSA, (2) failure to pay overtime due under state law, (3) failure to pay regular wages under state law, (4) failure to pay meal period premium pay under state law, (5) failure to pay rest break premium pay under state law, (6) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements under state law, (7) failure to timely pay wages under state law; (8) violation of the UCL; and (9) enforcement of the Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA"). Peoplease filed the instant motion on June 27, 2017 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). It asserts that it is not in an employment relationship with the Plaintiffs and thus cannot be held liable for violations of the Labor Code or the FLSA. The Plaintiffs responded on Aug. 4, 2017 and Peoplease replied on Jan. 12, 2018. Judge Curiel finds that the Plaintiffs have not adequately alleged facts showing that Peoplease had the power or authority to negotiate and set their rates of pay, beyond the mere responsibility to provide Plaintiffs with payment. Their allegations do not satisfy the first definition of employment articulated in Martinez v. Combs. Absent factual allegations tending to show such power or authority, the Plaintiffs' Complaint does not yield a reasonable inference that Peoplease exercised control over the Plaintiffs' wages. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs have not adequately pled that Peoplease qualifies as an "employer" under California law. The Judge also finds that the Plaintiffs' allegations continue to fail to give rise to a plausible inference that they were their joint employers under the FLSA. The Plaintiffs did not plead that Peoplease had the power to hire and fire them. They do not allege that Peoplease supervised their work schedules. Finally, the Judge says the Plaintiffs' have not adequately alleged that Peoplease determined the pay rate of the Plaintiffs or other similarly situated Plaintiffs. The totality of the circumstances do not suggest that Peoplease was a joint employer of the Plaintiffs in economic reality. Finally, as amendments could cure the deficiencies in the pleading, Judge Curiel will allow the Plaintiffs a final opportunity to amend their complaint. The Plaintiffs should take care to plead facts that indicate an inference that Peoplease had the power and authority to control the wages of the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated Plaintiffs in the case. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Curiel granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss. The Plaintiffs may amend their Complaint within 14 days of entry of the Order. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 23, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/RLJZ9A from Leagle.com. William Steve Valencia, an individual on behalf of themselves and on behalf of others similarly situated & Luis Fernandez Soto, an individual on behalf of themselves and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Alex M. Tomasevic -- atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org -- Nicholas and Tomasevic LLP, Craig McKenzie Nicholas -- cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org -- Nicholas and Tomasevic & Shaun A. Markley -- smarkley@nicholaslaw.org -- Nicholas & Tomasevic LLP. North Star Gas LTD. Co., a California corporation, Defendant, represented by Marie Burke Kenny -- marie.kenny@procopio.com -- Procopio Cory Hargreaves & Savitch LLP. NORTHEAST TEXAS HOME: "Easley" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Alesha R. Easley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Northeast Texas Home Health, Ltd. (d/b/a At Home Health), Case No. 18-cv-00019 (E.D. Tex., January 22, 2018) seeks to recover overtime wages, improper deductions from Plaintiff's salary, liquidated damages, all available equitable relief, attorney fees, and litigation expenses/costs, including expert witness fees and expenses for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant operates as At Home Health, with locations in Henderson, Tyler, Sulphur Springs and Canton, Texas. Easley worked as a home health nurse in Canton, TX. She worked between 60 and 70 hours per week without overtime wages. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: William S. Hommel, Jr. HOMMEL LAW FIRM 1404 Rice Road, Suite 200 Tyler, TX 75703 Tel: (903) 596-7100 Fax: (469) 533-1618 Email: info@hommelfirm.com NORTON HEALTHCARE: Plan Members Allege Fund Mismanagement --------------------------------------------------------- Donna Disselkamp and Erica Hunter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Norton Healthcare, Inc., Richard S. Wolf, G. Hunt Rounsavall, Stephen A. Williams, Donald H. Robinson, The Norton Healthcare Retirement Plan Investment Committee and Jane and/or John Does 1-25 Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00048, (W.D. Ky., January 22, 2018), seeks damages, equitable or remedial relief, attorneys' fees and expenses and any other relief for breach of fiduciary duty and for violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The Norton Healthcare 403(b) Plan is a defined contribution, individual account, employee pension benefit plan for employees of Norton Healthcare and any direct or indirect subsidiary of the company that has been offered the Plan. Plaintiffs allege that the fiduciaries to the Plan failed to monitor the available share classes and to select the lowest share class of the funds for inclusion in the plan menu over a three-year period prior to 2015, costing plan participants $339,984.65 unnecessary charges. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: John S. Friend, Esq. Robert W. Bishop, Esq. Tyler Z. Korus, Esq. BISHOP KORUS FRIEND, PSC 6520 Glenridge Park Place, Suite 6 Louisville, KY 40222 Tel: (502) 425-2600 Email: firm@bishoplegal.net - and - Frank H. Tomlinson, Esq. TOMLINSON LAW, LLC 2100 First Avenue North, Suite 600 Birmingham, AL 35203 Tel: (205) 326-6626 Email: hilton@tomlawllc.com - and - James H. White, IV, Esq. JAMES WHITE FIRM, LLC 2100 First Avenue North, Suite 600 Birmingham, AL 35203 Tel: (205) 383-1812 Email: james@whitefirmllc.com - and - Brice M. Johnston, Esq. JOHNSTON LAW FIRM, P.C. 2100 First Avenue North, Suite 600 Birmingham, AL 35203 Tel: (205) 328-9445 Ext. 600 Email: brice@johnstonfirmpc.com OCEAN SPRAY: Seeks 1st Circuit Review of Ruling in "Winters" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc., filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Winters, et al. v. Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc., Case No. 1:12-cv-12016-RWZ, in the U.S. District Court for the District Court of Massachusetts. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the District Court issued a Memorandum of Decision granting in part and denying in part Parties' Motion for Summary Judgment in the case. Ocean Spray moves for summary judgment on Counts I and II. A number of plaintiffs move for partial summary judgment on Count I. In this action, some 50 plaintiffs allege that Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc., an agricultural cooperative, has unlawfully manipulated the price of cranberry juice concentrate and discriminated against B Pool members of the cooperative. In their Fourth Amended Complaint, plaintiffs bring three claims: (1) that Ocean Spray engaged in unfair and deceptive acts in violation of Massachusetts General Laws chapter 93A, Section 11, thereby injuring the independent growers (Count I); (2) that Ocean Spray engaged in a pattern of anti-competitive conduct in violation of section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 2, thereby injuring both B pool and independent growers (Count II); and (3) that Ocean Spray retaliated against certain plaintiffs in violation of Massachusetts General Laws chapter 93A, Section 11 (Count III). The appellate case is captioned as Winters, et al. v. Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc., Case No. 18-8001, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Respondents JOHN DOE GROWERS 1-7, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated as a class, and JOHN DOE B POOL GROWER 1, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated as a class, are represented by: Frederick J. Carleton, Esq. Shala McKenzie Kudlac, Esq. CARLETON LAW OFFICES PO Box 38 Bandon, OR 97411 Telephone: (541) 347-2468 E-mail: bandoncarllaw.fjc@gmail.com kudlac.cran@gmail.com - and - Paul S. Hassett, Esq. Daniel S. Lenz, Esq. James A. Olson, Esq. LAWTON & CATES, S.C. 345 W Washington Ave., Suite 201 PO Box 2965 Madison, WI 53701 Telephone: (608) 282-6200 Facsimile: (608) 282-6252 E-mail: shassett@lawtoncates.com dlenz@lawtoncates.com jolson@lawtoncates.com - and - Manuel C. Hernandez, Esq. Javier D. Spyker, Esq. HERNANDEZ AND ASSOCIATES, LLC PO Box 979 Bandon, OR 97411 Telephone: (541) 347-2911 Facsimile: (365) 365-3656 E-mail: lawtalk@visitbandon.com - and - Norman H. Jackman, Esq. JACKMAN & ROTH, LLP 26 W Village of Loon Mountain PO Box 635 Lincoln, NH 03251 Telephone: (603) 745-5071 E-mail: njackman@post.harvard.edu Plaintiffs-Respondents BARRY K. WINTERS, d/b/a BKW Farms; BKW FARMS; RICK JACKSON; JACKSON FARMS, INC.; JAMES M. SCHAER; JULIE A. SCHAER; SCOTT VIERCK; FRED P. BUSSMAN; JOHN L. MEYER; JOHN L. MEYER CRANBERRIES, INC.; CHRISTOPHER M. BUSSMAN; DEANNA M. BUSSMAN; DELMER C. ROBISON; PAUL D. SOGN, d/b/a Wintersogn Farm LLC; RACHELLE D. SOGN, d/b/a Wintersogn Farm LLC; WINTERSOGN FARM LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated as a class; STACY PRESTON WINTERS; MICHAEL A. WEBB; CHARLES V. GOLDSWORTHY, d/b/a Thunderlake-Tomahawk Cranberries, Inc.; TIMOTHY R. GOLDSWORTHY, d/b/a Thunderlake-Tomahawk Cranberries, Inc.; and H.E. QUERREY, INC., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated as a class, are represented by: Paul S. Hassett, Esq. Daniel S. Lenz, Esq. James A. Olson, Esq. LAWTON & CATES, S.C. 345 W Washington Ave., Suite 201 PO Box 2965 Madison, WI 53701 Telephone: (608) 282-6200 Facsimile: (608) 282-6252 E-mail: shassett@lawtoncates.com dlenz@lawtoncates.com jolson@lawtoncates.com - and - Norman H. Jackman, Esq. JACKMAN & ROTH, LLP 26 W Village of Loon Mountain PO Box 635 Lincoln, NH 03251 Telephone: (603) 745-5071 E-mail: njackman@post.harvard.edu - and - Javier D. Spyker, Esq. HERNANDEZ AND ASSOCIATES, LLC PO Box 979 Bandon, OR 97411 Telephone: (541) 347-2911 Facsimile: (365) 365-3656 Plaintiff-Respondent BKW FARMS is represented by: Larry J. Saylor, Esq. MILLER, CANFIELD, PADDOCK & STONE, PLC 150 W. Jefferson, Suite 2500 Detroit, MI 48226-0000 Telephone: (313) 496-7986 E-mail: saylor@millercanfield.com - and - Kimberly L. Scott, Esq. MILLER, CANFIELD, PADDOCK & STONE, PLC 101 N. Main St. Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Telephone: (734) 668-7696 E-mail: scott@millercanfield.com Plaintiffs-Respondents GRETCHEN WEINER, RICHARD E. HALIBURTON, RANDY FARR, WINTER CREST FARM, MCKENZIE CRANBERRIES, ELK RIVER FARMS, RICHARD E. HALIBURTON REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST, CANNON, INC., ROBERT MCKENZIE, III, HIGH 5 ACRES, INC., HIGH 5 FARM, LLC, EARL LANG, MERRI LANG, LAUREL CREEK ACRES, LLC, NELSON FAMILY FARM, LLC, DAVID HUGHES, VIRGINIA HUGHES, WILLIAM STODDARD, LINDA STODDARD, GLEN FLORA BOGS, OREGON CRANBERRY SUPPLY, RANDALL P. MANICKE, MANICKE FARMS ENTERPRISES, ALDER LAKE CRANBERRY CORP., RICHARD D. INDERMUEHLE, ALLEN'S CRANBERRY, LLC, CURT ALLEN, THERESA ALLEN-HUBKA, BIRES CRANBERRY, LLC, JAMES BIRES, BOSSHARD BOGS, LLP, WILLIAM BOSSHARD, BRANDY CREEK CRANBERRY, BRIAN PEDERSON, CALLAWAY CRANBERRY, DAVID CALLAWAY, BARBARA CALLAWAY, FIFIELD CRANBERRIES, LLC, JOHN SERAMUR, HUNGRY RUN CRANBERRY, LLC, KEVIN GRIFFIN, SUE GRIFFIN, HIGHLANDER CRANBERRIES, LLC, DAVID BREHM, INDIAN HILLS CRANBERRIES, LLC, RICHARD OKRAY, J & J CRANBERRIES, INC., JOHN SAGER, JERRY'S BERRIES, GERALD FUERSTENBERG, K & S CRANBERRIES, KRANCO, INC., PAUL KONOPACKY, LONE OAK CRANBERRY, MICHAEL STUMP, NADEN CRANBERRY COMPANY, INC., SCOTT NADEN, NECEDAH CRANBERRY, INC., JEFF BENTZ, PEARDOT BROS. CRANBERRIES, BRUCE PEARDOT, PERGANDE CRANBERRY MARSH, INC., MARK PERGANDE, R.E.D. CRANBERRY MARSH, INC., EDWARD ALLEN, LISA KELLEY, EUGENE SCHWEMMER, SHERRY BERRY, LLC, RICHARD BECKER, SNIDER MARSH, JEFF SNIDER, TIMBERLINE CRANBERRIES, LTD., ALBERT OATES, RICHARD TESKE, KAREN TESKE, TROUT RIVER CRANBERRY CO., BRAINFRANK NOMINEE TRUST and EDWARD M. KOPLOVSKY are represented by: James A. Olson, Esq. LAWTON & CATES, S.C. 345 W Washington Ave., Suite 201 PO Box 2965 Madison, WI 53701 Telephone: (608) 282-6200 Facsimile: (608) 282-6252 E-mail: jolson@lawtoncates.com Defendant-Petitioner OCEAN SPRAY CRANBERRIES, INC., an agricultural cooperative, is represented by: Jessica N. Boluda, Esq. Lawrence E. Buterman, Esq. Jennifer L. Giordano, Esq. William J. Rinner Marguerite M. Sullivan Margaret M. Zwisler LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 555 11th St., NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20004-1304 Telephone: (202) 637-2200 E-mail: Ejessica.bratten@lw.com lawrence.buterman@lw.com jennifer.giordano@lw.com william.rinner@lw.com marguerite.sullivan@lw.com margaret.zwisler@lw.com - and - Elyse M. Greenwald, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 200 Clarendon St., 27th Floor Boston, MA 02106 Telephone: (617) 948-6000 E-mail: elyse.greenwald@lw.com - and - Alfred C. Pfeiffer, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 505 Montgomery St., Suite 1900 San Francisco, CA 94111-2562 Telephone: (415) 395-8898 E-mail: Eal.pfeiffer@lw.com Interested Parties CLIFFSTAR LLC, d/b/a Registered Agent Solutions, Inc., and COTT BEVERAGES, LLC, d/b/a Registered Agent Solutions, Inc., are represented by: David Lawrence Ferrera, Esq. Katy O. Meszaros, Esq. NUTTER MCCLENNEN & FISH LLP 155 Seaport Blvd Boston, MA 02210-2604 Telephone: (617) 439-2000 E-mail: dferrera@nutter.com - and - Dorothy Alicia Hickok, Esq. DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP 1 Logan Sq., Suite 2000 Philadelphia, PA 19103-6996 Telephone: (215) 988-2700 E-mail: alicia.hickok@dbr.com - and - John J. Powers, Esq. DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP 50 Fremont St., 20th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 591-7500 E-mail: john.powers@dbr.com - and - Norman H. Jackman, Esq. JACKMAN & ROTH, LLP 26 W Village of Loon Mountain PO Box 635 Lincoln, NH 03251 Telephone: (603) 745-5071 E-mail: njackman@post.harvard.edu OSTEOMED LP: Court Narrows Claims in "Sclar" Suit ------------------------------------------------- Judge Federico A. Moreno of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss the case, ANTHONY G. SCLAR, DMD, and SCLAR ORAL, SURGERY, P.A. Plaintiffs, v. OSTEOMED, L.P., Defendant, Case No. 17-23247-CIV-MORENO (S.D. Fla.). The purported class action case arises out of the use of an allegedly defective drill known as the Osteopower System, a rotary bone cutting drill manufactured by OsteoMed, Plaintiffs Sclar, DMD, an oral surgeon of nearly 26 years, and Sclar Oral allege that the drill em its dangerous levels of noise that result in permanent hearing loss to the user. The Amended Complaint states that the Plaintiffs purchased the drill from the Defendant, but does not allege a date of purchase. Instead, they allege that Dr. Sclar was diagnosed with hearing loss in August 2016, which is when the Plaintiffs first learned the product was not as represented. Importantly, the Amended Complaint makes clear that this is not a personal injury case and the Plaintiffs do not seek damages for any personal injuries suffered. Rather, they seek dam ages for economic harm suffered as a result of purchasing the allegedly defective drill. The purported class members include all Florida individuals or entities that purchased the drill from Aug. 28, 2013 to the present. The Amended Complaint includes three counts. Count I is for a violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. Count II is a breach of express warranty claim under Florida law. Count III is a claim for common law assumpsit (unjust enrichment). The Defendants move to dismiss with three principal arguments. First, the breach of express warranty claim (Count II) fails because the Plaintiffs failed to comply with the pre-suit notice requirement under Florida law. Second, the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act claim (Count I) is barred: (a) by the four-year statute of limitation; (b) because the Plaintiffs fail to identify a deceptive or unfair practice that could not have reasonably been avoided; and because it does not meet Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b)'s heightened pleading standard. Third, the claim for common law assumpsit fails because it seeks recovery for the same conduct as the breach of express warranty claim. Judge Moreno finds that the Plaintiffs' ninth inning attempt to recast Dr. Sclar as a warranty beneficiary is untimely. Thus, because the Amended Complaint does not allege that the Plaintiffs complied with Florida's pre-suit notice requirement, they have failed to state a claim for breach of express warranty and Count II will be dismissed without prejudice. The Judge also finds that the Amended Complaint does not allege a date on which the drill was purchased. Accordingly, because the he cannot ascertain such date, he will grant the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, but provides the Plaintiffs with leave to amend. Lastly, the Judge dismissed the Plaintiffs' breach of express warranty claim for failure to comply with pre-suit notice as required by Florida law. Thus, viewing the well-pleaded allegations in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs, he will deny the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Count III. For the reasons he stated, Judge Moreno that granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. The Motion is granted as to Count I and Count I is dismissed without prejudice with leave to file a Second Amended Complaint no later than Jan. 31, 2018. The Plaintiffs will add solely two allegations to their Second Amended Complaint: (1) which Plaintiff purchased the drill and (2) the specific date the drill was purchased. It is granted as to II and Count II is dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with the pre-suit notice requirement under Florida law. The Motion is denied as to Count III. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 24, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/n6RTGL from Leagle.com. DMD Anthony G Sclar, individually, and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Barbara Perez -- bp@aronovitzlaw.com -- Aronovitz Law, Bruce W. Steckler -- bruce@stecklerlaw.com -- Steckler Gresham Cochran, PLLC, pro hac vice, L. Kirstine Rogers -- krogers@stecklerlaw.com -- Steckler Gresham Cochran, PLLC, pro hac vice, Tod N. Aronovitz -- ta@aronovitzlaw.com -- Aronovitz Law & Robert Baldwin Brown, III. Sclar Oral Surgery, P.A., formerly known as Holmes & Sclar, PA d/b/a South Florida Oms, Plaintiff, represented by Tod N. Aronovitz, Aronovitz Law. OsteoMed, L.P., Defendant, represented by Jonathan B. Skidmore -- jon.skidmore@nortonrosefulbright.com -- Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, pro hac vice, Jordan Scott Cohen -- jcohen@wickersmith.com - - Wicker Smith Tutan O'Hara McCoy Graham & Ford, Michael A. Swartzendruber -- michael.swartzendruber@nortonrosefulbright.com -- Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, pro hac vice & Michael Gene Polatsek -- mpolatsek@wickersmith.com -- Wicker, Smith, O'Hara, McCoy, Ford, P.A. PARKER SCHOOL: "Johnson" Suit Alleges WARN Violation ---------------------------------------------------- Antonio Johnson and Demetrias Black, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Parker School Uniforms, LLC, Case No. 4:18-cv-00105 (S.D. Tex., January 12, 2018), seek damages under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act for failure to provide advance notice of a mass layoff. The Plaintiffs are residents of Texas and were employees of Parker School Uniforms, LLC. Defendant Parker School Uniforms, LLC, operated approximately 36 stores in Texas, Alabama, California, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Oklahoma and Tennessee. Parker School Uniforms, LLC abruptly closed its Houston Headquarters and all locations around the country on January 3, 2017. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alfonso Kennard, Jr., Esq. Keenya R. Harrold, Esq. KENNARD RICHARD P.C. 2603 Augusta Drive, 1450 Houston, TX 77057 Tel: (713) 742-0900 Fax: (713) 742-0951 E-mail: Alfonso.Kennard@KennardLaw.com keenya.harrold@kennardlaw.com PHI AIR MEDICAL: Faces "Wray" Suit in District of Arizona --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against PHI Air Medical LLC. The case is styled as Christina C Wray, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PHI Air Medical LLC, a Louisiana Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00432-SRB (D. Ariz., February 7, 2018). PHI Air Medical, L.L.C. provides air transportation services. The Company offers air medical transportation services for hospitals and emergency service agencies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jared Lynn Sutton, Esq. Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP-Phoenix Office 201 E Washington St., Ste. 1200 Phoenix, AZ 85004 Tel: (602) 262-0259 Fax: (602) 734-3924 Email: JSutton@lrrc.com PHILIP MORRIS: AVL Cancer Hospital Joins Tobacco Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- DutchNews.nl reports that The Antoni van Leeuwenhoek (AVL) cancer hospital in Amsterdam said in a statement on Feb. 1 that it was joining an ongoing legal action against four Dutch-based tobacco firms. The AVL said it was the first hospital or research institute in the Netherlands to make such a move against the tobacco industry. "At least 30% of all cancer patients develop the disease through smoking," said hospital chairman Rene Medema. "Many people still don't realise that two out of three smokers will die because of tobacco, and a quarter of them before they reach pension age." The hospital said civil cases around the world had so far failed to resolve the smoking problem. Thus AVL has joined the ongoing class action suit against Phillip Morris, British American Tobacco, Imperial Tobacco and Japan Tobacco which started in 2016. The case was started by lung cancer patient Anne Marie van Veen and lawyer Benedicte Ficq who accused the tobacco firms of doing 'deliberate damage to public health' and 'forgery of documents'. They aim not to win damages but to force tobacco companies to behave differently. Influencing behaviour They argue that tobacco firms cannot hide behind the freedom of choice of people to smoke because they are deliberately influencing smokers' behaviour. "To limit that freedom, addictive chemicals such as nicotine and other additives are put into cigarettes," they say. "And [the companies] overcome our natural aversion to poisons by adding substances like menthol." Last year, cancer charity KWF Kankerbestrijding was among the parties joining the campaign. The AVL called on other doctors and hospitals to join the class action lawsuit and work towards a smoke-free society. Later on Feb. 1, Groningen University's teaching hospital said it too was signing up to the lawsuit. Chairman Jos Aartsen said he is planning to raise the issue at the next meeting of all eight academic hospitals and call on them all to join in. [GN] PREMIER NUTRITION: Court Dismisses Sonner's Claims in "Mullins" --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, VINCENT D. MULLINS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PREMIER NUTRITION CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 13-cv-01271-RS (N.D. Cal.), Judge Richard Seeborg of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff Kathie Sonner's claims for restitution. Premier Nutrition makes and sells Joint Juice, a dietary supplement beverage that contains glucosamine and chondroitin. Its marketing and labeling states that Joint Juice helps to support and nourish cartilage, to lubricate joints, that it was developed by an orthopedic surgeon for pro athletes to keep joints healthy and flexible, and that it lubricates and cushions the cartilages in joints. Sonner alleges that these and other statements in Joint Juice's marketing are false and misleading because the glucosamine and chondroitin in Joint Juice purportedly do not provide any of the represented joint health benefits. She asserts that she and other consumers who purchased Joint Juice incurred financial harm, as they would not have purchased the product had they known it does not provide the claimed joint health benefits. On Aug. 24, 2017, Sonner filed her second amended class action complaint ("SAC"), which dropped the prayer for damages under the California Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), including punitive damages, in favor of seeking restitution and injunctive relief under the CLRA and the California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"). The SAC prays for (i) an award of equitable restitution and disgorgement, and (ii) injunctive relief enjoining Premier from continuing its allegedly deceptive advertising, and ordering Premier to engage in a corrective advertising campaign. The Defendant now moves to dismiss Sonner's claims for restitution on the grounds that her voluntary dismissal of damages contentions does not demonstrate inadequacy of a remedy at law. Judge Seeborg finds that Sonner points to several cases involving a jury trial followed by a bench trial, where the Plaintiff received both an award of damages and restitution arising out of the same conduct, under the same statutes at issue here. The Judge says these cases, however, merely stand for the unchallenged propositions that restitution may be awarded where damages are found to be inadequate, and that a court generally follows a jury's findings of fact in a bench trial on the same claims. It remains doubtful that a court could part ways with a jury's finding on liability and award restitution as a replacement for damages, or by extension, that a court could award restitution without any determination on damages. In the instant case, the Judge says Sonner has brought a claim under the CLRA, which provides for a damages remedy. That she has elected not to request damages does not relieve her from having to show that her remedy at law is inadequate. Because she has not done so, and -- having dropped her prayer for damages despite being advised of the potential consequences -- is unable to do so, she may not proceed on her equitable claims for restitution in lieu of a damages claim. For the reasons set forth, Judge Seeborg granted the motion to dismiss, and dismissed the claims for equitable restitution and disgorgement under the CLRA and the UCL. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 23, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/IRjTqT from Leagle.com. Vincent D. Mullins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph Jeremy Siprut -- jsiprut@siprut.com -- Siprut PC, Timothy G. Blood -- tblood@bholaw.com -- Blood Hurst & O'Rearden, LLC, Adam J. Levitt -- alevitt@dlcfirm.com -- DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, Paula R. Brown, Blood Hurst & O'Reardon LLP, Thomas Joseph O'Reardon, II - - toreardon@bholaw.com -- Blood Hurst O'Reardon LLP, Todd David Carpenter -- tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com -- Carlson Lynch Sweet Kilpela & Carpenter LLP & Tyler Zanders, Siprut PC. Kathie Sonner, Plaintiff, represented by Craig Michael Peters , The Veen Firm, PC, Timothy G. Blood, Blood Hurst & O'Rearden, LLC, Paula R. Brown, Blood Hurst & O'Reardon LLP & Thomas Joseph O'Reardon, II, Blood Hurst O'Reardon LLP. Premier Nutrition Corporation, formerly known as Joint Juice, Inc., Defendant, represented by Angel A. Garganta -- aagarganta@Venable.com -- Venable LLP, Anton A. Ware -- anton.ware@apks.com -- Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, Brian A. Featherstun -- bafeatherstun@Venable.com -- Venable LLP, Daniel Scott Blynn -- dsblynn@Venable.com -- Venable LLP, pro hac vice, George Freeman Langendorf -- george.langendorf@apks.com -- Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, Guido Emerson Toscano -- getoscano@venable.com -- Venable LLP, Jessica L. Grant -- jgrant@Venable.com -- Venable LLP, John C. Vazquez -- jcvazquez@Venable.com -- Venable LLP & Trenton Herbert Norris -- trent.norris@apks.co -- Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP. PREMIERE VACATION: Summary Ruling in Favor of Plan Member Upheld ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, NORMAN ZWICKY, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. PREMIERE VACATION COLLECTION OWNERS ASSOCIATION, Defendant/Appellant, Case No. 1 CA-CV 16-0659 (Ariz. App.), Judge Patricia A. Orozco of the Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division One, affirmed the superior court's summary judgment in favor of Zwicky enforcing his statutory right to inspect Association records, but vacated the order modifying the protective order and directing the Association to send a notice to its member. The Association is an incorporated association of members holding an interest in the Premiere Vacation Collection timeshare plan. Zwicky is a member of the Association. In 2004, Zwicky paid approximately $26,000 for his timeshare interest. After a subsidiary of Diamond Resorts Corp. acquired a substantial portion of the timeshare assets, Zwicky experienced a significant increase in his annual assessments. He alleges that the high assessments rendered his membership interest "essentially worthless." Zwicky filed a lawsuit in superior court seeking judicial enforcement of his right to inspect the books and records of the Association pursuant to A.R.S. Sections 10-11602, 33-2209, and common law. His stated purpose was to determine whether the Association's board acted reasonably and in good faith in calculating and approving the assessments in question. In response to discovery, the Association produced some documents. After reviewing the documents, Zwicky's counsel determined they were insufficient to clearly ascertain and verify the basis for calculating Mr. Zwicky's annual assessments. Accordingly, Zwicky moved for summary judgment seeking inspection of additional documents. The Association cross-moved for summary judgment asserting that it had already provided the documents requested in the complaint and all documents to which Zwicky was entitled under A.R.S. Section 33-2209. Following oral argument on the cross-motions, the superior court granted summary judgment in favor of Zwicky. In a subsequent ruling, the court specified the documents Zwicky could inspect and issued a protective order stating they will be maintained in confidence and disclosed only to Zwicky, his attorneys, accountants, and experts. Thereafter, the Association produced more than one thousand pages of documents, designating some as "confidential," claiming they contained sensitive personal information, personnel records, trade secrets, proprietary business information, or other confidential research, development, financial, or commercial information. After reviewing the documents produced, Zwicky moved to modify the protective order. He explained that the documents revealed a good faith basis for a federal class action lawsuit, and asked the superior court to permit him to quote, refer to, or otherwise utilize the documents in his proposed lawsuit. At the same time, he moved for an order requiring the Association to send a letter or notice to Association members informing them that the Association was under court order to produce records in conjunction with his lawsuit. After oral argument, the superior court granted Zwicky's motion and modified its prior order to authorize Zwicky and his attorneys to use the documents produced by the Association in a complaint or other court filing in the proposed class action litigation. The court also ordered the Association to send a Notice of Court Order to timeshare members, pursuant to A.R.S. Section 33-2210, advising them of the document production and providing them with contact information for Zwicky's counsel. Thereafter, the superior court entered final judgment, and the Association timely appealed. Judge Orozco finds that Zwicky was attempting to determine why his annual assessments had roughly tripled to the point that his financial interest in the timeshare had become "worthless" and specifically whether those problems were due to improper management practices. Zwicky's inquiry could enable him to protect his interest in the timeshare plan and was reasonably related to his interest as a timeshare member. Therefore, Zwicky has articulated a proper purpose for his record request. She also finds that while the documents that the Association provided in response to Zwicky's discovery requests contain some of the information listed in Paragraph 20 of Zwicky's complaint, they do not fully explain how the Association calculated or determined annual assessments. Therfore, the court did not merely grant Zwicky an order authorizing his inspection of the information specified within Paragraph 20. Rather, the court enforced his inspection rights under A.R.S. Section 33-2209 as those rights were defined by the superior court. Accordingly, the Judge will affirm the superior court's entry of summary judgment in favor of Zwicky. The Judge also finds that there is nothing in the record to suggest that the superior court reviewed the confidential documents produced by the Association to determine if they should remain subject to a protective order. The Association made an initial showing of why certain documents should be protected as trade secret, proprietary, and confidential. Because the relief requested by Zwicky's motion regarding the "confidential" documents was unclear, the Judge thinks it appropriate to allow the Association an opportunity to establish why the protective order should continue to apply to these "confidential" documents. Accordingly, she will vacate the superior court's ruling modifying the protective order, and remands for further proceedings allowing the court to evaluate the need for a continued protective order covering the confidential documents. Judge Orozco further finds that applying the plain language of A.R.S. Section 33-2210, she must determine whether the purpose of the Notice advances "legitimate association business." She concludes that it does not. Rather, the Notice benefits Zwicky and his lawyer in their efforts to amass a group of plaintiffs for their proposed class action lawsuit. Therefore, the superior court erred in ordering the Association to mail the Notice pursuant to A.R.S. Section 33-2210. Accordingly, she wil vacate the order directing the Association to mail the Notice to its members. Finally, as to Zwicky's requests or attorneys' fees on appeal, the Judge finds Zwicky provides no statutory basis or other authority for such an award. Contrary to Zwicky's assertion, a prevailing party on appeal is not entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees absent a valid basis. Accordingly, she will deny his request. Zwicky also requests attorneys' fees at the superior court level. The superior court, however, denied his request for fees, and Zwicky did not cross-appeal from that ruling. Accordingly, the Court lacks jurisdiction to review the court's ruling. For these reasons, Judge Orozco affirmed the superior court's entry of summary judgment in favor of Zwicky. She vacated the court's order modifying the protective order and requiring the Association to mail the Notice to its members. She remanded for further proceedings regarding the need for a continued protective order applying to the confidential documents. Because both parties partially prevailed on appeal, the Judge declined to award costs. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 23, 2018 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/BWB9vU from Leagle.com. Phelps & Moore PLLC, Phoenix, By Jon L. Phelps, Robert M. Moore, Shannon A. Lindner, Co-Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee. Edward L. Barry Attorney at Law, Christiansted, Virgin Islands, By Edward L. Barry -- ed@attorneyedbarry.com -- Co-Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee. Coppersmith Brockelman, PLC, Phoenix, By John E. DeWulf -- jdewulf@cblawyers.com -- Katherine DeStefano -- kdestefano@cblawyers.com -- Co-Counsel for Defendant/Appellant. Baker & Hostetler, LLP, Orlando, Florida, By Brandon T. Crossland -- bcrossland@bakerlaw.com -- Co-Counsel for Defendant/Appellant. PRIMESTAR PAINTING: Leverette Seeks Unpaid Overtime Premium ----------------------------------------------------------- Aaron Leverette, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Primestar Painting, Inc. and Richard A. O'Reilly, individually, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-10238, (E.D. Mich., January 18, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, declaratory relief and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants provide professional painting and wallcovering services to property owners and tenants of office buildings where Leverette worked as a manual laborer. Primestar allegedly failed to compensate Plaintiff overtime premium for their hours worked over forty throughout the relevant time period. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Michael N. Hanna, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) 318-0268 Facsimile: (954) 327-3016 Email: MHanna@forthepeople.com PURDUE PHARMA: New Hampshire's Suit Remanded to State Court ----------------------------------------------------------- Judge Paul Barbadoro of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire granted the State's motion to remand the case, State of New Hampshire, v. Purdue Pharma, et al., Case No. 17-cv- 427-PB (D. N.H.) to state court. For at least 20 years, Purdue has manufactured, marketed, and sold opioid pain medications in New Hampshire and elsewhere. During this period, Purdue spent hundreds of millions of dollars promoting its medications in ways that falsely and misleadingly minimized the risks of opioid addiction and overstated the benefits Purdue's medications could provide. As a direct result, opioid addiction, overdoses, and deaths have exploded, to the point where the Center for Disease Control has described the current situation as a "public health epidemic." The State of New Hampshire has sued Purdue Pharma based on misrepresentations Purdue allegedly made to the state's consumers concerning the risks and benefits of the company's opioid pain medications. It contends that Purdue's false and misleading marketing campaign has injured the State, its municipalities, and its consumers. It asserts claims for violations of New Hampshire's Consumer Protection Act ("CPA"); violations of the New Hampshire Medicaid Fraud and False Claims Act, Public Nuisance, Unjust Enrichment, and Fraudulent or Negligent Misrepresentation. The State seeks to recover damages for its own injuries as well as injunctive relief, civil penalties, restitution, abatement, and attorneys' fees on behalf of itself, its municipalities, and its consumers. The State filed its complaint in Merrimack County Superior Court and Purdue later removed the case to the Court. Purdue argues that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"), but the State has challenged Purdue's jurisdictional argument in a motion to remand. The current dispute turns on whether the case is removable under CAFA as a class action. Judge Barbadoro finds that Purdue's argument that the State's complaint should be treated under CAFA just like any other representative action in which one or more members of a class sue on behalf of others who have suffered similar injuries, fails to sufficiently account for both the State's sovereign power to sue on behalf of its citizens and its governmental duty to protect the health and welfare of its citizens. He says opioid addiction costs the lives of hundreds of the State's citizens each year. It has flooded the State's prisons, demanded a vast commitment of law enforcement resources, and strained the capacity of the State's first responders. Deaths from overdoses continue to occur at an alarming rate. When the State sues to protect its citizens from such ongoing injuries, it is not acting merely as a member of a class of injured persons seeking to obtain compensation on behalf of others. It is acting in a sovereign capacity to protect its citizens. CAFA does not deprive states of the power to litigate such claims in their own courts. For these reasons, he granted the State's motion to remand the case to state court. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 9, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/s6yRdv from Leagle.com. State of NH, Plaintiff, represented by James T. Boffetti, NH Attorney General's Office Criminal Justice Bureau & Linda Singer -- lsinger@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC, pro hac vice. Purdue Pharma L.P., Purdue Pharma Inc. & The Purdue Frederick Company, Inc., Defendants, represented by David A. Vicinanzo -- dvicinanzo@nixonpeabody.com -- Nixon Peabody LLP, Mara Cusker Gonzalez -- maracuskergonzalez@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, pro hac vice, Mark Cheffo -- markcheffo@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, pro hac vice & W. Daniel Deane -- ddeane@nixonpeabody.com -- Nixon Peabody LLP. PYRAMID CONSULTING: "Banks" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation ------------------------------------------------------- Sabrina M. Banks, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pyramid Consulting, Inc., Case No. 3:18-cv- 00078 (S.D. Calif., January 12, 2018), seeks to recover damages for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Sabrina Banks worked as a consultant at an hourly rate of $40 per hour on June 24, 2013. Plaintiff worked at or around this hourly rate through approximately July 8, 2016. Founded in 1996 and headquartered in Atlanta, GA, Pyramid supports client partners around the world, including the United States, Canada, and India through a combination of local offices and global delivery. Defendant's clients include telecommunications companies, such as AT&T Services, Inc. and Verizon Corporate Services Group Inc. Defendant's Telecommunications Clients routinely sought contract labor through Defendant for individuals to perform non-exempt work at hourly rates with payroll, timekeeping, and recordkeeping functions to be performed and monitored by Defendant. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jack Fitzgerald, Esq. Trevor M. Flynn, Esq. Melanie Persinger, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JACK FITZGERALD, PC Hillcrest Professional Building 3636 Fourth Avenue, Suite 202 San Diego, CA 92103 Tel: (619) 692-3840 Fax: (619) 362-9555 E-mail: jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com trevor@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com melanie@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com RED PARROT: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss TCPA Suit ------------------------------------------------- Judge David R. Herndon of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss the case, CAMP DRUG STORE, INC., Plaintiff, v. RED PARROT DISTRIBUTION, INC., Defendant, Case No. 17-CV-502-DRH-RJD (S.D. Ill.). The Plaintiff brings the putative class action against Red Parrot, alleging that Red Parrot sent the Plaintiff at least two unsolicited advertisements by facsimile in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") (Count I). Camp Drug also alleges a conversion claim (Count II). In bringing the action on behalf of a class, the two-count complaint alleges that Red Parrot violated the TCPA by sending advertisements by facsimile to the Plaintiff and more than 39 other persons. It also asserts that by sending unsolicited and unauthorized advertisements to its fax machine and that of others, Red Parrot unlawfully converted the fax machine to its own use. Furthermore, Camp Drug notes that "hen printed (as in the Plaintiff's case), the Defendant also improperly and unlawfully converted the class members' paper and toner to the Defendant's own use. Under the TCPA, Camp Drug seeks statutory damages, to be trebled if the facts show that Red Parrot acted willfully or knowingly, along with injunctive relief. For its conversion count, Camp Drug asks for an award of "appropriate damages" along with punitive damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. On July 31, 2017, Red Parrot filed the pending motion to dismiss to which Camp Drug opposes on grounds that its allegations support the reasonable inference that Red Parrot did, in fact, send the faxes or cause them to be sent, that Red Parrot's class certification challenge is premature, and that Camp Drug's conversion claim is supported by case law. Red Parrot also asserts that Camp Drug's class action allegations are insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. It attempts to argue that Camp Drug's complaint fails to allege the attributes of those similarly situated fax recipients and fails to allege the number of faxes sent or where they were sent. Judge Herndon holds that because Camp Drug has plausibly alleged that Red Parrot was a 'sender' of the faxes at issue, the motion to dismiss is denied as to Count I. He also holds that Camp Drug Stores, Inc. v. Emily Corp and Zidek instructive, and at this stage of the litigation, he declines to limit the avenues for relief that the Plaintiffs may pursue when it comes time for them to prove their case. Therefore, the motion to dismiss is denied as to Count II. Finally, the Judge finds last Red Parrot's argument is premature. It is simply not practical at this stage of the litigation to preclude the Court from obtaining a full assessment of the litigation before deciding the class certification issue and therefore, the Court agrees with Camp Drug. The inquiry into whether a plaintiff has fulfilled Rule 23 class action requirements is not an appropriate inquiry at the motion to dismiss stage, and the Judge finds that it is more appropriate to handle this issue in a class certification motion after proper discovery related to this issue has occurred. For these reasons, Judge Herndon denied Red Parrot's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 24, 2018 Memorandum and Order is available at https://is.gd/n6RTGL from Leagle.com. Camp Drug Store, Inc., an Illinois Corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Jay Cohen, Law Offices of Daniel J. Cohen, David M. Oppenheim -- david@classlawyers.com -- Bock & Hatch, LLC, James M. Smith -- jim@classlawyers.com -- Bock & Hatch, LLC & Phillip A. Bock -- phil@classlawyers.com -- Bock & Hatch, LLC. Red Parrot Distribution, Inc., Defendant, represented by Dale R. Sisco, Sisco-Law & Vanessa L. Albaum, Sisco-Law. RETAIL FOOD: Franchisees Launch Class Action -------------------------------------------- Adam Zuchetti, writing for My Business, reports that Retail Food Group (RFG -- which owns a number of well-known food brands including Gloria Jean's Coffees, Michel's Patisserie, Donut King and Brumby's Bakery -- is the subject of a potential class action by franchisees. Bannister Law, which is already leading a shareholder class action against the group, announced last month that it was representing disgruntled franchisees who alleged repeated disclosure failures, including of the company's financial performance, terms of operation and financial contributions required of franchisees. "Accounts by many franchisees suggest that some franchisees may have been forced into severe financial hardship. Many have been left devastated -- financially and personally," Bannister Law founder Charles Bannister said. The move was prompted by "over 100" complaints from franchisees to action group Franchise Redress. "We've had contact from over 100 franchisees, many of whom have raised concerns around RFG's conduct. They allege issues around the company's goodwill, the viability of stores at sale and the lack of appropriate disclosure on a range of matters including the prior performance of stores at purchase," said Franchise Redress co-founder Maddison Johnstone. "Given the accounts of hardship, it is important to us that franchisees have an avenue of redress for the severe financial distress they're living with. Franchise Redress strongly encourages all disaffected RFG franchisees to express interest in a potential class action with Bannister Law." RFG did not respond to requests for comment on the matter. It comes as insolvency specialist Andrew Spring of Jirsch Sutherland -- who was appointed as voluntary administrator for retailer Kangaroo Tent City & BBQs -- warned of likely collapses of franchise businesses in the near future. "The retail sector is really struggling. In the last six months we've seen a number of high-profile brands collapse -- painting a gloomy picture for Australian retailers. But the franchise sector has additional pressures," he said. "The challenge is a question of balance. All franchise models must find the right balance between the cost structure established by the franchisor and the support expectations of the franchisees. If the franchise relationship cannot find its equilibrium, then the model will impede the success of both franchisor and franchisee. "This, coupled with the difficulties associated with an already challenging retail environment, is likely to continue to mean that we will see further insolvencies in the franchising sector." [GN] RM PARADIS: "Hackman" Suit Alleges TCPA Violations -------------------------------------------------- James Hackman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RM Paradis Enterprises, LLC, Case No. 18-cv-60086 (S.D. Fla., January 16, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Plaintiff James Hackman is a resident of Palm Beach County, Florida. Defendant is a Florida health food restaurant and clothing store. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 400 Miami, FL 33132 Tel: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 E-mail: efilings@shamisgentile.com SCIENCE APPS: Individual Claims in "Ostendorf" Dismissed -------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ANGELA OSTENDORF, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 3:17- cv-01792-BEN-BLM (S.D. Cal.), Judge Roger T. Benitez of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California granted in part the Plaintiff's motion to dismiss her own action. The Judge has reviewed the Plaintiff's motion. The Defendant filed a notice of non-opposition to the Plaintiff's motion. The Plaintiff represents that she has settled her individual claims with the Defendant, and seeks dismissal with prejudice of those claims, but without prejudice to the class claims. She further represents that the putative class will not be prejudiced by the dismissal, and the action may be dismissed without notice to the putative class, who did not receive notice of the putative class action. Good cause appearing, Judge Benitez granted in part the Plaintiff's motion. The Plaintiff's action is dismissed with prejudice as to her individual claims. As a result, the class claims are moot and are therefore dismissed as moot. The Court will retain jurisdiction over the matter pending full performance of the terms of the settlement. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 23, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/XY2718 from Leagle.com. Angela Ostendorf, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Paul K. Haines -- phaines@haineslawgroup.com -- Haines Law Group, APC. Science Applications International Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, represented by James Sullivan McNeill -- Jim.McNeill@dentons.com -- Dentons US LLP. SMJ CONSTRUCTION: "Haidong" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Haidong Li, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. TNC Construction Inc., SMJ Construction Tech LLC d/b/a SMJ Construction d/b/a SMJ Construction, LLC, Steve Kang, Min Jung Park, Tian Nan Che, Lian Jun Chu and "John" Jiang, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00804 (D. N.J., January 19, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage, unpaid overtime wage, unpaid spread of hours premium, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act, New Jersey Statutes, New Jersey Administrative Code, New York Labor Law and the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act. TNC Construction, operating as SMJ Construction, is engaged in the construction and/or home improvements service business where Haidong primarily worked as bricklayer, carpenter and plastering for several of Defendants' construction and/or interior work projects in the state of New York, New Jersey and Connecticut. Plaintiff was not compensated overtime for all hours worked above forty in each workweek, says the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Keli Liu, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 10G Flushing, NY, 11354 Tel: (718)353-8588 Email: kliu@hanglaw.com SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS: April 3 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set -------------------------------------------------------------- The following statement is being issued by Friedlander & Gorris, P.A. and Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP regarding the Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc. Stockholder Action: IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE YVONNE WILLIAMS, on behalf of herself and similarly situated Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc. stockholders and derivatively on behalf of Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc., Plaintiff, v. HENRY JI, WILLIAM S. MARTH, KIM D. JANDA, JAISIM SHAH, DAVID H. DEMING, DOUGLAS EBERSOLE, GEORGE NG, AND ERAGON VENTURES, LLC, Defendants, and SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS, INC., Nominal Defendant. SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF STOCKHOLDER ACTION, SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING, AND RIGHT TO APPEAR TO: All holders of Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc. ("Sorrento" or the "Company") common stock as of December 22, 2017 (the "Settlement Class"). PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A STOCKHOLDER CLASS AND DERIVATIVE LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that the above-captioned stockholder class and derivative action (the "Action") is pending in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court"), and that, pursuant to Delaware Court of Chancery Rules 23(a), 23(b)(1) and 23(b)(2), the Court has preliminarily certified the Action as a non-"opt-out" class action on behalf of the Settlement Class. YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that plaintiff Yvonne Williams ("Plaintiff"), on behalf of herself and the Settlement Class, and derivatively on behalf of the Company, has reached a proposed settlement of the Action (the "Settlement") with defendants Henry Ji, William S. Marth, Kim D. Janda, Jaisim Shah, David H. Deming, Douglas Ebersole, and George Ng (collectively, the "Individual Defendants"); defendant Eragon Ventures, LLC ("Eragon," and together with the Individual Defendants, the "Defendants"); and nominal defendant Sorrento. As consideration for the Settlement, Defendants have agreed to cancel all remaining options, warrants and shares issued in five subsidiaries of Sorrento to the Individual Defendants and certain executives of Sorrento; cancel a sale of stock in a Sorrento subsidiary to Eragon; for two other stock sales to Eragon, Eragon would either pay for the stock by December 31, 2017, with interest, or, as occurred, return the stock to the subsidiary; for any shares in that subsidiary retained by Eragon, Eragon will no longer have super-voting rights; a committee of disinterested and independent directors with expert advice and independent legal counsel must approve all future related-party transactions and subsidiary equity grants; all future stock plans at the subsidiaries will be submitted to a vote of the Sorrento stockholders; and a voting agreement that provided the Board with the power to vote 2.75% of Sorrento's stock in its direction will be voted in the same proportion that all other unaffiliated stockholders vote. If approved by the Court, the Settlement will resolve all claims asserted against Defendants in the Action. If you are a Class Member, your rights will be affected by the pending Action and the Settlement. A full-printed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Stockholder Action, Settlement Fairness Hearing, and Right to Appear (the "Notice") is currently being mailed to potential Class Members. If you have not yet received the Notice, you may obtain a copy by contacting the Settlement Administrator at Sorrento Stockholder Litigation c/o KCC Class Action Services, P.O. Box 404020, Louisville, KY 40233-4020, 1-866-657-1976. Copies of the Notice can also be downloaded from http://sorrentotherapeutics.com/notices/. Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, may be made to Plaintiff's Lead Counsel: Christopher Foulds, Esq. Friedlander & Gorris, P.A. 1201 N. Market St., Ste. 2200 Wilmington, DE 19801 1-302-573-3500 David Wales, Esq. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 1-800-380-8496 A hearing will be held on April 3, 2018, at 2:00 p.m., before Vice Chancellor Montgomery-Reeves at the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, Leonard L. Williams Justice Center, 500 North King St., Wilmington, DE 19801 (the "Settlement Fairness Hearing"). At the Settlement Fairness Hearing, the Court will, among other things: (a) determine whether the proposed Settlement on the terms and conditions provided for in the Stipulation is fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Settlement Class and the Company, and should be approved by the Court; (b) determine whether the Judgment should be entered dismissing the Action with prejudice against Defendants; (c) determine whether to approve the application by Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of Litigation Expenses to Plaintiffs' Counsel and an incentive award to Plaintiff; and (d) consider any other matters that may properly be brought before the Court in connection with the Settlement. Any objections to the proposed Settlement and/or Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of Litigation Expenses, must be filed with the Register in Chancery and delivered to Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no later than March 5, 2018, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Long-Form Notice. Please note that there is no proof of claim form for Class Members to submit in connection with the Settlement. Also, because the Settlement Class was certified as a non-"opt-out" class, Class Members do not have the right to exclude themselves from the Class. DO NOT CALL OR WRITE THE COURT OR THE OFFICE OF THE REGISTER IN CHANCERY REGARDING THIS NOTICE. Dated: January 19, 2018 BY ORDER OF THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 1-800-380-8496 [GN] SOUTHEAST PERSONNEL: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages, Sanchez Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- LUIS PULIDO SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SOUTHEAST PERSONNEL LEASING, INC. a corporation; AMERICAN RECLAMATION, INC.; and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Case No. BC690372 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., January 17, 2018), is brought to remedy the Defendants' alleged wage-and-hour violations, including failure to pay minimum and overtime wages. SouthEast Personnel Leasing, Inc., is a self-described professional employer organization that offers its clients workers' compensation, payroll administration, risk management, and human resources services. American Reclamation, Inc., provides recurring and one-time collection services for waste and recycling materials to multi-family and commercial customers. The Plaintiff is unaware and ignorant of the true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Vache A. Thomassian, Esq. Caspar Jivalagian, Esq. KJT LAW GROUP LLP 230 N. Maryland Ave., Suite 306 Glendale, CA 91206 Telephone: (818) 507-8525 E-mail: vache@kjtlawgroup.com caspar@kjtlawgroup.com - and - Christopher A. Adams, Esq. ADAMS EMPLOYMENT COUNSEL 4740 Calle Carga Camarillo, CA 93012 Telephone: (818) 425-1437 E-mail: ca@AdamsEmploymentCounsel.com SP FOODS: "Taylor" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under EPA --------------------------------------------------------------- ELIZABETH TAYLOR and other similarly situated non-exempt employees v. SP FOODS & SPECIALITIES, INC and BURGER KING CORPORATION, Case No. CACE-18-001227 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., January 17, 2018), seeks to recover alleged unpaid wages and damages under the Equal Pay Act of 1963. SP Foods & Specialities, Inc., is a Florida Profit Corporation conducting business in Broward County, Florida, where the Plaintiff worked for the Defendant. Burger King Corporation is a Florida Profit Corporation conducting business in Broward. Burger King operates a chain of fast food hamburger restaurants worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason S. Reiner, Esq. Brody M. Shulman, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com bshulman@rgpattorneys.com SQUARETRADE INC: Nguyen Sues for Invasion of Privacy ---------------------------------------------------- Tuan Nguyen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Squaretrade, Inc. and Does 1-20 inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00129, (E.D. Tenn., January 18, 2018), seeks only damages and injunctive relief for recovery of economic injury pursuant to California's Invasion of Privacy Act, California Penal Code Sec. 632.7. Squaretrade is in the business of debt collection and regularly collects debts. It called Nguyen regarding the collection of a debt allegedly owed by Plaintiff, specifically the cancelation of a protection plan that Plaintiff purchased from Squaretrade. Their phone conversation was illegally recorded by the Defendants. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Matthew M. Loker, Esq. Elizabeth Wagner, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 Email: ak@kazlg.com ml@kazlg.com elizabeth@kazlg.com - and - Joshua Swigart, Esq. HYDE AND SWIGART 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 233-7770 Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 to 26 Email: Josh@westcoastlitigation.com STATE FARM: Faces "Allen" Suit in Georgia State Court ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against State Farm General Insurance Company in Georgia State Court, Clayton County, on February 7, 2018. The case is styled as Allen, Indv. and on behalf of a class of similarly situated, Plaintiff v. State Farm General Insurance Company, RCC Wesley Chapel Crossing LLC, Little Giant Farmers Market Corporation, Planet Fitness Inc, Phantom Fireworks Eastern Region LLC, New Nails Salon Spa LLC, Dollar Tree Stores Inc and American Wings Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 2018CV00206 D. State Farm General Insurance Company operates as an insurance company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: ROBERT N FRIEDMAN, Esq. 275 SCIENTIFIC DRIVE NORCROSS, GA 30092 Tel: (404) 881-2622 - and - MATTHEW Q WETHERINGTON, Esq. 1380 WEST PACES FERRY ROAD NW, SUITE 2100 ATLANTA, GA 30327 Tel: (404) 467-1155 STEINHOFF: Set to Face Class Action Following Accounting Scandal ---------------------------------------------------------------- Enca.com reports that both Steinhoff and accounting firm Deloitte are set to face a huge class action suit from one of Europe's mass litigation firms. The Barents-Krans firm says people who acquired Steinhoff shares between June 2013 and the 6th of December 2017 can register online to participate. In December, the retail giant's shares plummeted over 80-percent after accounting irregularities were revealed. Legal action is being taken against Deloitte for its role in auditing Steinhoff's financial statements. Steinhoff's CEO, Markus Jooste, resigned in the wake of the revelations. Jooste was on Jan. 31 reported to the Hawks on suspicion of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. [GN] STEINHOFF: BarentsKrans Initiates Shareholder Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Litigation Finance Journal reports that in December of last year, Steinhoff announced that information concerning "accounting irregularities requiring further investigation" had come to the attention of its Supervisory Board, and that its CEO Markus Jooste had subsequently resigned. As a result, share prices took a tumble. Now, BarentsKrans, one of Europe's leading mass litigation law firms, has initiated a shareholder class action being funded by Claims Funding Europe, the global litigation funder established in 2012 by Maurice Blackburn Lawyers (Australia's most successful plaintiff class action law firm) and the Singapore-based funding firm International Litigation Funding Partners. [GN] TARGET CORP: Faces "McAteer" Suit in District of Minnesota ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Target Corporation. The case is styled as Megan McAteer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Target Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 0:18-cv-00349 (D. Minn, February 7, 2018). Target Corporation is the second-largest discount store retailer in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Genevieve M Zimmerman, Esq. Meshbesher & Spence 1616 Park Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55404 Tel: (612) 339-9121 Fax: (612) 339-9128 Email: gzimmerman@meshbesher.com TASCH LLC: Court Conditionally Certifies "Lemons" FLSA Class ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, ANTONIO SANTOS LEMONS, ET AL. v. TASCH, L.L.C., ET AL., SECTION: "S" (4), Civil Action No. 17-7212 (E.D. La.), Judge Mary Ann Vial Lemmon of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification. Defendant Tasch is a construction company, and Defendant Jack R. Allen, Jr. is a corporate officer of Tasch. The Plaintiffs allege that they were employed by Tasch as construction laborers. They allege that they often worked more than 40 hours per week, without receiving overtime pay, and that the Defendants improperly classified them as independent contractors. They allege that Allen directed, monitored, supervised and evaluated plaintiffs' work and set plaintiffs' schedules, work hours, and rates of pay. On July 28, 2017, the Plaintiffs' filed the action alleging that the Defendants violated the overtime provisions of the FLSA by failing to pay them and other similarly situated employees one- and-one-half times of their regular rate for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. They seek to proceed as a collective action under section 216(b)3 the FLSA. On Nov. 3, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed the instant motion for class certification. They seek conditional class certification of an opt-in class consisting of all individuals who worked for the Defendants at any time since July 28, 2014, and were classified as independent contractors. The Plaintiffs argue that conditional class certification is appropriate because there is a substantial class of other construction laborers employed by the Defendants that were treated similarly to the Plaintiffs and not paid over-time. They also seek an order requiring the Defendants to disclose the names, addresses, email addresses and telephone numbers of potential opt-in Plaintiffs within two weeks of the date of the Court's order on their motion for conditional certification, and an order permitting notice of the action to be sent to the potential Plaintiffs allowing them 90 days from the date of the date the notice is mailed to opt-in. The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that they represent a class of similarly situated individuals. They also argue that the class is too broad as it is defined. Further, the Defendants raise a number of objections to the Plaintiffs' proposed notice. Judge Lemmon finds that the Plaintiffs presented substantial allegations that they and the other putative class members were victims of the Defendants' alleged policy of improperly classifying construction laborers as independent contractors and not paying them an overtime rate for work performed in excess of 40 hours in a week. They allege that this policy extended to all construction laborers employed by Tasch. Indeed, numerous individuals have already opted-in to the class. Because credibility determinations are not made at the certification stage, the statements in Allen's counter-veiling affidavit cannot defeat conditional class certification. Further, the Judge finds that the class is not overly broad and need not be limited to work done in specific Parishes. The class as defined by the Plaintiffs includes all individuals who worked for defendants at any time since July 28, 2014, and were classified as independent contractors. The use of the word individuals indicates that the class includes individual people, not subcontractors. Also, although the Plaintiffs' affidavits indicate that they performed work in specific parishes, there is no need to restrict the conditional class to individuals who worked for Tasch in those Parishes because it is not unreasonable to assume that the alleged policy of improperly classifying individuals as independent contractors and failing to pay them overtime extended to work in other parishes. Hence, the Judge will grant the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification. For these reasons, Judge Lemmon granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification. He conditionally certified the class of all individuals who worked for defendants at any time since July 28, 2014, and were classified as independent contractors. Within 14 days of the date of the Order, the Defendants will provide to the Plaintiffs' counsel the names, addresses, email addresses, and telephone numbers of the putative class members in a usable electronic format. As to the Defendants' objections to the notice and consent forms, Judge Lemmon directed the parties to meet and confer regarding the proposed notice and attempt to resolve these disputes in good faith, and thereafter submit to the Court joint proposed Notice and Consent Forms no later than 21 days from the date of the Order. If the parties are unable to agree on the proposed Notice and Consent Forms, the parties will file the appropriate motions with their objections no later than 21 days from the date of the Order. The counsel for the Plaintiffs will have 30 days from the date the proposed Notice and Consent Forms are approved by the Court to transmit the Notice and Consent Forms to the potential class members via United States mail. The opt-in Plaintiffs are granted a period of 90 days from the date that the Notice and Consent Forms are mailed to return their signed Consent Forms to the Plaintiffs' counsel via mail, email, fax or electronic signature service. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 24, 2018 Order and Reasons is available at https://is.gd/8LVVlX from Leagle.com. Antonio Santos-Lemos, On behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Carlos Duenas, On behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Gerson Ivan Flores, On behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Gerardo Deras, On behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Osman Nunez, On behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Amilcar Guerrero, On behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Andres Gomez Lopez, Walter Rigoberto Escobar, On behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Julio R. Escobar, Milgen Wilson Morales, Luis Emilo Villatoro Almendarez, Maximo C. Urbina, Luis Enrique Torres Vasquez, Denia Aurora Gonzalez, Dennis Enrique Gonzales Navarro, Maria Hilda Sanchez, Jose Walter Quiroz-Flores, Alejandro Casco & Oliver Gabriel Pineda Duron, Plaintiffs, represented by Christopher L. Williams -- Chris@williamslitigation.com -- Williams Litigation, LLC, Cristian P. Silva, Christian P. Silva, Attorney at Law & Stephen J. Haedicke -- stephen@haedickelaw.com -- Law Offices of Stephen J. Haedicke, LLC. Enrique Veles, Ronnin Sanchez & Gerardo Aguilor Salgado, Plaintiffs, represented by Christopher L. Williams, Williams Litigation, LLC. Tasch, LLC & Jack R. Allen, Jr., Defendants, represented by Eve B. Masinter -- eve.masinter@bswllp.com -- Breazeale, Sachse & Wilson, L. L. P & Rachael M. Coe -- rachael.coe@bswllp.com -- Breazeale, Sachse & Wilson, L. L. P. TESARO INC: Kessler Topaz Announces Shareholder Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, discloses that a shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against TESARO, Inc. on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities between March 14, 2016 and January 12, 2018, inclusive. Investors who purchased TESARO securities during the Class Period may, no later than March 19, 2018, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class. For additional information or to learn how to participate in this action please visit https://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/TESARO-inc#join. TESARO shareholders who wish to discuss this action and their legal options are encouraged to contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (Darren J. Check, Esq., D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. or Adrienne Bell, Esq.) at (888) 299-7706 or at info@ktmc.com. TESARO is an oncology-focused biopharmaceutical company that identifies, acquires, develops, and commercializes cancer therapeutics and oncology supportive care products. TESARO's product portfolio includes Varubi (rolapitant), a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist for the prevention of chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting. As detailed in the complaint, on January 12, 2018, TESARO disclosed to investors that it had updated the U.S. labeling for the intravenous formulation of Varubi after receiving reports of "[a]naphylaxis, anaphylactic shock and other serious hypersensitivity reactions in the post-marketing setting, some requiring hospitalization." Following this news, shares of TESARO's common stock fell $4.07 per share, or over 5.8%, to close on January 16, 2016 at $65.52, on heavy trading volume. The shareholder class action complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, TESARO and certain of the Company's executive officers made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose to investors that: (i) substantial undisclosed health risks, including anaphylaxis and anaphylactic shock, were associated with TESARO's intravenous formulation of Varubi; and (ii) that as a result of the foregoing, TESARO's shares traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. TESARO shareholders may, no later than March 19, 2018, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, or other counsel, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class in the action. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check prosecutes class actions in state and federal courts throughout the country. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check is a driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual investors from the United States and around the world. The firm represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and share in the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check. Darren J. Check, Esq. D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. Adrienne Bell, Esq. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP Tel: (888) 299-7706 (610) 667-7706 E-mail: dcheck@ktmc.com skaskela@ktmc.com abell@ktmc.com [GN] TOURNEAU LLC: Faces "Thorne" Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tourneau, LLC. The case is styled as Braulio Thorne, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Tourneau, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01109 (S.D. N.Y., February 7, 2018). Tourneau, LLC, is a luxury watch retailer established in 1900 and based in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Chaim Cohen, Esq. Daniel Cohen PLLC 407 Rockaway Avenue, 3rd Floor Brooklyn, NY 11212 Tel: (646) 645-8482 Email: dancohenlaw@gmail.com UBER TECHNOLOGIES: "Greder" Suit Alleges Consumer Acts Violations ----------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Greder, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier, LLC, and Raiser-CA, LLC, Case No. 18-cv-00116 (D. Minn., January 16, 2018), seeks damages under the Consumer Protection Acts. In November 2017, Uber announced that over a year earlier in October 2016, hackers gained access and had stolen information relating to 57 million driver and rider accounts for the Uber rideshare service. Because of this breach, Plaintiff and the millions of individuals whose personal data were exposed now face serious risk of further injury from identity theft, credit and reputational harm, false tax claims, and even extortion, notes the complaint. Plaintiff Andrew Greder is an individual who resides in Minnetonka, Minnesota and was a citizen of the State of Minnesota during the period of the Uber Data Breach. Plaintiff had an active account with Uber at the time of the Uber Data Breach. Defendant Uber is a multi-billion-dollar California corporation that provides ridesharing services to millions of consumers across the globe. It enables users to arrange and schedule transportation and/or logistics services with third-party providers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq. Joseph C. Bourne, Esq. Eric S. Taubel, Esq. Kaitlyn L. Dennis, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC Canadian Pacific Plaza 120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Tel: (612) 333-8844 Fax: (612) 339-6622 E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com jbourne@gustafsongluek.com etaubel@gustafsongluek.com kdennis@gustafsongluek.com UNITED STATES: Court Dismisses Detained Immigrant's Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California dismissed without prejudice the case, LUIS L. ARMENTERO, Petitioner, v. THOMAS HOMAN, Respondent, Case No. CV 17-2355 TJH (FFM) (C.D. Cal.). On Nov. 2, 2017, petitioner Armentero, a detainee of the immigration detention facility located in Adelanto, California, appearing pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2241. Armentero claims that U.S. Immigration Customs Enforcement ("ICE") is unlawfully detaining various individuals in violation of Immigration Nationality Act Section 241(a). The Court is aware that Armentero has filed a separate petition, CV 17-2213 TJH (FFM), with the same claim in which he names only himself as a petitioner. In the instant case, however, Armentero also purports to file his claim on behalf of Jorge Valles Sanchez, Jesus Ceballo Pedrasas, Carlos Hernandez, Francisco Valdez Hernandez, Ismael Flores, Ignacio Mendinueta, and Jose Ramirez. Judge Hatter finds that summary dismissal in the case is warranted. Armentero's claim provides no basis for relief. Armentero is not an attorney, thus, he may not represent other petitioners. Moreover, a litigant acting pro se may not appear as the class counsel on behalf of others. Because Armentero is a non-attorney acting pro se, he may not represent other potential parties. His individual claim for relief in case 17-2213 TJH (FFM) may proceed as filed. In sum, Judge Hatter finds that there is no possibility that Armentero can obtain relief on the grounds presented. Accordingly, he dismissed without prejudice the petition. He denied a certificate of appealability. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 24, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/ZXXjL5 from Leagle.com. UNITED STATES: DHS Denial of Class Cert in "Manirakiza" Upheld -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, EUPHREM MANIRAKIZA et al., v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Case No. Ken-17-119 (Me.), Judge Joseph Jabar of the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine vacated the Superior Court's judgment upholding the final agency decision of the Department of Health denying Manirakiza's application for food supplement benefits. Manirakiza and his family arrived in the United States in 2014. In August of 2015, after Manirakiza and his wife received Employment Authorization Documents, Manirakiza applied for food assistance for his household pursuant to 22 M.R.S. Section 3104- A(1)(D) (2017) ("Paragraph D"). Title 22 M.R.S. Section 3104-A limits the categories of legal non-citizens who are eligible to receive food assistance, and Paragraph D establishes that non- citizens who are unemployed but who have obtained proper work documentation are eligible to receive the benefit. Although certain members of Manirakiza's family were eligible for benefits pursuant to Paragraph D, the Department denied Manirakiza's application. After an administrative hearing, the hearing officer found that the Department was correct when it denied Manirakiza's application based on language in the public law that is not present within the statutory text, which contained a fiscal limitation on the availability of funding for benefits for persons otherwise eligible under Paragraph D. The Commissioner accepted the findings of fact and recommendation of the hearing officer that the Department correctly denied the application for food assistance pursuant to Paragraph D and Section OO-14. To resolve the statutory interpretation issue, namely how the limitations within Section OO-14 affected the plain language of Paragraph D, Manirakiza appealed to the Superior Court. That petition and complaint included four counts: Count I alleged that the Department erred when it found that Manirakiza was not entitled to food assistance under Paragraph D; Count II requested that the court certify the action as a class action and, pursuant to 5 M.R.S. Section 8058 (2017), requested judicial review of the Department rule interpreting Paragraph D, 17 C.M.R. 10 144 301-14 Section FS-111-2 (2013); Count III sought a declaratory judgment; and Count IV sought injunctive relief. The Department filed oppositions to all counts and a motion to dismiss the independent claims, Counts II and III, as duplicative. On June 28, 2016, the court denied Manirakiza's motion to certify the class and granted the Department's motion to dismiss the independent claims as duplicative. In order to determine whether Manirakiza was likely to succeed on the merits, the court also requested memoranda of law concerning the interpretation of Paragraph D. After receiving further argument on that issue, in an order dated Jan. 15, 2017, the court denied Manirakiza's motion for a preliminary injunction, determining that Manirakiza had failed to demonstrate he was more likely than not to succeed on the merits. After the denial of the preliminary injunction, the parties agreed that the record was complete, that it was unnecessary to conduct further discovery, and that it was unnecessary to provide additional briefing or argument. On Feb. 28, 2017, upon those agreements by the parties, the court entered final judgment in favor of the Department, upholding the Department's statutory interpretation of Paragraph D and the resulting denial of Manirakiza's application for food assistance. Manirakiza timely appealed. On appeal, Manirakiza contends that the court erred by (1) entering final judgment in favor of the Department on the statutory interpretation issue, effectively determining that Paragraph D also contained the temporal and fiscal limitations of Section OO-14, and that those limitations were effective beyond the fiscal years ending June 30, 2013, June 30, 2014, and June 30, 2015; (2) denying his motion for class certification; and (3) dismissing the independent claims contained in Counts II and III of his complaint as duplicative. Judge Jabar concludes that the Legislature intended for Paragraph D to be a permanent exception to the general ineligibility of noncitizens for food assistance under 22 M.R.S. Section 3104- A(1), that the language of limitation contained in Section OO-14 was language of limitation only for the fiscal years ending June 30, 2013, June 30, 2014, and June 30, 2015, and that once that budget period ended on June 30, 2015, absent other legislative action, the Department was required to provide food assistance to applicants eligible under Paragraph D in the same way that it must provide food assistance to those persons eligible under paragraphs (A), (B), and (C) of the same statutory provision. Manirakiza argues that the court applied the incorrect legal standard when it denied his motion for class certification, and that it was improper for the court to dismiss the independent claims, Counts II and III, as duplicative. Finding no error in these decisions, the Judge will affirm the actions of the court. For these reasons, Judge Jabar vacated the judgment ad remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Opinion. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 23, 2018 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/s45GZW from Leagle.com. Melissa A. Hewey, Esq. -- mhewey@dwmlaw.com -- David M. Kallin, Esq. -- dkallin@dwmlaw.com -- and Amy K. Olfene, Esq. -- aolfene@dwmlaw.com -- (orally), Drummond Woodsum, Portland, and Robyn Merrill, Esq., Maine Equal Justice Partners, Augusta, for appellants Euphrem Manirakiza and Fatima Nkembi. Janet T. Mills, Attorney General, and Thomas J. Quinn, Asst. Atty. Gen. (orally), Office of the Attorney General, Augusta, for appellee Department of Health and Human Services. UNITED STATES: Appeals Decision in "Vidal" Suit to Second Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Jefferson B. Sessions III and Donald J. Trump filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Vidal, et al. v. Nielsen, et al., Case No. 16- cv-4756, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon. Jose A. Cabranes granted the Government's emergency motion for a stay of discovery and record supplementation in the appellate case relating to the lawsuit -- Elaine C. Duke, et al. v. Martin Jonathan Batall Vidal, et al., Case No. 17-3345. "The Government's emergency motion for a stay of discovery and record supplementation in the proceedings before the district court is GRANTED pending its consideration by a regular three- judge panel of the Court, it being understood that during the pendency of this emergency motion and the stay hereby granted no rights or claims of rights of any of the parties shall have been waived or forfeited," according to Judge Cabranes' Order. "The stay is contingent upon the Government filing the 'full petition for a writ of mandamus', as described in its papers." The appellate case is captioned as Nielsen v. Vidal, Case No. 18- 122, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Respondents Martin Jonathan Batall Vidal; Make the Road New York, on behalf of itself, its members, its clients, and all similarly situated individuals; Antonio Alarcon; Eliana Fernandez; Carlos Vargas; Mariano Mondragon; and Carolina Fung Feng, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated individuals, are represented by: Karen Cassandra Tumlin, Esq. NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER 3450 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 639-3900 Facsimile: (213) 639-3911 E-mail: tumlin@nilc.org Defendants-Petitioners Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Secretary of Homeland Security; Jefferson B. Sessions III, United States Attorney General; and Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, are represented by: Mark B. Stern, Esq. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 Telephone: (202) 514-5089 E-mail: Mark.Stern@usdoj.gov VISALUS INC: Court Dismisses 3rd Amended "Kerrigan" Rico Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Matthew F. Leitman of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, granted the Defendants' motions to dismiss the case, TIMOTHY KERRIGAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. VISALUS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 14-cv-12693 (E.D. Mich.) and terminated as moot the Plaintiffs' motion to file a corrected Third Amended Complaint. In this complex putative class action, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants, nearly 50 individuals and entities, many of which have overlapping ownership structures and contractual relationships, conned them into joining a fraudulent pyramid scheme. They filed the action in 2014, and the Court has previously issued two substantive opinions that resolved motions to dismiss the Plaintiffs' initial Complaint and their First Amended Complaint. On March 8, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint, the operative pleading in the action. The parties have now filed four motions with respect to the Third Amended Complaint: a. Defendants Ropart Asset Management, LLC, Ropart Asset Management Fund, LLC, Ropart Asset Management Fund II, LLC, Rock Ridge Asset Management Company, LLC, the Living Trust dated 9/30/91 f/b/o Robert B. Goergen, and HashTag One, LLC have moved to dismiss Count I (violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO")) and Count II (conspiracy to violate the RICO) of the Third Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and Count VII (unjust enrichment) and Count IX (civil conspiracy) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 (b)(1); b. Defendants Robert Goergen, Sr. and Todd Goergen have moved to dismiss Count I of the Third Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6); c. Defendants Jason O'Toole, Kyle Pacetti, Jr., Prospex Automated Wealth Systems, Inc., and Gooder, LLC have moved to dismiss Count I of the Third Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6); O'Toole and Pacetti have moved to dismiss Count III (violations of 5 U.S.C. Section 78j(b) and 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5(a) and (c)) of the Third Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6); and Defendants A Berry Good Life, Inc., ArriveBy25, Inc., BAM Ventures, Inc., BeachLifestyle Enterprises, LLC, Michael Craig, Aaron Fortner, Freedom Legacy, LLC, Gooder, LLC, Got Heart Global, Inc., Rachel Jackson, Jaketrz, Inc., Holley Kirkland, Timothy Kirkland, Anthony Lucero, Rhonda Lucero, M-Power Path, Inc., Kevin Merriweather, Mojos Legacy, LLC, Network Dynamics America Corp., Jason O'Toole, Jason O'Toole International Holdings, Inc., OCD Marketing, Inc., Kyle Pacetti, Jr., Lori Petrilli, Power Couple, Inc., Prospex Automated Wealth Systems, Inc. Red Letters, LLC, Residual Marketing, Inc., Gary J. Reynolds, Jake Trzcinski, Frank Varon, Wealth Builder International LLC, Tara Wilson, and 9248-2587 Quebec, Inc. have moved to dismiss Count II of the Third Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(b) and Count VII of the Third Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)2; and d. The Plaintiffs have moved to file a corrected Third Amended Complaint, which includes certain revisions to the factual allegations Plaintiffs have made. The Court held a hearing on these motions on Dec. 8, 2017. Judge Leitman agrees that the Third Amended Complaint does not sufficiently allege that the Trust participated in the alleged RICO enterprise. The Plaintiffs do not appear to have alleged any facts in the Third Amended Complaint that the Trust invested any capital in ViSalus directly or that the Trust had any direct involvement with ViSalus at all. Simply put, the allegations against the Trust appear too attenuated to plausibly establish that the Trust participated in the enterprise's affairs. The Judge says the Plaintiffs may attempt to address the deficiencies identified above in their Fourth Amended Complaint. The Judge finds that the Rule 10b-5(b) claim in the proposed "corrected" Third Amended Complaint is not sufficiently pleaded. He says the Plaintiffs' proposed revisions to their factual allegations do not satisfy this standard. Their proposed revisions do not clearly identify a specific statement on which they relied. Some of the proposed revised allegations stretch the concept of alternative pleading beyond its breaking point. If the Plaintiffs seek to assert a Rule 10b-5(b) claim in the Fourth Amended Complaint, the Judge says they must satisfy the standard identified above and all other requirements of a Rule 10b-5(b) claim. The Judge also agrees with the Defendants that each named Plaintiff must have individual standing to pursue an unjust enrichment claim. To establish such standing in the Fourth Amended Complaint, each named Plaintiff must plead facts that could plausibly establish that each Defendant named in the unjust enrichment count was unjustly enriched at that Plaintiff's expense. Next, if the Plaintiffs do sufficiently plead an unjust enrichment claim in the Fourth Amended Complaint, the Court will allow them to conduct limited jurisdictional discovery in order to allow them to test the veracity of Ms. Bosev's affidavit. The Court will rule on the subject matter jurisdiction question following the completion of this limited discovery. Finally, because he will allow the Plaintiffs to file a Fourth Amended Complaint, the Judge will allow them to add the allegations with respect to the Goergens that their counsel identified at the hearing in that pleading (or to plead sufficient facts showing that the Goergens caused the mails or wires to be used). For the reasons stated, Judge Leitman granted the Defendants' motions to dismiss and terminated as moot the Plaintiffs' motion to file a corrected Third Amended Complaint. The Plaintiffs may file a Fourth Amended Complaint no later than 30 days from the date of the Order; and the Defendants will not answer or otherwise respond to a Fourth Amended Complaint until ordered to do so by the Court following a telephonic status conference that the Court will schedule after the Plaintiffs file the Fourth Amended Complaint. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 24, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/eQBwbl from Leagle.com. Timothy Kerrigan, Lori Mikovich & Ryan M. Valli, Plaintiffs, represented by Brent Caldwell -- bcaldwell@pfalawfirm.com -- Pregeg Faucett & Abbott PLLC, Edward A. Wallace, Wexler Wallace LLP, Jason J. Thompson , Sommers Schwartz, P.C., Mark R. Miller , Wexler Wallace, Matthew J.M. Prebeg -- mprebeg@pfalawfirm.com -- Prebeg, Faucett & Abbott PLLC, Sarah Lindsay Rickard -- SRickard@sommerspc.com -- Sommers Schwartz PC & Andrew Kochanowski -- akochanowski@sommerspc.com -- Sommers Schwartz, P.C. VISALUS, INC., Visalus Holdings, LLC, Robert Goergen, Sr., Todd Goergen, Ryan Blair & Blake Mallen, Defendants, represented by Andrew Clark , Honigman, Miller, Schwartz & Cohn, LLP, Barry M. Rosenbaum -- BROSENBAUM@SEYBURN.COM -- Seyburn, Kahn, Brian A. Howie -- brian.howie@quarles.com -- Quarles & Brady LLP, Edward A. Salanga -- Edward.salanga@quarles.com -- Quarles & Brady LLP, Kevin D. Quigley -- kevin.quigley@quarles.com -- Quarles & Brady LLP, Michael S. Catlett , Quarles & Brady LLP & Nicholas B. Gorga -- -- ngorga@honigman.com -- Honigman, Miller. Ropart Asset Management Fund, LLC & Ropart Asset Management Fund II, LLC, Defendants, represented by Barry M. Rosenbaum, Seyburn, Kahn, Marc L. Newman -- mln@miller.law -- The Miller Law Firm, E. Powell Miller -- epm@miller.law -- The Miller Law Firm & Kevin F. O'Shea -- kfo@miller.law -- Miller Law Firm. Mojos Legacy, LLC, Fragmob, LLC, Freedom Legacy, LLC, Wealth Builder International, Inc., Residual Marketing, Inc., Jaketrz, Inc., Insider Corporate and Partnership Defendant Company Does 1- 10, Frank Varon, Kyle Pacetti, Jr., Jake Trzcinski, Michael Craig, Lavon Craig, Timothy Kirkland, Holley Kirkland, Joshua Jackson, Aaron Fortner, Rachel Jackson, Tara Wilson, Anthony Lucero, Rhonda Lucero, Individual Defendant John Does 1-10, Jason O'Toole, Lori Petrilli, Gary J. Reynolds, Kevin Merriweather, OCD Marketing, Inc., Power Couple, Inc., ArriveBy 25, Inc., BAM Ventures, Inc., Jason O'Toole International Holdings, Inc., Gooder, LLC, Red Letters, LLC, M-Power Path, Inc., A Berry Good Life, Inc., Network Dynamics America Corp., Got Heart Global, Inc., Beachlifestyle Enterprises, LLC, Wealth Builder International, LLC, Prospex Automated Wealth Systems, Inc. & 9248-2587 Quebec, Inc., Defendants, represented by Barry M. Rosenbaum, Seyburn, Kahn. Nick Sarnicola, Defendant, represented by Marc L. Newman, The Miller Law Firm. Rock Ridge Asset Management Company, LLC, Ropart Asset Management, LLC, Living Trust Dated 9/30/1991 F/B/O Robert B. Goergen & Hashtag One, LLC, Defendants, represented by E. Powell Miller, The Miller Law Firm, Kevin F. O'Shea, Miller Law Firm & Marc L. Newman, The Miller Law Firm. VODAFONE GROUP: March 20 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set ----------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on Jan. 30 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of investors who purchased Vodafone Group Public Limited Company ("Vodafone") (NASDAQ:VOD) ADRs between February 11, 2015 and January 11, 2018. Click here to learn about the case: http://www.wongesq.com/pslra- sbm/vodafone-group-public-limited-company?wire=3. There is no cost or obligation to you. According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that Vodafone had contravened Australian law by permitting customers to purchase pre-paid mobile phones without first verifying their identities. On January 10, 2018, the Australian Communications and Media Authority ("ACMA") issued a press release disclosing that, following an investigation into Vodafone Australia, it determined that the Company had "failed to verify the identity of at least 1,028 customers before activating their prepaid mobile services." Upon this news, Vodafone ADRs declined from a closing price of $32.60 on January 9, 2018, to a closing price of $31.44 on January 11, 2018. If you suffered a loss in Vodafone you have until March 20, 2018 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. To obtain additional information, contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email vw@wongesq.com, by telephone at 212.425.1140, or visit http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-sbm/vodafone-group-public-limited- company?wire=3 Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney that has represented investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and violations of shareholder rights. [GN] WOLF PETROLEUM: Court Conditionally Certifies "Moss" Class ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MICHAEL MOSS, ET AL, v. WOLF PETROLEUM SERVICES, LLC, Civil Action No. 16-cv-1435 (W.D. La.), Magistrate Judge Mark L. Hornsby of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Shreveport Division, granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification. The Plaintiffs worked in North Dakota as rig operators for Wolf, a Minden-based company that has provided well services in a number of states. They allege that Wolf violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") by not paying them and similarly situated employees overtime pay. The Plaintiffs filed suit against Wolf and company president Marc Meitner on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated employees across the country. The Plaintiffs alleges in the first amended complaint that Wolf employed them and similarly situated employees to maintain and service customer wells. They allege that rig workers performed various well servicing activities, such as maintaining the wells and bailing water off the top of the wells. They allege that they regularly worked in excess of 40 hours, sometimes 70 hours or more per work week, but Wolf paid them only a flat rate or salary. The Plaintiffs allege that this deprived them of overtime pay to which they were entitled under the FLSA. This allegedly continued for many months, but the Defendants eventually began paying employees an hourly rate. Before the Court is the Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification that requests certification as a collective action and authority to issue notice to the other employees and afford them an opportunity to opt in to the suit. The principal disagreement between the parties with respect to the notice stage is the geographic scope of the employees to be notified. Wolf argues that the Plaintiffs have presented enough facts to justify notice to only their former co-workers in the North Dakota location. Magistrate Judge Hornsby is not persuaded by Wolf's attempts to separate the employees by their job titles and whether they could earn bonuses, but notice to the far flung employees in other states is not merited based on the mere "upon information and belief" allegation in the petition and the unexplained assertion of personal knowledge in the affidavits that those employees were paid based on a similar policy. The Plaintiffs testify that they have personal knowledge that the other employees were paid in a similar manner, but they do not provide any facts to support that conclusory assertion. He says such generic and conclusory assertions of a common policy are not adequate to justify notice. If they are, then the standard would be met in every case. The group of notified employees is limited to rig operators, swab operators, swab hands, and other employees, no matter their company-assigned title, who are employed in rig service operations in Wolf's North Dakota operations. He directs that the notice in the case is limited to those employees who work for Wolf within the three years prior to the date notice is approved. The Defendants also request an end date that coincides with the last date an original Plaintiff was employed by Wolf, but the Magistrate Judge is not persuaded that is appropriate. He finds that the employees in the case are few, so it is not likely there were many employed after these Plaintiffs left the company, but they should be able to join and enforce their overtime rights if they were subjected to the same payment policy. Wolf also asks that the relevant time period end on Oct. 27, 2016, the last day on which the North Dakota operation was active. The notice need not include such a specification. If there were no employees after that date, it will not be an issue. The Magistrate Judge also finds that there does not seem to be any significant burden on Wolf to provide contact information for the other employees, and it would have only a limited effect on the privacy of the employees who might be called. Given the often itinerant nature of oilfield workers, a telephone number (especially a cell phone number) may be the most reliable way to contact some of the employees. The numbers must be provided in the case. Finally, the Magistrate Judge directs the counsel to begin conferring promptly to craft a notice consistent with the Order and, within 14 days, file a motion for approval of the form of notice and any related forms. If there are any disagreements on the content of the forms, the motion should advise the Court of those issues, and the Court will set a method to resolve them. Accordingly, Magistrate Judge granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification, and the notice will be issued to Wolf employees who were employed in any capacity performing rig services at its North Dakota operations within the three years prior to the Court's final approval of the form of notice. Within 14 days of the Order, the Defendants disclose to the Plaintiffs' counsel the names, last known addresses, email addresses, phone numbers, and dates of employment of the potentially similarly situated employees within the scope of the notice. The counsel promptly begins to confer about the final version of the notice and consent forms and, within 14 days, submit a motion for approval. The motion for approval should note any areas of disagreement that require resolution by the Court. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 23, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/s45GZW from Leagle.com. Michael Moss & Korry Moss, Plaintiffs, represented by Barrett Black Beasley -- bbeasley@salim-beasley.com -- Salim Beasley & Robert W. Cowan -- rcowan@bpblaw.com -- Bailey Peavy et al, pro hac vice. Wolf Petroleum Services L L C & Marc T Meitner, individually and in his official capacity, Defendants, represented by Elizabeth M. Carmody -- elizabeth.carmody@cookyancey.com -- Cook Yancey et al. YELP INC: Klein Law Firm Files Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ The Klein Law Firm disclosed that a class action complaint has been filed on behalf of shareholders of Yelp Inc. who purchased shares between February 9, 2017 and May 9, 2017. The action, which was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleges that the Company violated federal securities laws. In particular, the complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that (i) Yelp's transition from a Cost-Per-Thousand-Impressions ("CPM") to a Cost-Per-Click ("CPC") model in Fiscal 2016 created a distinct cohort of local advertisers that would reach the end of their contracts during the first part of Fiscal 2017; (ii) new customers that signed up with Yelp under the CPC pricing model had lower retention rates because the customers did not effectively compete with Yelp's more established customers; and (iii) that, as a result of the lower retention rates, Yelp was not on track to achieve its financial guidance or results during the Class Period. On May 9, 2017, the Company announced their first quarter 2017 financial results and announced it was revising its full year 2017 guidance to reflect poor retention rates with existing customers. Shareholders have until March 19, 2018 to petition the court for lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any recovery does not require that you serve as lead plaintiff. You may choose to be an absent class member. Joseph Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation. [GN] ZTO EXPRESS: Faces Linde Foundation Securities Suit Over IPO ------------------------------------------------------------ THE RONALD AND MAXINE LINDE FOUNDATION, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. ZTO EXPRESS (CAYMAN) INC., MEISONG LAI, JIANFA LAI, JILEI WANG, XIANGLIANG HU, BAIXI LAN, XING LIU, FRANK ZHEN WEI, and JlANMIN (JAMES) GUO, Case No. 18CIV00264 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Mateo Cty., January 17, 2018), is brought on behalf of those who purchased ZTO American Depository Shares pursuant and/or traceable to ZTO's October 27, 2016 initial public offering for alleged violations of the Securities Act of 1933. At the commencement of the IPO, the Defendants made a series of false and misleading statements in ZTO's offering documents regarding the Company's financial results and future outlook, the Plaintiff alleges. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants told the investing public that ZTO had attained high growth and profitability when in reality the Company had to lower its network transit fees to subsidize its network partners in response to increased costs, pricing pressures, and competition, which had negative impacts on the Company's revenue, margins, earnings, and forecasts. ZTO is an emergent growth company that provides express delivery services throughout China and in certain international markets through various business partners. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of ZTO.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com rprongay@glancylaw.com lportnoy@glancylaw.com clinehan@glancylaw.com * Germany Urged to Consider US-Style Class Action Amid Dieselgate ----------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Delhaes, writing for Handelsblatt, reports that as coalition talks press on in Berlin, negotiators are urged to consider legislation for US-style class action lawsuits as German consumers harmed by Dieselgate face a difficult path for compensation. Without a provision for class-action suits, thousands of individual diesel lawsuits are piling up in Germany. Lawyers and consumer-rights groups say these could be handled more fairly and efficiently with new legislation. In a letter seen by Handelsblatt, a federation of German consumer organizations and the ADAC auto club demanded Chancellor Angela Merkel's conservatives and the center-left Social Democrats (SPD), currently in talks to form a new government, make a binding commitment to changing the law. "Amid all the debate about how to go about it, there must be no question that it will be introduced," they said. "Consumers in Germany need legislation as soon as possible that provides them with concrete help in getting their complaints through." [GN] * Miles Attorney Discuses CFPB Class Action Waiver Rule ------------------------------------------------------- Zachary S. Schultz, Esq., of Miles & Stockbridge, in an article for Mondaq, reports that in October 2017, the United States Senate voted to invalidate a rule promulgated by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ("CFPB"), which would have prohibited financial institutions from using arbitration agreements in which the consumer waives the right to participate in a class action. The rule -- which was announced by the CFPB in July 2017 and was not yet in effect at the time it was invalidated -- prohibited class action waivers imbedded in consumer arbitration agreements (the "Arbitration Rule"). If the Arbitration Rule had gone into effect, financial institutions and other companies offering consumer products would have been blocked from requiring that consumers resolve their disputes on an individual, non-class basis in arbitration. On October 24, 2017, Vice President Pence broke a 50-50 Senate tie, voting to invalidate the CFPB Arbitration Rule. The vote thus set in motion the full repeal of the Arbitration Rule, and, on November 1, 2017, President Trump signed a joint resolution passed by Congress finalizing the repeal. The CFPB has since published a notice removing the Arbitration Rule from the Code of Federal Regulations. The action taken by Congress is reflective of the ongoing efforts by the Trump Administration and Congress to curtail the power and impact of the once-powerful CFPB. In November 2017, Richard Cordray resigned as director of the CFPB and named his deputy director, Leandra English, as his interim replacement. Shortly after Cordray's announcement, President Trump nominated his Office of Management and Budget Director, Mick Mulvaney, to replace Cordray as interim director. This sequence of events has set in motion a legal showdown over the authority of the president to name the replacement for CFPB director. Thus far, the Trump Administration has been successful in court defending its decision. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia recently granted English's request for an expedited review of the case, following the denial of English's request to preliminarily enjoin Mr. Mulvaney from replacing English as interim director. Mr. Mulvaney distributed an internal memo to the CFPB staff in which he pledged to curtail the agency's aggressive regulatory enforcement practices. Mr. Mulvaney wrote that: "[The] CFPB has a new 'mission': we will exercise, with humility and prudence, the almost unparalleled power given to us to faithfully enforce the law in furtherance of the mandate given to us by Congress. But we go no further. Simply put, the days of aggressively 'pushing the envelope' of the law in the name of the 'mission' are over." The collective action of the Trump Administration and Congress reflects continuing efforts to overhaul the agency. These efforts likely come as welcome news to consumer financial service providers, who have faced constant scrutiny and pressure from the CFPB since the days of the Obama Administration. [GN] * Securities Fraud Class Actions Tougher Than Ever to Win --------------------------------------------------------- Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that securities fraud litigation can be a cutthroat business for plaintiffs' firms. Just look at the newly-released report from NERA Economic Consulting. Despite a spike in the number of securities filings -- mostly the result of M&A challenges shifting to federal court from Delaware Chancery Court after Delaware's crackdown on fees for shareholder lawyers -- it's tougher than ever to win old- school fraud class actions. A record-setting 116 securities fraud cases were dismissed in 2017, according to NERA. Only 80 class actions settled, a near-low -- and the average value those settlements, NERA found, was less than $25 million, the lowest in a decade. Good securities fraud class actions, in other words, are hard to come by. Harder still is winning the right to control the cases as lead counsel. The competition to be named lead counsel in promising securities fraud class actions does not always cast shareholder lawyers in their most flattering light. The latest example -- in a class action alleging that the real estate investment trust Omega Healthcare Investors misled shareholders about the deteriorating finances of some of its long-term care facilities -- exposes some of the tricks of the shareholder lawyers' trade. The most important revelation from the Omega lead plaintiff competition is that investors don't always know what their lawyers are up to. I know, cynics among you will say that's not a revelation at all. But rarely will you see facts as these. Glenn Fausz was an Omega shareholder. He lost nearly $50,000 when the REIT's share price dipped last fall. In late November, as Fausz explained in a declaration, he signed a retainer agreement with the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith. Then, after signing the retainer and submitting a sworn certification of his losses to Smith, Mr. Fausz also signed up with a different plaintiffs' firm, Faruqi & Faruqi. That's understandable. When Congress changed the rules for securities class actions back in 1995, lawmakers wanted to discourage shareholder firms from seizing control of cases by racing to file suits in the name of investors with only a small stake. Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA), plaintiffs must issue a notice when they file a securities class action to allow other investors to vie to lead the cases. Nowadays, some law firms specialize in issuing press releases about new securities class actions -- even if other firms filed the cases -- and screening the investors who respond. In the Omega case, according to a brief filed on Jan. 30 by Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, plaintiffs' firms issued no fewer than 24 press releases inviting Omega investors to contact them. Though it's not clear from his declaration, Mr. Fausz probably responded to more than one press release, which is how he ended up hiring two different plaintiffs' firms. Like I said, an understandable development. But what's not so understandable is that two different sets of plaintiffs' lawyers both filed lead plaintiff motions purportedly on Mr. Fausz's behalf. Pomerantz and Glancy Prongay & Murray asked U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald of Manhattan to appoint a group of five Omega shareholders, including Mr. Fausz, as lead plaintiffs in the case (with Pomerantz and Glancy Prongay as their lawyers, of course). On the same day, Faruqi & Faruqi moved for Mr. Fausz to lead the case on his own. Pomerantz and Glancy Prongay withdrew their lead plaintiff motion on Jan. 25, but the withdrawal didn't stop Faruqi and Robbins Geller from questioning how the firms came to claim Mr. Fausz as a client. "Pomerantz and Glancy filed (their lead plaintiff) motion in bad faith," Faruqi said in a Jan. 30 brief. Citing Fausz's declaration, Faruqi said the investor had no agreement with the Pomerantz or Glancy firm and did not know they planned to include him as part of a group seeking appointment as lead plaintiff. He wasn't even aware the group existed. Faruqi said Pomerantz and Glancy had deliberately redacted the name of referring counsel Howard Smith from Mr. Fausz's certification to make it look like Fausz had signed up to be part of their "cobbled-together," "lawyer-driven" investor group. Robbins Geller's brief said the Fausz fracas strongly suggested that neither Pomerantz nor Glancy Prongay had actually spoken with their purported client before enlisting him as part of a "menagerie of previously unaffiliated individuals" requesting to be appointed lead plaintiff. Faruqi and Robbins Geller raised the prospect of undisclosed fee- sharing agreements between Pomerantz, Glancy and Brower Piven, which represents a different lead plaintiff candidate in the Omega case. When Pomerantz and Glancy withdrew their motion, they said Brower Piven's client seemed to be the best alternative lead plaintiff. Robbins Geller's brief pointed out that in a different securities class action in Manhattan federal court, DeSmet v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, the Pomerantz firm recently admitted in response to an order from U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan that it had entered into an undisclosed co-counsel agreement with another firm representing a lead plaintiff candidate. "In light of DeSmet," the Robbins Geller brief told Judge Buchwald, "this court should inquire as to whether any such agreements exist in this case, whether the clients are aware of and consented to the agreements before counsel agreed to them and what the terms of any such agreements are." Faruqi's brief said Judge Buchwald should flat-out refuse to allow Pomerantz or Glancy Prongay to receive any fees from the Omega case. "If the PSLRA's goal of ending lawyer-driven litigation is to have any hope of succeeding, (Pomerantz and Glancy) should not be permitted to profit from their bad behavior," the Faruqi brief said, "particularly where the worst of this behavior is outsourced by the firms listed on the papers to a tiny firm whose identity and role is intentionally concealed from the court and other movants." For what it's worth, Faruqi dropped its bid for Mr. Fausz to be appointed lead plaintiff so it no longer has a dog in the Omega hunt. Robbins Geller is continuing to push for its client, the Carpenters Pension Fund of Illinois, to be named lead, although its losses appear to be smaller than those of Brower Piven's client. So it has a motive to throw shade at Brower Piven's competing candidacy. In the bigger context, plaintiffs' lawyers who manipulate the existing system to win lead counsel appointments are contributing to the possible demise of their entire business model. The Trump administration is thinking about allowing corporations to force shareholders to arbitrate their claims instead of suing in class actions. It's a lot harder to insist investors must have a right to sue when it looks as though plaintiffs' lawyers are driving cases. Jeremy Lieberman of Pomerantz declined to comment. Lionel Glancy and Robert Prongay did not respond to an email seeking comment. Howard Smith and David Brower did not respond to my phone messages. [GN] ********* 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 * * *