/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/180221.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, February 21, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 38 Headlines 21ST CENTURY: Patients Seek Court Nod on Data Breach Class Action ABC LEGAL: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, "Arellano" Suit Alleges ADVANCE AUTO: April 9 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set AETNA INC: Sues KCC Following HIV Status Privacy Class Action AIR CANADA: Loses Bid to Dismiss Flight Pass Expiry Class Action ALLERGAN INC: KPH Healthcare Suit Alleges Antitrust Violations APPLE INC: Johnson Files Suit in Calif. for Fraud APPLE INC: "Munro" Suit Alleges Sabotage in OS Update for iPhones APPLIED UNDERWRITERS: Faces Class Action Over Inflated Premiums ASHLEY DIANA: ADBI Seeks Dismissal of Claims in "Elson" Suit ASSOCIATED CREDIT: Court Denies Summary Judgment in "Halvorsen" BANDAS LAW: Judge Tosses RICO Claims in Class Action BBVA COMPASS: Lopez Sues Over Charging of Illegal Overdraft Fees BCA FINANCIAL: Wins Final Approval of $10K Settlement in "Beneli" BELLICUM PHARMA: April 9 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set BIG CITY: Rosenberg & Estis Attorneys Discuss Class Action Ruling BRISTOL-MYERS: Bradley Arant Attorney Discusses SCOTUS Ruling CANADA: Attempts to Quash CAF Sexual Misconduct Class Action CAPITALA FINANCE: Faces "Sandifer" Securities Suit in California CIGNA CORP: Court Won't Strike Class Definitions in "DeJesus" COLLECTION ASSOCIATES: Class Certification Sought in "Ozier" Suit COLONIAL FREIGHT: Opposes Davis' Bid to Certify Contractors Class CONDUENT EDUCATION: "Chery" Suit Alleges Business Law Violations CONSERV FLAG: Accused by Bais Yaakov of Sending Illegal Fax Ads CONTESTMEDIA INC: Court Certifies Class in "Griffith" DAKOTA TRAVEL: Court Won't Stay Discovery in "Diaz" FLSA Suit DANNYS ATHENS: Appeals Judgment in "Martinez" Suit to 2nd Circuit DERMOTT JUVENILE: "Brown" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations DLF LLC: Court Certifies Class of Hourly Workers in "Sango" Suit ECLINICALWORKS LLC: Accused by "Goodson" Suit of Violating TCPA EQUIFAX INC: Faces Sky Federal Suit in Georgia Over Data Breach EQUIFAX INFORMATION: "De La Rosa" Suit Asserts FCRA Breach ESTES EXPRESS: Fails to Pay Overtime, "De Jesus" Suit Claims EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Wesley" Suit Claims FREE FLOW: Abreu Seeks to Recover Minimum and OT Wages Under FLSA GC SERVICES: Court Certifies Class Under FDCPA in "Alderman" Suit GEORGIA CHAMPIONSHIP: Hogan Seeks to Recover Minimum and OT Wages GOOGLE LLC: Moves to Deny Class Certification Bid in "Woods" Suit GOSPEL FOR ASIA: Class Certification Sought in "Murphy" Suit GREENWICH INSURANCE: Farella Braun Attorney Discusses Ruling HARMONY GOLD: SA Miners' Silicosis Class Action Nears Settlement HCC MEDICAL: Faces "Aliquo" Suit Alleging RICO Act Violations HONEST COMPANY: Tucker Appeals Settlement Order in Marketing Suit HOTELS.COM LP: Overcharges Consumers for Tax & Fees, Church Says HYUNDAI MOTORS: K&L Gates Attorneys Discuss Class Action Ruling ICQ SEARCH: Gattoni Sues Over Fair Debt Collection Act Violations IGNYTA INC: "Franchi" Class Suit Challenges Sale to Roche INDEPENDENT ADOPTION: Faces Class Action Following Shutdown INKAHOLIK TATTOOS: Accused by "Donayre" Suit of Violating TCPA INMATE SERVICES: "Peters" Suit Transferred to Arkansas Court INTEL CORPORATION: Accused by "Reis" of Selling Defective CPUs INTEL CORPORATION: Sued by Jones Over Defective Core Processors J. CREW: "Parker" Suit Remanded to Illinois State Court JP MORGAN CHASE: Childress Seeks to Certify Class of Obligors LEFT RIGHT LLC: Ednie Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages LEGACY LAND: Bradley Files Suit Over Bouncing Checks LONG ISLAND GUTTERS: Peraza Seeks to Recover Overtime Under FLSA LOS ANGELES MATTRESS: "Santos" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages LTD FINANCIAL: Seeks Third Circuit Review of Ruling in "Bordeaux" MACA RESTAURANT: "Cabrera" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations MARATHON PETROLEUM: Yates Appeals Order in ERISA Suit to 6th Cir. MDL 2804: Lewis County to Join Opioid Crisis Class Action MDL 2804: Marion County Taps Law Firms to Review Legal Options MEARS DESTINATION: Rodriguez Moves to Certify Class Under FLSA MERCK & CO: Faces FOP Antitrust Suit Over Zetia Price-fixing MID-SOUTH MACHINE: "Burley" Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime MILLER ENERGY: Certification of Class Sought in "Gaynor" Suit MONITECH INC: Fourth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Cottle" Class Suit OLIVINA NAPA: Evans Files Suit Over False Ad PARKWAY TROPICS: Misclassifies Exotic Dancers, "Cavazos" Alleges PINNACLE ENTERTAINMENT: Allen Moves to Certify Three Collectives PORT AUTHORITY: Sued for Illegally Videotaping Exams RDX TRANSPORT: Pettigrew Sues Over Misclassification of Drivers RENT-A-CENTER INC: "Williams" Class Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri REPROS THERAPEUTICS: "Franchi" Suit Challenges Sale to Allergan RUSHMORE LOAN: Leones Appeals S.D. Florida Ruling to 11th Circuit RUTHERFORD COUNTY, TN: Probationers Set to Get Settlement Payout SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Consumers Sue Over Plasma TV Defect SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Fails to Provide Timely Breaks, "Lam" Claims SANDISK LLC: Class Certification Sought in Securities Litigation STAPLES GROUP: Worsley Seeks to Certify Class of AS Managers SWISSPORT SA: Faces Class Action Over Meal Break, FCRA Violations TAYLOR, MI: Seeks Prelim. Approval of $31K Deal in "Garner" Suit TD AMERITRADE: Sued by Gray Over Losses From Risky Trading Tactic TIERRA LEASE: Court Certifies Class of Laborers in "Metting" Suit TITLE SOURCE: Swamy Moves to Certify Real Estate Appraisers Class TOKYO ELECTRIC: Ordered to Pay $10MM Over 2011 Nuclear Disaster TOTAL PHARMACY: Court Denies Bobo's Drugs' Bid to Certify Class TRADER JOE'S: Falsely Misrepresents Vitamin E Oil, Cesta Claims TRANS UNION: Accused by "De La Rosa" Class Suit of Violating FCRA TROY CAPITAL: "Cruz" Suit Seeks Damages Under FDCPA TRUMP UNIVERSITY: 9th Cir. Upholds $25MM Class Action Settlement TSU GLOBAL: "Williams" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime UNITED STATES: Fate of Indonesian Immigrants Still Uncertain VILLAGE OF HOLLY: Gumbleton Appeals Oakland Cir. Ct. Ruling VODAFONE GROUP: Sued by Ferrare for Violating Australian Law WEST BLOOMFIELD, MI: Court Vacates Summary Dismissal in "Logan" WHITE COUNTY, TN: Certification of Class Sought in "Stall" Suit WHITE COUNTY, TN: Garrett Seeks to Certify Class of Ex-Inmates XUNLEI LIMITED: Faces "Dookeran" Securities Suit Over OneCoin YELP INC: "Azar" Suit Alleges Exchange Act Violations ZWICKER & ASSOCIATES: Accused by "Espeleta" for Violating FDCPA * Class Actions Over Robocalls Against Major Cruise Lines Pending ********* 21ST CENTURY: Patients Seek Court Nod on Data Breach Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Frank Gluck, writing for News-Press.com, reports that patients suing 21st Century Oncology over a breach of 2.2 million medical records in 2015 will ask a federal judge this month to allow their case to proceed, now that the company has emerged from bankruptcy. Their lawsuit, which includes more than a dozen named plaintiffs but could soon become a class-action, has been on hold since the cancer-care giant sought Chapter 11 protection in May to erase $500 million of its $1.1 billion in long-term debt. The company announced earlier this month that it had successfully concluded the bankruptcy proceedings and that its hedge-fund owners had installed a new management team. A hearing on the patients' motion to continue the case is scheduled for Feb. 13. "We're very much looking forward to coming back and litigating this case," said Cari Campen Laufenberg, a Seattle-based attorney leading the plaintiffs' case. "We think our case is strong." 21st Century Oncology representatives did not comment on the case. Investigators say an "unauthorized third party" accessed about 2.2 million patient records in October 2015. The computer files included names, Social Security numbers, information about diagnoses and treatment, and insurance documents. It's also been alleged in recent legal filings that some of that illegally obtained private information may have been sold on largely hidden parts of the internet known as the "dark web." The FBI notified the company about the breach the following month. 21st Century Oncology officials waited to notify patients until the following March, saying they did not want to interfere in the federal investigation. The company offered affected patients a free one-year membership to a credit protection program and urged them to check their health insurance documents for any signs of suspicious charges. A number of patients later said they believed they were victims of identity theft. In December, 21st Century Oncology agreed to pay a $2.3 million fine to the Department of Health and Human Services over the data breach. The department, which oversees U.S. medical regulations, sharply criticized the company for not adequately protecting its computerized records. It also required the company to review and revise its security procedures and to provide the government its plan for corrective action. "People need to trust that their private health information will remain exactly that; private," said Roger Severino, director of the department's Office for Civil Rights, in a statement at the time. "It's not just my hope that covered entities will learn from this example and proactively find and address their security risks, it's what the law requires." As part of the company's bankruptcy case, the data breach plaintiffs agreed to only seek damages from 21 Century Oncology's insurers. Court filings show that there's up to $21.85 million available from them. 21st Century Oncology operates 179 treatment centers, including 143 U.S. centers, in 17 states. [GN] ABC LEGAL: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, "Arellano" Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- LUIS M. ARELLANO, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated v. ABC LEGAL SERVICES, INC., a Washington corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:18-cv-00073 (N.D. Cal., January 4, 2018), alleges that the Defendants failed to provide the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated individuals with meal and rest periods, and to pay them overtime wages at the correct rate, among other failures. ABC LEGAL SERVICES, INC. is a Washington corporation doing business in the state of California. ABC provides commercial services, and offers court filing, messenger and document retrieval, investigation, and other related services. The Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shaun Setareh, Esq. H. Scott Leviant, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 888-7771 Facsimile: (310) 888-0109 E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com scott@setarehlaw.com ADVANCE AUTO: April 9 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set -------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Feb. 6 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Advance Auto Parts, Inc. (NYSE: AAP) from November 14, 2016 through August 15, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Advance Auto investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Advance Auto class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1283.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or Daniel Sadeh, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or dsadeh@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. According to the lawsuit, defendants during the Class Period made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) integration issues surrounding Advance Auto's Carquest acquisition resulted in systemic inefficiencies and cannibalization of sales; (2) increased competition was negatively impacting sales; and (3) as a result, defendants' statements about Advance Auto's business, operations and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 9, 2018. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1283.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Daniel Sadeh, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or dsadeh@rosenlegal.com Rosen Law Firm -- http://www.rosenlegal.com-- represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Since 2014, Rosen Law Firm has been ranked #2 in the nation by Institutional Shareholder Services for the number of securities class action settlements annually obtained for investors. [GN] AETNA INC: Sues KCC Following HIV Status Privacy Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen Singer, writing for Hartford Courant, reports that Aetna Inc. is suing a legal support firm for $20 million, blaming it for breaching the privacy of thousands of customers with a mailing that disclosed HIV information. In a lawsuit filed on Feb. 5 in federal court in Pennsylvania, Aetna said Kurtzman Carson Consultants LLC, an administrative support company for legal and financial businesses, is responsible for "errors, omissions and gross negligence" related to a mailing to about 12,000 Aetna members. The mailing "potentially disclosed" protected health information, Aetna said. Drake D. Foster, general counsel at KCC, said in an email on Feb. 6 that the company denies the allegations, which he called "demonstrably false." "KCC deeply empathizes with people affected by this incident and intends to respond to Aetna consistent with the rights and responsibilities related to this matter," he said. A spokesman for Aetna declined to comment. Aetna reached a $17 million settlement last month in a federal class-action lawsuit filed over the privacy breach that disclosed where to purchase HIV medications. In July, Aetna mailed a notice in envelopes with large, clear windows that showed recipients had been prescribed HIV medications. The lawsuit alleged that the names of 13,487 Aetna customers who had the medications were given to the vendor sending the envelopes and 11,875 received the mailing. If the proposed settlement is approved by the courts, all members of the class-action will receive between $75 and $500. The lawsuit began with a Pennsylvania man who said his sister learned he was taking HIV medication when she saw the envelope. The man did not have the virus that causes AIDS but was taking medication as a preventative measure. Aetna has promised to adopt measures to protect sensitive health information and ensure something like this does not happen again. In its lawsuit against KCC, Aetna asked a judge for a "hold harmless" ruling, protecting the insurer from all liability, damages, payments, claims and other obligations related to the mailing. It's also seeking damages of at least $20 million. KCC is a class-action settlement administrator, responsible for mailing documents and handling secure data. Aetna said in its lawsuit that KCC was the administrator for two class-action lawsuits filed against Aetna in 2014 and 2015. Its work included mailing a settlement notice and processing claims, Aetna said. KCC knew or should have known that it was handling confidential protected health information, including HIV-related information, Aetna said. Specifically, it should have known that the words "HIV Medications" were referenced in the notice below the recipient's name and address, Aetna said. KCC mailed the notice to members using envelopes with see-through address windows without informing Aetna it would use the envelopes, Aetna said. [GN] AIR CANADA: Loses Bid to Dismiss Flight Pass Expiry Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Champlain Avocats (Montreal, Quebec), in collaboration with Evolink Law Group (Burnaby, British Columbia), are counsel in a proposed international class action against Air Canada before the Superior Court of Quebec. In a recent decision, the Superior Court dismissed Air Canada's request to suspend this action (Benamor c. Air Canada, 2018 QCCS 144). The authorization hearing is expected to take place in the coming months. This proposed class action is on behalf of consumers around the world that purchased an Air Canada flight pass that had expiry dates and extra fees. The class action seeks compensatory and punitive damages against Air Canada following the imposition of said expiry dates and extra fees for the flight passes, in violation of the Consumer Protection Act. For more information please visit http://paquetteavocats.com/aircanada/ Counsels for the envisioned class action for the plaintiff are: -- Me Jeremie John Martin of Champlain Avocats info@champlainavocats.com -- Me Sebastien A. Paquette of Champlain Avocats spaquette@champlainavocats.com) -- Mr. Simon Lin of Evolink Law Group info@evolinklaw.com [GN] ALLERGAN INC: KPH Healthcare Suit Alleges Antitrust Violations -------------------------------------------------------------- KPH Healthcare Services, Inc., aka Kinney Drugs, Inc., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Allergan, Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-00013 (E.D. Tex., January 17, 2018), seeks to recover damages under the Sherman Act. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages incurred by itself and Members of the Direct Purchaser Class due to Defendant's unlawful monopolization, overarching scheme to monopolize, and conspiracy to monopolize the market for Restasis. Plaintiff KPH Healthcare Services, Inc. aka Kinney Drugs, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of the state of New York, with headquarters in Gouverneur, New York. KPH operates retail and online pharmacies in the Northeast under the name Kinney Drugs, Inc. Defendant Allergan, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located in Irvine, California, and its corporate headquarters located in Parsippany, New Jersey. Allergan is the holder of approved New Drug Application ("NDA") No. 50-790 for Cyclosporine Ophthalmic Emulsion, 0.05%, sold under the Restasis trademark. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carl R. Roth, Esq. THE ROTH LAW FIRM, P.C. 115 N. Wellington, Suite 200 Marshall, TX 75670 Tel: (903) 935-1665 Fax: (903) 935- 1797 E-mail: cr@rothfirm.com APPLE INC: Johnson Files Suit in Calif. for Fraud ------------------------------------------------- Patricia Johnson, Kent Harrison, and Christina Labajo, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 5:18-cv-00385 (N.D. Calif., January 17, 2018), seeks damages and equitable relief under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Plaintiffs are residents of California and are iPhone users. Defendant Apple is a multinational technology company that manufactures a wide range of computer and consumer electronics products, including the iPhone smartphone. Apple has brought out successive models of the best-selling iPhone, each with fanfare and with marketing efforts designed to convince existing iPhone owners to upgrade to the newest model. Among other things, the newest iPhone model is generally advertised as faster than previous models. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gordon M. Fauth, Jr., Esq. FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Tel: (510) 238-9610 Fax: (415) 398-8704 APPLE INC: "Munro" Suit Alleges Sabotage in OS Update for iPhones ----------------------------------------------------------------- MELODY MUNRO, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. APPLE INC., Case No. 5:18-cv-00128-HRL (N.D. Cal., January 5, 2018), arises from alleged unlawful sabotage of iPhone 6, 6S, SE, or 7 (the "Affected Device(s)") caused by a purportedly beneficial update to the Affected Devices' iOS 10.2.1 or later operating systems. On January 23, 2017, Apple released the iOS 10.2.1 operating system update for iPhones. Among other things, the update purportedly addressed aging iPhone batteries. Apple announced that the purpose of the update was to fix bugs and other security issues in the operating system. Subsequently, in February 2017, Apple announced that the update was intended to "reduce occurrences of unexpected shutdowns that a small number of users were experiencing with their iPhone." Apple touted its software update as fixing software "bugs" or providing knew benefits when, in fact, Apple deliberately designed the updates to slow down the Affected Devices' performance, Ms. Munro alleges. She contends that Apple failed to inform users of the Affected Devices that the update would slow down their devices and also failed to inform consumers that they could restore the performance of their devices simply by replacing the battery. Apple Inc. is a California corporation headquartered in Cupertino, California. Apple designs, manufacturers, and sells throughout the world a wide range of products, including mobile devices such as the iPhone.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Avi Wagner, Esq. THE WAGNER FIRM 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 491-7949 Facsimile: (310) 491-7949 E-mail: avi@thewagnerfirm.com - and - Jeffrey H. Squire, Esq. David J. Stone, Esq. Todd H. Henderson, Esq. BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C. 885 Third Avenue, Suite 3040 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 308-5858 Facsimile: (212) 486-0462 E-mail: squire@bespc.com stone@bespc.com henderson@bespc.com APPLIED UNDERWRITERS: Faces Class Action Over Inflated Premiums --------------------------------------------------------------- HarrisMartin Publishing reports that Top's Personnel Inc. has asserted a class action counterclaim against Applied Underwriters Inc., accusing it of fraudulently charging employer-insureds drastically inflated premiums and costs for workers' compensation insurance. In its Feb. 2 amended answer and class action counterclaim filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska, Top's alleges Applied has unlawfully collected sums from Top's and other similarly situated insured-employers through various promissory notes that are derived from unfair, deceptive, and unlawful business practices in connection with the sale of workers' compensation insurance programs. [GN] ASHLEY DIANA: ADBI Seeks Dismissal of Claims in "Elson" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Defendant ADBI Interests LLC asks the Court to dismiss the Plaintiffs' 1st and 6th through 15th causes of action in the lawsuit titled EMILY ELSON, STACY HAAVISTO, LORETTA OAKES, MICHELLE LANUM, JULIA LEFEBVRE, SUE GRLICKY, TILLY DORENKAMP, DINA SALAS, ARLENE RODRIGUEZ, JERRY GAINES, and all others similarly situated v. ASHLEY BLACK, an individual, ASHLEY DIANA BLACK INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS, LLC, a Delaware Corporation, ADB INTERESTS LLC, a Texas Corporation, and DOES 1-100, Case No. 2:18-cv-00116-ODW-RAO (C.D. Cal.). In their complaint, the Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants are in violation of (1) the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, (2) the False Advertising Law, and (3) the Unfair Competition Law. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants made false advertisements and/or misrepresentations. ADBI asserts that the Plaintiffs failed to allege that they relied upon or in any way altered their position to their detriment as a result of the alleged false statements. ADBI contends that the Plaintiffs fail to allege requisite reliance and/or an injury in fact from the alleged false advertisements or misrepresentations by the Defendants. Without reliance on the purported false statement, the Plaintiffs cannot maintain a claim pursuant to CLRA, ADBI concludes. ADBI has concurrently filed with this Motion a Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Putative Class Action Allegations pursuant to Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court will commence a hearing on February 26, 2018, at 1:30 p.m., to consider the Motion.[BN] Defendant ADB INTERESTS LLC is represented by: Craig L. Winterman, Esq. HERZFELD & RUBIN, LLP 10866 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 553-0451 Facsimile: (310) 553-0648 E-mail: cwinterman@hrllp-law.com ASSOCIATED CREDIT: Court Denies Summary Judgment in "Halvorsen" --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington issued an Order denying Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment in the case captioned CORTNEY HALVORSEN, Plaintiff, v. ASSOCIATED CREDIT SERVICE, INC., a Washington Corporation, and PAUL J. WASSON AND MONICA WASSON, individually and the marital community, Defendants, No. 2:16-CV-0103-TOR (E.D. Wash.). This case concerns a claim against Defendant Associated Credit Services, Inc., a Washington debt collection agency. Plaintiff Myron Hargreaves filed a putative class action, asserting violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The remaining FDCPA claim alleges that judgement creditor Associated, and its attorney, Mr. Wasson, sent false and misleading information in the Notice of Garnishment and Your Rights form regarding the amount of Plaintiffs' entitled cash exemption. Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order against Mr. Wasson finding that he violated the FDCPA by sending the Notice of Garnishment and Your Rights form, stating that Plaintiff was only entitled to $200 when Washington law allows her to claim up to $500 cash exemption. The Wasson Defendants agree that Plaintiff is a consumer, Plaintiff had debts as defined by the FDCPA, and that Mr. Wasson is a debt collector as defined by the FDCPA. The Ninth Circuit has recognized vicarious liability under the FDCPA. Clark v. Capital Credit & Collection Servs., Inc., 460 F.3d 1162, 1173 (9th Cir. 2006). Yet, the Ninth Circuit found that there is no legal authority for the proposition that an attorney is generally liable for the actions of his client. General principles of agency form the basis of vicarious liability under the FDCPA. Here, Plaintiff merely asserts that Mr. Wasson was acting as an agent of Associated by sending the forms. Yet, beyond this mere assertion, Plaintiff fails to state any of the principles of agency and how they apply to this situation. Simply because Mr. Wasson is the attorney for Associated does not mean he is generally liable for Associated's actions. Similar to Clark, Plaintiff fails to offer evidence upon which a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that Mr. Wasson can be held liable for the actions of Associated when Associated merely caused the forms to be mailed through Mr. Wasson's legal assistant. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is denied. A full-text copy of the District Court's January 11, 2018 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yctljna5 from Leagle.com. Myron Hargreaves, and all others similarly situated, Cortney Halverson & Bonnie Freeman, Plaintiffs, represented by Kirk D. Miller -- kmiller@millerlawspokane.com -- Kirk D. Miller PS. Associated Credit Services Inc, a Washington Corporation, Defendant, represented by John Gregory Lockwood -- jgregorylockwood@hotmail.com -- Law Office of J. Gregory Lockwood PLLC. Paul J Wasson, individually and the marital community, Defendant, represented by Kevin James Curtis -- classaction@winstoncashatt.com -- Winston & Cashatt, Molly Marie Winston -- classaction@winstoncashatt.com -- Winston & Cashatt & Roger James Peven, Law Office of Roger J. Peven, 1403 W Broadway Ave, Spokane, WA. Monica Wasson, individually and the marital community, Defendant, represented by Kevin James Curtis, Winston & Cashatt & Molly Marie Winston, Winston & Cashatt. BANDAS LAW: Judge Tosses RICO Claims in Class Action ---------------------------------------------------- Diana Novak Jones, writing for Law360, reports that although she condemned so-called "serial objectors" and attorneys who would extort money from plaintiffs' counsel through objections to settlements, an Illinois federal judge said on Feb. 6 that the behavior of a Texas attorney doesn't reach the requirements to bring Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act claims. In dismissing the RICO claims in a proposed class action filed by plaintiffs' firm Edelson PC against Texas attorney Christopher Bandas, U.S. District Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer said interpreting the statute to cover the alleged scheme could chill legitimate litigation activity. The case is Edelson PC v. The Bandas Law Firm PC et al Case No. 1:16-cv-11057 (N.D. Ill.). The case is assigned to Judge Honorable Rebecca R. Pallmeyer. The case was filed December 5, 2016. [GN] BBVA COMPASS: Lopez Sues Over Charging of Illegal Overdraft Fees ---------------------------------------------------------------- PETRA LOPEZ and COLEA WRIGHT, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. BBVA COMPASS BANK, N.A., Case No. 2:18-cv-00031-TLN-EFB (E.D. Cal., January 6, 2018), arises from BBVA Bank's alleged routine practice of: (a) assessing overdraft fees ("OD Fees") on transactions that did not overdraw checking account available balances; and (b) wrongfully assessing its customers so-called "Extended Overdraft Fees." The Plaintiffs seek redress for these unlawful practices that BBVA Bank perpetrates on its checking customers. Besides being deceptive, unfair and unconscionable, the first practice breaches promises made in BBVA BANK's contracts -- specifically, the promise to charge OD Fees only on transactions which actually overdraw an account -- and are deceptive, the Plaintiffs contend. BBVA Compass Bank is a national bank with its U.S. headquarters and principal place of business located in Birmingham, Alabama. BBVA Bank operates numerous retail banking centers nationwide and throughout California. Among other things, BBVA Bank provides retail banking services to consumers, including the Plaintiffs and members of the putative classes, which includes the issuance of checks and debit cards for use by customers in conjunction with their checking accounts.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. KALIEL PLLC 1875 Connecticut Ave., NW, 10th Floor Washington, DC 20009 Telephone: (202) 350-4783 E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com BCA FINANCIAL: Wins Final Approval of $10K Settlement in "Beneli" ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable Freda L. Wolson entered a final approval of the $10,000 Class Settlement Agreement between the parties of the lawsuit captioned DAVID BENELI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BCA FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. and JOFIN DOES 1-25, Case No. 3:16-cv-02737-FLW-LHG (D.N.J.). The certified Settlement Class is defined as: All New Jersey consumers who were sent a collection letter from BCA, during the time period of May 13, 2015 to May 13, 2016, in an envelope with a glassine window, in which the consumer's reference number assigned by BCA was visible through the glassine window of the enclosing envelope. The Court approved a form of notice for mailing to the Settlement Class. The Court is informed that actual notice was sent by first class mail to approximately 2,612 Settlement Class members by First Class, Inc., the third-party settlement administrator. A total of 2,612 Settlement Class members are entitled to a share of the monetary benefits of the settlement. Upon the Effective Date, as that term is defined in the Agreement, BCA shall make these payments: (a) BCA shall create a class settlement fund of $10,000 ("Class Recovery"), which the Class Administrator shall distribute pro rata among those Settlement Class Members who did not exclude themselves ("Claimants"). Claimants will receive a pro rata share of the Class Recovery by check; (b) BCA shall pay Plaintiff $1,500; and (c) BCA shall pay Class Counsel their attorneys' fees and costs incurred in the action, in an amount of $15,000. A copy of the Final Approval Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=whEaDZfC BELLICUM PHARMA: April 9 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set ----------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Feb. announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Bellicum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: BLCM) from May 8, 2017 through January 30, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Bellicum investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Bellicum class action, go to http://rosenlegal.com/cases-1286.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or Daniel Sadeh, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or dsadeh@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. According to the lawsuit, defendants during the Class Period made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) a substantial undisclosed risk of encephalopathy was associated with Bellicum's lead product candidate, BPX-501; and (2) as a result, Bellicum's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 9, 2018. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://rosenlegal.com/cases-1286.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Daniel Sadeh, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or dsadeh@rosenlegal.com Rosen Law Firm -- http://www.rosenlegal.com-- represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Since 2014, Rosen Law Firm has been ranked #2 in the nation by Institutional Shareholder Services for the number of securities class action settlements annually obtained for investors. [GN] BIG CITY: Rosenberg & Estis Attorneys Discuss Class Action Ruling ----------------------------------------------------------------- Warren A. Estis, Esq. -- westis@rosenbergestis.com -- and Michael E. Feinstein, Esq. -- mfeinstein@rosenbergestis.com -- of Rosenberg & Estis, in an article for Law.com, wrote that as practitioners in this area of the law are surely aware, there have in recent years been a spate of putative class action lawsuits commenced by residential tenants against their landlords, typically on behalf of both themselves and a proposed class of current and former tenants, claiming that their apartments were improperly deregulated and seeking rent overcharge damages. There are, however, certain standards that must be met in order for a court to "certify" a class under CPLR Article 9. In a recent decision of Justice Erika M. Edwards of Supreme Court, New York County in Maddicks v. Big City Prop., 2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 32385(U) (Sup. Ct. N.Y. County Nov. 16, 2017), the court, in dismissing the tenants' putative class action, explained the standards which must be complied with and found that in the case before it, the tenants had not satisfied them. 'Maddicks' The facts as explained by the court in Maddicks were as follows. The plaintiffs were the tenants of apartments in 20 different buildings, each owned by different limited liability companies which were named as defendants. The class action complaint alleged that the buildings were part of a portfolio -- the "Big City Portfolio" -- managed by the same company. The complaint requested both declaratory and injunctive relief claiming that the subject apartments were improperly deregulated, and also sought damages for alleged rent overcharges. The proposed class included the current and former tenants of the 20 buildings owned by the various defendants. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint under CPLR 3211. They argued that the plaintiffs' attempt to bring the action as a class action failed as a matter of law because, among other reasons: (1) the defendants were all unrelated, separate entities and that the plaintiffs were improperly attempting to impute the alleged wrongful acts of one defendant against another without demonstrating how the entities are affiliated or legally intertwined; (2) the buildings had different property owners; and (3) the claims were improper for a class action because they were fact-specific and required individual case-specific analysis. The court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint. No Basis for Class Action Relief The court observed that under First Department precedent, a motion to dismiss may be made prior to a motion to determine the propriety of the class under CPLR 902 "where it appears conclusively from the complaint and from the affidavits that there was as a matter of law no basis for the class action relief." The court further observed that it has "broad discretion" to determine whether the putative class meets the standards for class certification based on a review of the criteria set forth in CPLR 901(a). The court stated that under the statute, the prerequisites for class certification are "1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; 2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class which predominate over any questions affecting only individual members; 3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the class; 4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class; and 5) a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy." The court then went on to explain why the complaint did not satisfy the standards for class certification. First, the court found that "the questions of law or fact common to the class do not predominate over questions affecting only individual members." In this regard, the court explained the plaintiffs "failed to properly assert how the defendants are factually or legally related or bound in this action" and that the allegations that all the properties were part of the "Big City Portfolio" was insufficient. The court further observed: Here, plaintiffs attempt to join former and current tenants of several different properties, owned by separate and distinct companies, which are based on different theories of recovery, involving separate and distinct law and facts. Such claims are inappropriate for a class action. The court also found that each of the plaintiffs' claims "requires fact-specific analysis which precludes class certification." In so finding, the court observed that "[t]here are different buildings involved, different owners, different dates when the owners acquired the property, different prior owners, different registration periods and since there are different theories of recovery, each theory requires different defenses and evidence." As such, the court concluded that: Therefore, each theory of recovery or each owner may require different questions of law or fact which affect the individual members of the class associated with that owner and/or theory. Furthermore, since there are so many different entities and theories, each claim or defense may not be typical of the class which is necessary for class certification. Finally, the court found that in the case before it, "a class action cannot be determined to be superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy." The court explained: to proceed as a class, plaintiffs must waive their right to seek treble damages, since treble damages are penalties which are precluded in class actions, or exercise their right to opt out. Therefore, individual class members may wish to pursue administrative remedies under the Rent Stabilization Code in a Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) proceeding or individual suit. Since the class representatives may not reflect the interests of the class based on the different theories a class action may not be the superior manner in which to bring plaintiffs' claims. Conclusion Justice Edwards' decision in Maddicks provides an excellent primer as to which types of rent overcharge matters may be appropriate for bringing as a class action, and certainly not all such matters will qualify. As the decision makes clear, the question of whether a matter will satisfy the above-described standards for class certification is a fact intensive analysis and will depend on the circumstances presented in each case. Warren A. Estis is a founding member at Rosenberg & Estis. Michael E. Feinstein is a member at the firm. [GN] BRISTOL-MYERS: Bradley Arant Attorney Discusses SCOTUS Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------- J. Thomas Richie, Esq., of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, in an article for JDSupra, report that the Supreme Court's decision last summer in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017), is my pick for "2017 Class Action Practitioners' Case of the Year" -- and it's not even a class case. One of the most exciting areas in the class action arena is personal jurisdiction. Stifle that yawn. The Supreme Court's recent decisions in this area could have a major effect on the scope of class actions where the claims sound in state law. Plaintiffs' lawyers have long sought to bring class actions in the most plaintiff-friendly venues. As a general proposition, a plaintiff would prefer to cram a big nationwide class of claims into the most favorable venue instead of having to bring either several single-state class actions in several venues or a nationwide class in a less-favorable venue. Where plaintiffs are successful, this kind of forum shopping makes class cases all the more difficult for defendants: Not only do defendants have to face the high stakes of a large number of aggregated claims in one action, they also have to fight all those claims in a hostile venue. The Supreme Court's recent decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb, has given defendants a powerful new argument against this tactic. Bristol-Myers Squibb involved a mass action in which nearly 600 plaintiffs who did not live in California joined their claims with California residents' claims. The defendant challenged personal jurisdiction, but the California courts found specific jurisdiction to exist. By an 8-1 vote, the United States Supreme Court reversed, holding that the California courts could not exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant as to claims of non-resident defendants who could not satisfy the well-settled test for specific jurisdiction. As a result, the plaintiffs face the choice of either bringing their nationwide class in a forum where the defendant is subject to general jurisdiction (i.e., state of incorporation of principal place of business, thanks to the Supreme Court's recent Daimler decision) or limiting the class to those plaintiffs whose claims involve the kind of minimum contacts necessary to support the exercise of specific jurisdiction. As mentioned above, Bristol-Myers Squibb is not a class action case--but that is likely of no consequence. The decision rests on the constitutional due process rights of defendants, and, under the Rules Enabling Act, the purely procedural class action rules cannot abrogate those rights. (Mr. Richie addresses this point further in a future post, along with looking at how lower courts have applied Bristol-Myers Squibb in the class context.) Practically speaking, Bristol-Myers Squibb should curb the most blatant forum shopping in diversity cases. Defendants should use it to channel more litigation to the jurisdictions where defendants are incorporated or headquartered or where the plaintiffs reside. The case may also lead to an increase in single-state class cases, which is a potential downside--but defendants can waive personal jurisdiction as a defense to permit consolidation where appropriate. The increase in state-specific suits may also make removal under diversity or CAFA easier, as plaintiffs will be less free to use joinder to defeat diversity jurisdiction and will likely run afoul of the no-similar-case rule of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(d)(4)(A)(ii). Mr. Richie also predicts an uptick in multidistrict-litigation petitions, which both plaintiffs and defendants can perceive as an advantageous way of consolidating geographically dispersed litigation. [GN] CANADA: Attempts to Quash CAF Sexual Misconduct Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Mercedes Stephenson, writing for CTVNews.ca, reports that the Trudeau government is trying to quash a class-action lawsuit that alleges rampant sexual misconduct and gender discrimination within the Canadian Armed Forces, CTV News has learned. Plaintiffs in the case allege systemic sexual harassment, sexual assault and discrimination. Veteran Amy Graham, one of the lead plaintiffs in the case, said the Liberal government's attempts to stop the lawsuit contradicts Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's public support for victims of sexual misconduct. In a recent speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Trudeau said he was "unequivocal" in his support for women who come forward with allegations. "He was on the international stage coming across as a feminist, coming across as supporting women's rights, saying how courageous it was for these women to come out, and how difficult it was. And behind the scenes nobody knows that he's trying to dismiss our case," Ms. Graham told CTV's Mercedes Stephenson. "I'm very disappointed -- actually disgusted is probably a more accurate term." The military has made extensive efforts to stamp out sexual misconduct. Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Jonathan Vance said last April that he planned to remove any military members found guilty of sexual misconduct. In 2017, more than two dozen service members were kicked out. Despite those efforts, the federal government argued in court filings that it does not "owe a private law duty of care to individual members within the CAF to provide a safe and harassment-free work environment, or to create policies to prevent sexual harassment or sexual assault." The Prime Minister's Office would not comment on the lawsuit. However, Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan insisted the government supports victims. "We want to encourage people to actually come forward if they have any allegations or any type of concern, and that's very important," Mr. Sajjan said. Conservative Defence critic James Bezan says the prime minister's words don't match his government's actions. NDP MP Niki Ashton echoed similar criticism, calling the move "deeply hypocritical." [GN] CAPITALA FINANCE: Faces "Sandifer" Securities Suit in California ---------------------------------------------------------------- STEPHANIE SANDIFER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. CAPITALA FINANCE CORP., JOSEPH B. ALALA III, and STEPHEN A. ARNALL, Case No. 2:18-cv-00052 (C.D. Cal., January 3, 2018), is a federal securities class action brought on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than the Defendants, who purchased or otherwise acquired common shares of Capitala between January 4, 2016, and August 7, 2017, both dates inclusive. The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensable damages caused by the Defendants' alleged violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Capitala Finance Corp. is a business development company that invests primarily in first and second liens, subordinated debt and, to a lesser extent, equity securities issued by lower and traditional middle-market companies. Founded in 2013, the Company is headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Capitala Investment Advisors, LLC manages the Company's investment activities. The Company's Board of Directors supervises the Company's investment activities. The Company's executive officers are part of Capitala Investment Advisors' management team. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies, including their failure to disclose that Capitala Investment Advisors had been losing professional talent in both underwriting and portfolio management due to the waiving of its incentive fee, according to the complaint. Capitala is incorporated in Maryland, and the Company's principal executive office is located in Charlotte, North Carolina. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer Pafiti, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 468 North Camden Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (818) 532-6499 E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com - and - 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 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP Ten South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 E-mail: 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 E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com CIGNA CORP: Court Won't Strike Class Definitions in "DeJesus" ------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, in the case captioned CRYSTAL DEJESUS, Plaintiff, v. CIGNA CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 6:17-cv- 1208-Orl-41TBS (M.D. Fla.), denied the Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Improper Class Definition and Defendant's Motion to Stay Discovery. Plaintiff complains that Defendant Cigna Corporation violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by making numerous prerecorded, automated telephone calls to her cell phone She alleges that she did not consent to receive these calls and that she was not the intended recipient of the calls. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant's practice of placing prerecorded voice calls to wrong numbers' is both pervasive and long standing. She brings this action on behalf of the following classes: No Consent Class: All persons in the United States whose (1) cellular telephone number has been called by Defendant; (2) more than once; (3) with an artificial or prerecorded voice and/or an automatic telephone dialing system; and (4) such calls were made without the prior express consent of the person subscribing to the number called, (5) from four years preceding the filing of this complaint to the date that the class is certified. Wrong Number Subclass: All persons in the United States whose (I) cellular telephone number has been called by Defendant; (2) more than once; (3) with an artificial or prerecorded voice and/or an automatic telephone dialing system; and (4) such calls were wrong numbers where the person subscribing to the number called was not the same person Defendant's records show it intended to call, (5) from four years preceding the filing of this complaint to the date that the class is certified. Defendant is asking the Court to strike the definitions of the No Consent Class and the Wrong Number Subclass from Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 23(c)(1)(A) and/or (d)(1)(D) . The Defendant argues that the No Consent Class: (1) violates the typicality requirement of Rule 23(a)(3); (2) is an improper fail- safe-class; and (3) individual issues predominate over questions common to the members of the No Consent Class Defendant contends that the Wrong Number Class should be stricken because it fails to satisfy the ascertainability and predominance requirements for class certification. Rule 23(c)(1)(C) provides that an order that grants or denies class certification may be altered or amended before final judgment. Under Rule 23(c)(1)(C), the district court "retains the flexibility to change its position on a motion for class certification, [and] orders on motions for class certification are usually not appealable as of right. Citing Microsoft Corp. v. Baker, 137 S.Ct. 170, Judge Rosenbaum explains: "Striking Plaintiff's class-action allegations from her Complaint would prevent the Court from reconsidering the certification issue at a later date absent amendment of the Complaint. This differs from an order on a motion for class certification, in which the class-action allegations remain intact, if dormant, in the complaint for the court to reconsider at a later date. Thus, an order on a motion to strike class- action allegations would, by its very nature, carry more finality and less prospective flexibility than the typical order on a motion for class certification. This lack of flexibility weighs against the general directive for expeditious consideration of certification and supports the notion that motions to strike should be viewed under a stricter standard than the typical Rule 23 motion." Following this reasoning, the Court has examined Plaintiff's class definitions from the perspective of Rule 12(f) and finds that they are not redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous. Accordingly, the motion to strike is denied. Defendant asks the Court to stay discovery until it rules on Defendant's motion to strike. The Court having denied the motion to strike, the motion for stay is also denied. A full-text copy of the District Court's January 11, 2018 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y98wlhxx from Leagle.com. Crystal Dejesus, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Eric Kem -- ekem@kemlawfirm.com -- The Law Offices of Eric W. Kem, P.A., Scott David Owens scott@ScottDOwens.com -- Scott D. Owens, P.A., Patrick Christopher Crotty -- Patrick@ScottDOwens.com -- Scott D. Owens, P.A. & Sean Martin Holas, Scott D. Owens, P.A, 3800 S Ocean Dr Ste 235. Hollywood, FL, 33019-2930. Cigna Corporation, a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by Barbara Fernandez bfernandez@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson, LLP, Daniel K. Ryan -- dryan@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson, LLP & West Allan Holden -- wholden@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson, LLP. COLLECTION ASSOCIATES: Class Certification Sought in "Ozier" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Allie Ozier moves the Court to certify the class described in the complaint of the lawsuit entitled ALLIE OZIER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. COLLECTION ASSOCIATES, LTD., Case No. 2:18-cv-00100-NJ (E.D. Wisc.), and further asks that the Court both stay the motion for class certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the Motion. Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class action complaint could moot a class representative's case by depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a class certification motion, the Plaintiff asserts, citing Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016). To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs."). While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement of a class representative's claims, the same decision cautions that other methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class, the Plaintiff tells the Court, citing Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10839 *9-10 (7th Cir. June 20, 2017). The Plaintiff asserts that one defendant has attempted a similar tactic by sending a certified check to the proposed class representative. Bonin v. CBS Radio, Inc., No. 16-cv-674-CNC (E.D. Wis.); see also Severns v. Eastern Account Systems of Connecticut, Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 24, 2016). The Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiff contends. As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative, and for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=jFQXo7sw The Plaintiff is represented by: John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Jesse Fruchter, Esq. Ben J. Slatky, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com jfruchter@ademilaw.com bslatky@ademilaw.com COLONIAL FREIGHT: Opposes Davis' Bid to Certify Contractors Class ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Defendants in the lawsuit titled THEODUS DAVIS, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v. COLONIAL FREIGHT SYSTEMS, INC., PHOENIX LEASING OF TENNESSEE, INC., RUBY MCBRIDE, and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 3:16-cv-00674-TRM-HBG (E.D. Tenn.), file with the Court their opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for conditional and class certification. The Plaintiff asks the Court to certify a Fair Labor Standards Act collective action class comprised of any individual, who leased a truck from Phoenix and contracted with Colonial from October 2013 to the present ("Phoenix Contractors"). The Defendants contend that the Plaintiff ignores the fact that, during the same period, these same individuals also used non- Phoenix trucks, worked under different conditions, worked different hours, were paid under different compensation systems, and elected different deductions. Therefore, the Defendants say, to determine whether each individual Phoenix Contractor was an independent contractor or employee, the Court (or jury) would have to analyze evidence unique to each Phoenix Contractor. Likewise, the Defendants argue, adjudicating liability on each class member's claim would require individual analysis of each driver's loads, deductions, and pay for each workweek. Consequently, the Plaintiff failed to show he was similarly situated to the Phoenix Contractors, the Defendants tell the Court. The Court should also deny the Plaintiff's motion to certify his claims alleging violations of the Federal Leasing Regulations, 49 C.F.R. Part 376, the Defendants further contend. The Defendants assert that certification of the Federal Leasing Regulations claims is improper because the claims do not present issues with common answers that will drive the resolution of the case. A copy of the Opposition is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=aYwMok67 Defendant Colonial Freight Systems, Inc., Phoenix Leasing of Tennessee, Inc., and Ruby McBride are represented by: Richard L. Hollow, Esq. HOLLOW & HOLLOW, LLC P.O. Box 11166 Knoxville, TN 37939-1166 Telephone: (865) 769-1715 - and - Christopher J. Eckhart, Esq. SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, P.C. 10 West Market Street, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 637-1777 Facsimile: (317) 687-2414 E-mail: ceckhart@scopelitis.com CONDUENT EDUCATION: "Chery" Suit Alleges Business Law Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jeffrey Chery, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Conduent Education Services, LLC, fka ACS, Access Group, Inc., and Access Funding 2015-1, LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv- 00075 (N.D. N.Y., January 18, 2018), is a class action against Defendants for violations of New York General Business Law, negligence, and breach of contract. The class consists of borrowers of student loans whose Federal Direct Consolidation Loan Applications were improperly and wrongfully denied, delayed, or had loans removed because ACS failed to return a timely or complete Loan Verification Certificate (LVC). Plaintiff Jeffrey Chery had nine FFELP student loan accounts that were serviced by ACS from in or around April 2012 until December 2016. Defendant ACS is a Delaware limited liability company. ACS is registered to do business in the State of New York. The ACS office responsible for student loan servicing operations and correspondence with Plaintiff is located in Utica, New York. On January 1, 2017, ACS Education Services became part of Conduent Business Services, LLC. As a subsidiary of Conduent Business Services, ACS became Conduent Education Services, LLC. Defendant Access Group is a Delaware corporation. Access Group is registered to do business in the State of New York. Access Group was the owner of seven of the Loans. Defendant Access Funding is a Delaware limited liability company. Access Funding was the owner of two of the Loans. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin A. Kuehn, Esq. MOORE KUEHN, PLLC 30 Wall Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10005 Tel: (212) 709-8245 E-mail: jkuehn@moorekuehn.com - and - Lawrence P. Eagel, Esq. BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C. 885 Third Avenue, Suite 3040 New York, NY 10022 Tel: (212) 308-5858 E-mail: eagel@bespc.com CONSERV FLAG: Accused by Bais Yaakov of Sending Illegal Fax Ads --------------------------------------------------------------- BAIS YAAKOV OF SPRING VALLEY, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. CONSERV FLAG COMPANY, LLC and EMIL ASSAD, Case No. 7:18-cv-00061-NSR (S.D.N.Y., January 3, 2018), accuses the Defendants of violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and New York General Business Law. Bais Yaakov is a New York religious corporation, with its principal place of business located in Monsey, New York. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants, without its express invitation or permission, arranged for and/or caused a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send unsolicited fax advertisements advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services, to the Plaintiff's fax machine. Conserv is a Nebraska limited liability company, with its principal place of business located in Sidney, Nebraska. The Company sells mats, flags and banners. Emil Assad is the Chief Executive Officer of Conserv and resides in the state of Nebraska.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq. BELLIN & ASSOCIATES LLC 85 Miles Avenue White Plains, NY 10606 Telephone: (914) 358-5345 Facsimile: (212) 571-0284 E-mail: aytan.bellin@bellinlaw.com CONTESTMEDIA INC: Court Certifies Class in "Griffith" ----------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification in the case captioned Christy Griffith, Plaintiff, v. ContextMedia, Inc. Defendant, Case No. 16 C 2900 (N.D.. Ill.). In this action, plaintiff alleges on behalf of herself and a class that defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by sending unwanted automated text messages. Griffith's allegations are straightforward. She claims that after signing up to receive daily automated Healthy Tips via text message and receiving such messages for a period of time, she attempted to unsubscribe from the service by replying to them with the word STOP and similar messages indicating that she no longer wished to subscribe to the service. Despite her efforts, the texts continued for many months. Plaintiff's motion seeks to certify the following class: Plaintiff and all persons within the United States to whose cellular telephone number Defendant ContextMedia Health, LLC sent, between July 28, 2015, and March 31, 2016, a text message, other than an opt-out confirmation text message, as part of its Healthy Tips campaign, after Defendant's records or the records of any entity with whom Defendant contracted to provide text messaging services, indicate that the telephone number to which the text messages were sent had previously sent a text message with the single word STOP or the single phrase STOP CMH TIPS, regardless of capitalization. It is undisputed that the proposed class meets the numerosity requirement, as defendant's discovery indicates that it contains more than 2,200 individuals. Defendant does not dispute that the proposed class is sufficiently numerous. Nor does defendant meaningfully contest commonality, as it focuses on perceived evidentiary inadequacies without tethering them to a reasoned discussion of what commonality requires. The central analytical issue is whether common questions bearing on defendants' liability yield answers that are common to the class. Defendant's principal objections to class certification are: 1) that plaintiff's motion articulates a different class than the one proposed in her complaint; 2) that the proposed class is not ascertainable and is fail-safe; and 3) that the proposed class fails Rule 23(b)'s predominance and superiority requirements. None of these objections requires extended analysis. On the issue of ascertainability, the law of this circuit is clear: a class that is defined clearly and based on objective criteria is ascertainable, even if its members may be difficult to identify. This leaves only the issues of predominance and superiority. Defendants' central theory is that because plaintiff's individual recovery is potentially significant as much as $124,000 if she proves willful violations of the TCPA it is not appropriate for class treatment. It is true that if a class member has a large enough stake to be able to litigate on his own, the case for class-action treatment is weakened. In the absence of any evidence to suggest that all or many of the absent class members have claims as substantial as plaintiff's, the Court decline to deny certification on that ground. Plaintiff's class certification motion is granted. The class is certified as defined above. A full-text copy of the District Court's January 11, 2018 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycu7wqft from Leagle.com. Christy Griffith, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Jonathan Silver -- asilver@tzlegal.com -- Tycko & Zavareei LLP, Jeffrey Grant Brown, Jeffrey Grant Brown, P.C., 260 Wohlers Hall, 1206 S. Sixth Street, Champaign, IL 61820, Kristen Law Sagafi -- ksagafi@tzlegal.com -- Tycko & Zavareei LLP & Jeremy Glapion -- jmg@glapionlaw.com -- Glapion Law Firm. ContextMedia Health, LLC, doing business as Outcome Health, Defendant, represented by Erin L. Hoffman -- erin.hoffman@FaegreBD.com -- Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Colby Anne Kingsbury -- colby.kingsbury@FaegreBD.com -- Faegre Baker Daniels LLP & Larry Eugene LaTarte, Jr. -- larry.latarte@FaegreBD.com -- Faegre Baker Daniels LLP. DAKOTA TRAVEL: Court Won't Stay Discovery in "Diaz" FLSA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of North Dakota issued an Order denying Defendant's Motion to Stay Discovery in the case captioned Jasmine Diaz, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Dakota Travel Nurse, Inc., and Jamie Fleck, Defendants, Case No. 1-17-cv-12 (D.N.D.). Dakota Travel provides medical staff to various health care facilities. The Plaintiff sets forth five claims for relief based upon this payment scheme. Diaz alleges Dakota Travel's all-inclusive payment system violates the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by not providing proper compensation for overtime. She brings this claim as a collective action under the FLSA and Chief Judge Hovland has already conditionally certified the claim as such. Diaz also brings four other claims, all arising under North Dakota law, as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. In the motion currently before the court, Dakota Travel seeks a stay of all discovery pending this court's ruling on forthcoming motions for summary judgment concerning whether Dakota Travel's payment scheme violated the FLSA or North Dakota law as to overtime pay. According to Dakota Travel, any such ruling could significantly limit the scope of this case moving forward, if the case is to move forward at all, and avoid unnecessary litigation expenses. In response, Diaz argues any stay in discovery is inappropriate because some discovery regarding Dakota Travel's payment scheme is necessary before either party can make a properly supported motion for summary judgment. While the court recognizes whether Dakota Travel's pay scheme violated state and federal overtime law is the central question of this litigation, it does not resolve all of the claims in this case. Contrary to Dakota Travel's characterization, the legality of its payment scheme does not control whether that same scheme violated its employment contracts, with Diaz's first two claims concerning the former and her final three claims concerning the latter. For instance, Dakota Travel may have still have breached its contracts with its employees whether those contracts be actual or quasi by improperly deducting reimbursable expenses notwithstanding a conclusion that that same deducting complied with state and federal overtime law, or vice versa. The common payment scheme at issue in each of Diaz's claims gives rise to uncommon legal theories that Dakota Travel's anticipated forthcoming motion for summary judgment would not resolve. Accordingly, Dakota Travel's forthcoming motion for summary judgment on the overtime wage issues does not, standing alone, warrant a complete stay in discovery for this case. The court denies, without prejudice, Dakota Travel's motion. A full-text copy of the District Court's January 11, 2018 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycm7vfhf from Leagle.com. Jasmine Diaz, On behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Ryan A. Winters -- rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com -- Scott & Winters Law Firm, LLC, Joseph F. Scott -- jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com -- Scott & Winters Law Firm, LLC & Kevin M. McDermott, II, McDermott Law LLC, 415 West Richardson Avenue : and 310.78(b). Langhhorne, PA 19047 Dakota Travel Nurse, Inc. & Jamie Fleck, Defendants, represented by Joseph M. Sokolowski -- jsokolowski@fredlaw.com -- Fredrikson & Byron, PA & Kristy L. Albrecht -- kalbrecht@fredlaw.com -- FREDRIKSON & BYRON P.A. DANNYS ATHENS: Appeals Judgment in "Martinez" Suit to 2nd Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Dannys Athens Diner Inc., Daniel Martinez and Kristina Martinez filed an appeal from the District Court Clerk's judgment dated December 12, 2017, issued in the lawsuit entitled Martinez v. Dannys Athens Diner Inc., et al., Case No. 16-cv-7468, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit was filed against the Defendants on September 23, 2016. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Dannys Athens is a restaurant located at Westchester Avenue, in Bronx, New York. The appellate case is captioned as Martinez v. Dannys Athens Diner Inc., et al., Case No. 18-80, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee Alejandro Barragan Martinez, individually, on behalf of others similarly situated, is represented by: Joshua S. Androphy, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 E-mail: jandrophy@faillacelaw.com Defendants-Appellants Dannys Athens Diner Inc., DBA Danny's Athens Restaurant, Kristina Martinez and Daniel Martinez are represented by: Scott Michael Druker, Esq. KASE & DRUKER 1325 Franklin Avenue Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (914) 980-3389 DERMOTT JUVENILE: "Brown" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations ------------------------------------------------------ Andrea Brown, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. State of Arkansas - Arkansas Department of Human Services aka Dermott Juvenile Treatment Center and Dermott Juvenile Correctional Facility, Case No. 5:18-cv-00017 (E.D. Ark., January 18, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. Plaintiff Andrea Brown worked for Defendant as a direct care staff member within the three years preceding the filing of this Complaint, particularly from February 27, 2017, until December 11, 2017. Plaintiff is a resident of Desha County. Defendant State of Arkansas - Arkansas Department of Human Services is the government entity or branch that operates and manages Dermott Juvenile Treatment Center and Dermott Juvenile Correctional Facility and the five other Arkansas juvenile treatment and correctional facilities through its Division of Youth Services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chris Burks, Esq. Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Tel: (501) 221-0088 Fax: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: chris@sanfordlawfirm.com josh@sanfordlawfirm.com DLF LLC: Court Certifies Class of Hourly Workers in "Sango" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Lee R. West entered an order in the lawsuit entitled RICHARD SANGO, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DLF LLC d/b/a THE SUSHI BAR and HSLS. LLC d/b/a THE SUSHI BAR, Case No. 5:17-cv-00165-W (W.D. Okla.): (1) granting the Plaintiff's Opposed Motion for Conditional Certification filed on November 21, 2017, but only to the limited extent stated herein -- that is, the Court conditionally certifies this class: All current and former hourly employees of DLF . . . and/or HSLS . . . who were employed as assistant managers at any time from three (3) years from the date of mailing of the Notice of Collective Action Lawsuit and who were not paid overtime for all hours worked over forty (40) in a workweek; (2) directing the parties to confer in good faith and submit within 14 days a proposed notice, consent and schedule; (3) directing the Defendants to produce within 14 days after the Court has approved the parties' proposed notice and consent the names, addresses, telephone numbers and e-mail addresses for each member of the modified putative class; (4) advising the parties that a 60-day opt-in period to participate in this action is appropriate; and (5) ordering the parties to mediate this action not later than May 15, 2018, pursuant to the parties' request in the Revised Joint Status Report and Discovery Plan that this matter be referred to mediation pursuant to Rule 16.3, Rules of the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, and their Joint Advisory to the Court Regarding Mediation Deadline. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=mILjM9ox ECLINICALWORKS LLC: Accused by "Goodson" Suit of Violating TCPA --------------------------------------------------------------- GOODSON & COMPANY, LTD. ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW, an Ohio corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v. ECLINICALWORKS, LLC, Case No. 1:18- cv-00034-TSB (S.D. Ohio, January 19, 2018), asserts that the Defendant sends unsolicited advertisements via facsimile, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, which was modified and renamed the Junk Fax Prevention Act in 2005. Goodson & Company is a corporation registered in the state of Ohio that operates a law practice in Cincinnati, Ohio. EClinicalWorks, LLC, is a Massachusetts corporation that sells practice management software from its principal place of business in Westborough, Massachusetts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: George D. Jonson, Esq. Matthew W. Stubbs, Esq. MONTGOMERY, RENNIE & JONSON 36 E. Seventh Street, Suite 2100 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 241-4722 Facsimile: (513) 241-8775 E-mail: gjonson@mrjlaw.com mstubbs@mrjlaw.com EQUIFAX INC: Faces Sky Federal Suit in Georgia Over Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------------- SKY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION and UNIVERSITY OF LOUISIANA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, individually and on behalf of a class of all similarly situated financial institutions, and MD/DC CREDIT UNION ASSOCIATION, as an association on behalf of its members v. EQUIFAX INC., Case No. 1:18-cv-00094-TWT (N.D. Ga., January 5, 2018), is brought on behalf of financial institutions that suffered, and continue to suffer, financial losses and increased data security risks that are a direct result of Equifax's egregious failure to safeguard the financial institutions' customers' highly sensitive, personally identifiable information, including names, Social Security numbers and driver's license numbers, and payment card data. Specifically, between at least May 2017 and July 2017, Equifax was subject to one of the largest data breaches in this country's history when intruders gained access to the highly sensitive PII of over 145.5 million U.S. consumers -- roughly 44% of the United States population -- as well as the Payment Card Data for an untold number of credit and debit cards. Equifax Inc. is a publicly traded corporation with its principal place of business located in Atlanta, Georgia. Equifax is the oldest and second-largest consumer credit reporting agency in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Thomas A. Withers, Esq. GILLEN WITHERS & LAKE, LLC 8 E. Liberty Street Savannah, GA 31401 Telephone: (912) 447-8400 Facsimile: (912) 629-6347 E-mail: twithers@gwllawfirm.com EQUIFAX INFORMATION: "De La Rosa" Suit Asserts FCRA Breach ---------------------------------------------------------- Juan De La Rosa, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-00078-AT (S.D.N.Y., January 5, 2018), is brought over alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Equifax Information collects and reports consumer information to financial institutions. The company was formerly known as Equifax Credit Information Services Inc. The Company was incorporated in 1937 and is based in Atlanta, Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Christopher Mallon, Esq. MALLON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PLLC One Liberty Plaza, Suite 2301 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (646) 759-3663 Facsimile: (646) 759-3663 E-mail: consumer.esq@outlook.com The Defendant is represented by: Alicia Bliss Gilbert, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP (NYC) 1185 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 556-2253 E-mail: agilbert@kslaw.com ESTES EXPRESS: Fails to Pay Overtime, "De Jesus" Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ GABRIEL DE JESUS, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated persons v. ESTES EXPRESS LINES, ABC CORPS. 1-10 and JANE & JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. MID-L-000367-18 (N.J. Super. Ct., Middlesex Cty., January 18, 2018), alleges that the Plaintiff and the proposed class members routinely worked far in excess of 40 hours per week for Estes and were not paid an appropriate or lawful premium overtime rate under the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law when they worked over 40 hours per week. Estes Express Lines is a for-profit corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, with its principal office located in Richmond, Virginia. Estes is in the business of shipping and providing supply chain management services internationally. Defendants ABC CORPS. 1-10 and/or JANE and JOHN DOES 1-10 are business entities and/or individuals, who may or may not also be liable to Plaintiffs and the other similarly situated employees in this matter.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ravi Sattiraju, Esq. THE SATTIRAJU LAW FIRM, P.C. 116 Village Boulevard, Suite 200 Princeton, NJ 08540 Telephone: (609) 799-1266 Facsimile: (609) 228-5649 E-mail: rsattiraju@sattirajulawfirm.com EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Wesley" Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- RICKEY WESLEY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 4:18- cv-00005-ALM (E.D. Tex., January 3, 2018), alleges that the Plaintiff has routinely worked in excess of 40 weekly hours for the Defendant but was not paid overtime for all of his overtime hours worked. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., is an information services company that provides information, analytical, and marketing services to organizations and consumers to manage risk and reward of commercial and financial decisions. The Company offers data and analytical tools that assist businesses to manage credit risk, prevent fraud, target marketing offers, and automate decision making; and enables people to check their credit report and credit score, and protect against identity theft.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Forester, Esq. FORESTER LAW PC 1701 N. Market Street, Suite 210 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 288-8519 Facsimile: (214) 346-5909 E-mail: jforester.law@gmail.com - and - Jill J. Weinberg, Esq. WEINBERG LAW FIRM, PLLC 6425 Willow Creek Drive Plano, TX 75093 Telephone: (972) 403-3330 E-mail: jillwlfirm@gmail.com FREE FLOW: Abreu Seeks to Recover Minimum and OT Wages Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- JORGE L. ABREU and other similarly-situated individuals v. FREE FLOW CONSTRUCTION, INC., And FELIPE A. RODRIGUEZ JR., Individually, Case No. 1:18-cv-20244-KMW (S.D. Fla., January 19, 2018), seeks to recover money damages for alleged unpaid minimum and overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Free Flow Construction, Inc., is a Florida corporation, having a place of business in Miami-Dade County, Florida, where the Plaintiff worked for the Defendant. Felipe A. Rodriguez, Jr., is the owner and president of Free Flow. Free Flow is a general residential and commercial construction company specialized in the installation of water and sewer lines.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com GC SERVICES: Court Certifies Class Under FDCPA in "Alderman" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Robin L. Rosenberg grants the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification filed in the lawsuit entitled JAMES ALDERMAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. GC SERVICES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Delaware Limited Partnership, Case No. 2:16-cv-14508-RLR (S.D. Fla.). On November 14, 2016, Plaintiff James Alderman filed his initial Class Action Complaint against Defendant GC Services Limited Partnership. The Plaintiff's First Amended Class Action Complaint contains three counts for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. In his Motion for Class Certification, the Plaintiff asked that the Court certify a class defined as: (i) all persons with addresses in the State of Florida (ii) to whom initial communication letters that contained the language: "If you dispute this balance or the validity of this debt, please let us know in writing. If you do not dispute this debt in writing within 30 days after you receive this letter, we will assume this debt is valid." (iii) were mailed, delivered or caused to be served by the Defendant (iv) that were not returned undeliverable by the U.S. Post Office (v) in an attempt to collect a debt incurred for personal, family, or household purposes owing to Synchrony Bank (vi) during the one-year period prior to the filing of the original Complaint in this action through the date of certification (the "Class"). Judge Rosenberg also appoints James Alderman as class representative, and appoints Leo W. Desmond, Esq., and Scott D. Owens, Esq., as class counsel. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=KBUVqhVJ GEORGIA CHAMPIONSHIP: Hogan Seeks to Recover Minimum and OT Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- AMELLIA HOGAN, JAN EPHRIAM, and OLIVIA HAYNES, Individually and on Behalf of All Those Similarly Situated v. GEORGIA CHAMPIONSHIP BARBEQUE COMPANY, and ARICK WHITSON, Jointly and Severally, Case No. 1:18-cv-00099-ELR (N.D. Ga., January 7, 2018), seeks to recover alleged unpaid minimum wages and overtime wages, owed to the Plaintiffs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Georgia Championship Barbecue Company is an active Georgia corporation with its principal place of business located in Stockbridge, Georgia, which is in Henry County. Arick Whitson is an owner, officer, director or managing agent of Georgia Championship. The Defendants are in the restaurant industry.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brandon A. Thomas, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF BRANDON A. THOMAS, PC 1800 Peachtree Street, N.W., Suite 300 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 343-2441 Facsimile: (404) 352-5636 E-mail: brandon@brandonthomaslaw.com GOOGLE LLC: Moves to Deny Class Certification Bid in "Woods" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Google LLC asks the Court to deny with prejudice the motion for class certification filed in the lawsuit styled RICK WOODS, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. GOOGLE LLC, Case No. 5:11-cv-01263-EJD (N.D. Cal.). The Defendant contends that Rick Woods and his lawyers are ineligible to represent any class in the lawsuit pursuant to Rule 23(a)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. After he agreed to serve as named plaintiff in this case, Mr. Woods's original lawyers, Taylor Law Partners, hired him as a partner and gave him a substantial share in the firm, the Defendant points out. Rule 23(a)(4) mandates that a class representative and his counsel be free of potential conflicts in order to adequately represent the interests of the absent members of the putative class. Through this back-scratching arrangement, Mr. Woods himself developed close relationships and financial entanglements with his current lawyers, the Defendant contends. The financial benefits and incentives from those relationships put Mr. Woods at odds with the absent members of the prospective class here, the Defendant adds. The Court will commence a hearing on June 28, 2018 at 9:00 a.m., to consider the Motion. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=PnSeDgXv The Defendant is represented by: Edward D. Johnson, Esq. Donald M. Falk, Esq. Eric B. Evans, Esq. Sarah E. Reynolds, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP Two Palo Alto Square, Suite 300 3000 El Camino Real Palo Alto, CA 94306-2112 Telephone: (650) 331-2000 E-mail: wjohnson@mayerbrown.com dfalk@mayerbrown.com eevans@mayerbrown.com sreynolds@mayerbrown.com - and - Daniel E. Jones, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 1999 K Street N.W. Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 263-3000 E-mail: djones@mayerbrown.com GOSPEL FOR ASIA: Class Certification Sought in "Murphy" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled Garland D. Murphy, III, M.D. and Phyllis Murphy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Gospel for Asia, Inc., Gospel for Asia- International, K.P. Yohannan, Gisela Punnose, Daniel Punnose, David Carroll, and Pat Emerick, Case No. 5:17-cv-05035-TLB (W.D. Ark.), ask the Court to grant class certification pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=XEIhTwQx The Plaintiffs are represented by: Marc R. Stanley, Esq. Martin Woodward, Esq. STANLEY LAW GROUP 6116 N. Central Expressway, Suite 1500 Dallas, TX 75206 Telephone: (214) 443-4300 Facsimile: (214) 443-0358 E-mail: marcstanley@mac.com mwoodward@stanleylawgroup.com - and - Woodson W. Bassett III, Esq. James Graves, Esq. BASSETT LAW FIRM LLP 221 North College Avenue P.O. Box 3618 Fayetteville, AR 72702 Telephone: (479) 521-9996 Facsimile: (479) 521-9600 E-mail: wbassett@bassettlawfirm.com jgraves@bassettlawfirm.com - and - Tom Mills, Esq. MILLS AND WILLIAMS, LLP 5910 N. Central Expressway, Suite 980 Dallas, TX 75206 Telephone: (214) 265-9265 Facsimile: (214) 361-3167 E-mail: tmills@millsandwilliams.com The Defendants are represented by: Harriet E. Miers, Esq. Robert T. Mowrey, Esq. Paul F. Schuster, Esq. Cynthia K. Timms, Esq. Matt Davis, Esq. LOCKE LORD LLP 2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 2800 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 740-8000 Facsimile: (214) 740-8800 E-mail: hmiers@lockelord.com rmowrey@lockelord.com pschuster@lockelord.com ctimms@lockelord.com mdavis@lockelord.com - and - Steven Shults, Esq. John T. Adams, Esq. SHULTS & ADAMS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1600 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 375-2301 Facsimile: (501) 375-6861 E-mail: sshults@shultslaw.com jadams@shultslaw.com GREENWICH INSURANCE: Farella Braun Attorney Discusses Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------ Amanda Hairston, Esq. -- ahairston@fbm.com -- of Farella Braun + Martel LLP, in an article for JDSupra, report that fewer and fewer companies in California have insurance coverage for "wage and hour" claims, i.e. claims for failure to pay overtime, failure to provide meal and rest periods, and failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements. Many times such coverage is prohibitively expensive or simply unavailable. Accordingly, if a company in California has an Employment Practices Liability policy, it may have a very broad "wage and hour" exclusion. Even if your policy has such an exclusion, there still may be hope. A recent unpublished decision by the Ninth Circuit in PHP Insurance Services, Inc. v. Greenwich Insurance Company, Case No. 16-15083, is a reminder that a mere allegation of a covered Employment Practices Wrongful Act may trigger a carrier's duty to defend even if not asserted as a cause of action. In PHP, plaintiffs filed a putative class action. The gravamen of the suit was misclassification, specifically the failure to pay overtime because plaintiffs were misclassified as exempt employees. However, the complaint also included allegations that defendant "purposefully [hired] recent immigrant workers to improperly take advantage of their lack of knowledge regarding labor and employment rights" and "required that some employees change their Vietnamese names to American names." The complaint also alleged that defendant ran its business "as a taskmaster" and that "employees who were not available to assist customers were later berated by management for neglecting their duties." On summary judgment, the trial court found that these allegations reflected potential claims of discrimination and harassment, both of which were expressly included within the policy's definition of Employment Practices Wrongful Act. The policy at issue stated that the insurer had a duty to defend its insured against "any covered Claim, even if the allegations in such Claim are groundless, false or fraudulent." Accordingly, the Court held that it was "not concerned" with the merits of any claim based on the covered allegations, but only that the insured had shown a potential for coverage. The carrier was unable to identify any exclusion which would conclusive eliminate that potential. As a result, the trial court determined that the carrier had breached its duty to defend and entered judgment in favor of the insured. This case serves as a good reminder to always review complaints carefully and not to assume there is no coverage just because the formal causes of action fall within an exclusion. A detailed analysis of the allegations at issue can pay off in the form of a complete defense of the action. [GN] HARMONY GOLD: SA Miners' Silicosis Class Action Nears Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ed Stoddard, writing for Reuters, reports that a 9 billion rand ($755 million) class action suit brought against gold producers in South Africa by miners suffering from fatal lung disease is likely to be settled "within months", the chair of an industry group said on Feb. 7. The suit was launched almost six years ago on behalf of miners suffering from silicosis, a fatal lung disease contacted by inhaling silica dust in gold mines. Almost all of the claimants are black miners from South Africa and neighbouring countries such as Lesotho, whom critics say were not provided with adequate protection during and even after apartheid rule ended in 1994. ""Within a few months we should have a deal . . . There's been great progress," Graham Briggs, chair of the Working Group on Occupational Lung Disease, told Reuters ahead of a presentation on the topic he was to give at the Mining Indaba 2018 conference in Cape Town. "The faster we settle, the faster we can pay compensation to those who are entitled to it," he said. The six companies involved are Harmony Gold, Gold Fields, African Rainbow Minerals, Sibanye-Stillwater, AngloGold Ashanti and Anglo American. Anglo American no longer has gold assets but historically was a bullion producer. The six companies said late last year they were making provisions for about 5 billion rand and Briggs said there was close to 4 billion rand in a compensation fund which companies have been contributing to for years. "Close to 9 billion rand will be paid to sufferers of silicosis and occupational tuberculosis," he said. Silicosis causes shortness of breath, a persistent cough and chest pains, and makes people highly susceptible to tuberculosis. Mr. Graham said the looming settlement was a "compromise". Gold companies have said there are limits to what they can pay in the face of rising costs and often thin margins. The logistics of the payouts will not be easy as many of the affected miners are in remote rural regions. "The biggest issue is finding these people so they can be paid," said Briggs, a former chief executive of Harmony. He said the industry still not know exactly how many claimants were entitled to compensation and estimates have run from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands. [GN] HCC MEDICAL: Faces "Aliquo" Suit Alleging RICO Act Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- MARK ALIQUO, KEVIN BRYANT and TIMOTHY LACY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. HCC MEDICAL INSURANCE SERVICES, LLC, HCC LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY and HEALTH INSURANCE INNOVATIONS, INC., Case No. 1:18-cv-00018-TWP-MPB (S.D. Ind., January 3, 2018), arises from alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The lawsuit is assigned to Judge Tanya Walton Pratt and referred to Magistrate Judge Matthew P. Brookman. HCC Medical Insurance Services, LLC, offers a portfolio of international group health, and domestic short-term and travel medical insurance products to address the insurance needs of travelers worldwide. HCC Life Insurance Company provides insurance solutions for the self-insured industry to protect self-funded employers from potentially catastrophic losses. Health Insurance Innovations, Inc., operates as a developer, distributor, and administrator of cloud-based individual health and family insurance plans, and supplemental products in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David F. Slade, Esq. CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC 519 W. 7th Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 312-8500 Facsimile: (501) 312-5805 E-mail: hbates@cbplaw.com - and - Irwin B. Levin, Esq. Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Richard E. Shevitz, Esq. Vess Allen Miller, Esq. COHEN & MALAD LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 Facsimile: (317) 636-2593 E-mail: ilevin@cohenandmalad.com ltoops@cohenandmalad.com rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com vmiller@cohenandmalad.com HONEST COMPANY: Tucker Appeals Settlement Order in Marketing Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Objector Caroline Tucker filed an appeal from a District Court order granting final approval of class settlement entered on December 8, 2017, in the consolidated lawsuit titled In Re: Honest Marketing Litigation, Case No. 16-cv-1125, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuits allege that Honest "falsely" and "deceptively" labeled its products as natural and plant-based. The lawsuits contend that Honest's products actually contained synthetic and toxic ingredients, even though advertising copy claimed "no harsh chemicals, ever!" The appellate case is captioned as In Re: Honest Marketing Litigation, Case No. 18-57, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees Manon Buonasera, On Behalf of Themselves and all Others Similarly Situated, and Brad Buonasera, On Behalf of Themselves and all Others Similarly Situated, are represented by: Adrienne D. McEntee, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC 936 North 34th Street Seattle, WA 98103 Telephone: (206) 816-6603 E-mail: amcentee@terrellmarshall.com Plaintiff-Appellee Rose Marcotrigiano, On Behalf of Themselves and all Others Similarly Situated, is represented by: Todd S. Garber, Esq. FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP 445 Hamilton Avenue White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 298-3283 E-mail: tgarber@fbfglaw.com Defendant-Appellee The Honest Company, Inc., is represented by: Jonathan P. Bach, Esq. COOLEY LLP 1114 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 479-6470 E-mail: jbach@cooley.com Objector-Appellant Caroline Tucker is represented by: Stephen D. Field, Esq. STEPHEN D. FIELD, P.A. 102 East 49th Street Hialeah, FL 33013 Telephone: (305) 798-1335 E-mail: sfield@field-law.com HOTELS.COM LP: Overcharges Consumers for Tax & Fees, Church Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Church, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Hotels.com LP, Expedia, Inc., Travelscape, LLC, Reservations Technologies, Inc., d/b/a Reservations.com, Case No. 2:18-cv-00018-RMG (D.S.C., January 3, 2018), alleges that the Defendants are illegally overcharging "Tax & Fees." According to the complaint, the Defendants charge consumers a $14.99 service fee for each booking made on Reservations.com Web site and illegally over-charge for taxes and local government fees and retain the overcharge as additional revenue. Reservations.com is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located in Orlando, Florida. Reservations.com operates a booking Web site at http://www.reservations.com/that sells hotel room reservations. Expedia, Inc., is a publicly traded company headquartered in Bellevue, Washington. Hotels.com, LP, is a Texas limited partnership, headquartered in Dallas, Texas. Hotels.com is a subsidiary of Expedia. Travelscape, LLC does business as Expedia Travel, and is headquartered in Las Vegas, Nevada. Travelscape is a subsidiary of Expedia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ian W. Freeman, Esq. John P. Linton, Jr., Esq. WALKER, GRESSETTE, FREEMAN LINTON, LLC PO. Drawer 22167 Charleston, SC 29413 Telephone: (843) 727-2200 E-mail: freeman@wgfllaw.com linton@wgfllaw.com - and - James L. Ward, Jr., Esq. Ranee Saunders, Esq. MCGOWAN, HOOD & FELDER, LLC 321 Wingo Way, Suite 103 Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 Telephone: (843) 388-7202 E-mail: jward@mcgowanhood.com rsaunders@mcgowanhood.com HYUNDAI MOTORS: K&L Gates Attorneys Discuss Class Action Ruling --------------------------------------------------------------- David D. Christensen, Esq., and Matthew N. Lowe, Esq., of K&L Gates, in an article for The National Law Review, wrote that the Ninth Circuit recently clarified in In re Hyundai and Kia Fuel Economy Litigation that district courts must carefully scrutinize class settlements to ensure that they satisfy each of the prerequisites of Rule 23, especially for Rule 23(b)(3) classes, and that courts cannot substitute the fairness of a settlement for the proper certification analysis. Of particular note, the court emphasized the need to analyze whether potential material differences in the applicable states' laws preclude certification of a nationwide settlement class. The Hyundai decision arose from multidistrict litigation where the plaintiffs brought state law claims based upon the advertised fuel efficiency of the defendants' automobiles. Defendants and most plaintiffs agreed to settle the litigation by means of a nationwide settlement class. One group of plaintiffs, however, opposed certification of the settlement class and argued, among other things, that material differences in the applicable states' laws precluded certification. The district court nonetheless certified the settlement class holding that even if the variations in state law posed an issue if the case were to go to trial, "such an analysis was not warranted in the settlement context." On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed, finding that the district court was "wrong as a matter of law" by not conducting a choice of law analysis and by not "rigorously analyz[ing] potential differences in state consumer protection laws" before certifying the nationwide settlement class. Specifically, the Ninth Circuit held that analyzing material variations in applicable states' laws was necessary to assess Rule 23(b)(3)'s requirement that common questions predominate over individual ones and that this requirement "preexists any settlement." Stated differently, the potential impact of material variations in states' laws was not simply a trial "management issue[]" that could be ignored for purposes of a settlement class but instead is an issue that could directly impact the predominance requirement, which must be met before certifying any class, in the settlement context or otherwise. To determine whether "predominance is defeated by variations in state law," the Ninth Circuit set forth a multistep process, namely: (1) the "proponent must establish that the forum state's substantive law may be constitutionally applied to the claims of a nationwide class"; (2) "[i]f the forum state's law meets this requirement, the district court must use the forum state's choice of law rules to determine whether the forum state's law or the law of multiple states apply to the claims"; and (3) "if class claims will require adjudication under the laws of multiple states, then the court must determine whether common questions will predominate over individual issues and whether litigation of a nationwide class may be managed fairly and efficiently." The Ninth Circuit confirmed that the proponent of class certification -- typically the plaintiff -- bears that burden of "demonstrating through evidentiary proof that the laws of the affected states do not vary in material ways that preclude a finding that common legal issues predominate." The Ninth Circuit also rejected the "mistaken assumption that the standard for certification [i]s lessened in the settlement context" and admonished district courts that they "must give 'undiluted, even heightened, attention in the settlement context.'" The court further noted that the test for certification of a settlement class is not whether the settlement is "fair." Rather, the test is whether, after conducting a rigorous analysis, the requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b) are met. This can be a difficult burden to satisfy, especially in a multistate class action. Indeed, as the dissent writes, "the majority . . . deals a major blow to multistate class actions." The Ninth Circuit's Hyundai decision may act as a double-edged sword for companies defending nationwide class actions. On the one hand, Hyundai imposes a heightened burden on plaintiffs to obtain certification of a nationwide class. On the other hand, the decision may create an obstacle to obtaining final approval of nationwide class settlements (and also encourage and empower objectors), thereby impeding a defendant's ability to reach a global resolution of claims. The settling parties in Hyundai have indicated that they intend to petition for en banc review, and thus, the impact of the panel's split decision is uncertain. The National Law Review will continue to monitor the case and report on additional developments. [GN] ICQ SEARCH: Gattoni Sues Over Fair Debt Collection Act Violations ----------------------------------------------------------------- Brittani Gattoni, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. I.C.Q. Search and Recovery, Case No. 5:18- cv-00031-JGB-KK (C.D. Cal., January 5, 2018), alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. I.C.Q. Search and Recovery is a third party debt collection and full service skip tracing agency providing service with the latest technology and collection strategy.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Aaron Stieglitz, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JONATHAN A. STIEGLITZ 11845 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone: (323) 979-2063 Facsimile: (323) 488-6748 E-mail: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com - and - Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. MARCUS AND ZELMAN LLC 1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101 Ocean, NJ 07712 Telephone: (845) 367-7146 Facsimile: (732) 298-6256 E-mail: yzelman@marcuszelman.com IGNYTA INC: "Franchi" Class Suit Challenges Sale to Roche --------------------------------------------------------- ANTHONY FRANCHI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. IGNYTA, INC., JONATHAN E. LIM, JAMES BRISTOL, ALEX CASDIN, HEINER DREISMANN, JAMES FREDDO, STEVE HOERTER, ROCHE HOLDINGS, INC., and ABINGDON ACQUISITION CORP., Case No. 3:18-cv-00131-DMS-JLB (S.D. Cal., January 19, 2018), stems from a proposed transaction, pursuant to which Ignyta will be acquired by Roche and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Abingdon. On December 21, 2017, Ignyta's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Roche. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub commenced a tender offer, currently set to expire at midnight, Eastern Time, on February 7, 2018, to acquire all of Ignyta's outstanding common stock for $27 in cash for each share of Ignyta common stock. If the Tender Offer is completed, Merger Sub will be merged with and into the Company, and the Company will continue as the surviving corporation as a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent. Ignyta is a Delaware corporation and maintains its principal executive offices in San Diego, California. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. Ignyta is a biotechnology company focused on precision medicine in oncology. The Company's goal is not just to shrink tumors, but to eradicate residual disease in precisely defined patient populations through their integrated therapeutic ("Rx") and companion diagnostic ("Dx") strategy for treating cancer patients. Roche Holdings, Inc., Parent is a Delaware corporation and a party to the Merger Agreement. Abingdon Acquisition Corp. is a Delaware corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent, and a party to the Merger Agreement.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joel E. Elkins, Esq. WEISSLAW LLP 9107 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 450 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (310) 208-2800 Facsimile: (310) 209-2348 E-mail: jelkins@weisslawllp.com - and - Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Ave., Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 E-mail: bdl@rigrodskylong.com gms@rl-legal.com INDEPENDENT ADOPTION: Faces Class Action Following Shutdown ----------------------------------------------------------- Adam Winer, writing for ABC Action News, reports that today, Wyatt is teething and learning to walk; normal activities for a 9-month old boy. But it wasn't that long ago that his future was in doubt: the Independent Adoption Center, a national organization that had coordinated hundreds of adoptions over three decades, had suddenly, without warning, closed in January of 2017. Rebecca LeClair of Wimauma was scheduled to adopt Wyatt in May of 2017. "The stress of all this, the birth mom started having contractions in mid-January," explains Ms. LeClair. "It was very serious. In the two weeks leading up to his birth she was in the hospital about 3 times." "We were basically told from our medical staff that reviewed her medical records to be prepared for a baby born as early as 28 weeks," adds Ms. LeClair. Thankfully baby Wyatt was born healthy, and the LeClairs were still able to jump through all the legal hoops to adopt him thanks in part to a local adoption counselor. "To have an agency close unexpectedly can really be devastating and leave families unsure of what to do next," says Audra Coons, a social worker and co-founder of Foundations for Growth. Knowing that Rebecca and Corey LeClair were scrambling to get their paperwork in order after the sudden closing of IAC, Coons jumped in to help, helping conduct legally-required "home studies" and promising to do family counseling, as well as helping with legal paperwork. "With Rebecca and Corey they were just, from the time that I met them, they were go-getters. They knew what they wanted. You could tell their main motivation was to build their family," Ms. Coons tells ABC Action News. "We're here to guide them, hold their hand through the process," adds Ms. Coons. Thanks to Foundations for Growth, the LeClairs were able to bring Wyatt into their Wimauma home on Mother's Day, 2017, and officially adopted him in time for Thanksgiving. As nice as it all sounds today, Ms. LeClair says she would definitely do things differently if she could have. For starters, the LeClairs are now part of a multi-million dollar class-action lawsuit against IAC and their insurance company to get back the cost of their fees they paid. They also think it might have been better just to do the work themselves. "If we knew what we know now we would have never signed with an agency," Ms. LeClair says to ABC Action News. "You don't need an agency. It's just some agencies pack everything together so you have one go-to person." Instead, says Ms. Leclair, she would have done what she ended up having to do in the first place: find a birth mother on their own, find an adoption attorney on their own, and find an adoption counselor, like Ms. Coons, on their own. [GN] INKAHOLIK TATTOOS: Accused by "Donayre" Suit of Violating TCPA -------------------------------------------------------------- JULIANA C. DONAYRE, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. INKAHOLIK TATTOOS, INC., a Florida corporation, Case No. 0:18-cv-60106-CMA (S.D. Fla., January 18, 2018), arises, in part, from the Defendant's alleged willful and knowing violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The TCPA prohibits the use of an automatic telephone dialing system to send text messages to cell phones and other mobile services subject to two exceptions: (1) calls made for emergency purposes; and (2) calls made with the prior express consent of the called party. Inkaholik Tattoos, Inc., is a Florida corporation whose principal address is at 8367 SW 40th St., in Miami, Florida. The Defendant operates tattoo parlors.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Karl C. Gonzalez, Esq. KARL C. GONZALEZ, PLLC 17113 Miramar Parkway, Suite #152 Miramar, FL 33027 Telephone: (833) 527-5529 E-mail: karl@karlgonzalez.com - and - Scott D. Owens, Esq. SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A. 3800 S. Ocean Dr., Suite 235 Hollywood, FL 33019 Telephone: (954) 589-0588 Facsimile: (954) 337-0666 E-mail: scott@scottdowens.com INMATE SERVICES: "Peters" Suit Transferred to Arkansas Court ------------------------------------------------------------ The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio issued an Opinion and Order granting Defendant's Motion to Transfer the case captioned MICHAEL PETERS, Plaintiff, v. INMATE SERVICES CORP., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-1660 (N.D. Ohio), to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas (Jonesboro). Plaintiff Peters alleges that Defendant Inmate Services took custody of him pursuant to an extradition order and then circuitously transported him handcuffed for five straight days through several states. During that time, Defendant allegedly failed to provide Peters a shower, a bed, adequate physical exercise, sufficient breaks, medical care, or opportunities to attend to basic hygiene. Peters brings claims for negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The first-to-file rule is a well-established doctrine that encourages comity among federal courts of equal rank. The rule provides that when actions involving nearly identical parties and issues have been filed in two different district courts, the court in which the first suit was filed should generally proceed to judgment. A similar case, the Stearns case, was filed on November 15, 2016. The instant case was filed in state court on July 5, 2017, and then removed to the Ohio District Court on August 8, 2017. Plaintiff Peters is likely to be a member of at least one of the Stearns putative subclasses. Peters alleges that Defendant Inmate Services held him for five straight days between July 4 and July 9, 2015 under the relevant poor conditions. Stearns is also likely to be a member of a putative class in this case. Stearns alleges that Defendant took custody of him and transported him continuously for more than 200 hours. While this case's proposed class would include additional members, those transported between 24 and 48 hours, who are not plaintiffs in the Stearns action, what matters for the Court's purposes is that Peters and Stearns would be parties to both actions. While the claims in both cases are not identical, both set of claims are predicated on similar facts. In particular, the negligence claims in this case and the constitutional claims in Stearnsboth depend on the severity of the conditions in which Defendant Inmate Services transported Stearns and Peters, and the putative class members. Both cases seek declaratory and injunctive relief, in addition to damages. Thus, the issues in both cases are substantially similar. Lastly, the Court finds no equitable considerations that would stop it from applying the first-to-file rule. Deviations from the first-to-file rule should be the exception, rather than the norm. It is true that Plaintiff Peters, an Ohio resident, may be inconvenienced by having to litigate this case in Arkansas. However, Defendant has offered to mitigate this inconvenience by agreeing to depose Peters in the Northern District of Ohio. Given this offer and the judicial resources that will be saved by not litigating substantially similar cases in two different courts, the Court finds the equities weigh more in favor of transfer. Plaintiff Peters' report does not change the Court's conclusion. First, it is unclear how Plaintiff's requested discovery would affect analysis of the first-to-file factors. Analysis of those factors here primarily relies on the pleadings. Second, Peters does not explain how the requested discovery concerns any of the equitable considerations. A full-text copy of the District Court's January 11, 2018 Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ydxxrbaq from Leagle.com. Michael Peters, Plaintiff, represented by John P. Hurst -- pwf@pwfco.com -- Bashein & Bashein, John J. Spellacy ,Paul W. Flowers & W. Craig Bashein -- cbashein@basheinlaw.com -- Bashein & Bashein. Inmate Services Corp., Defendant, represented by David J. Fagnilli djfagnilli@mdwcg.com, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, John T. McLandrich -- jtm@mrrlaw.com -- Mazanec, Raskin & Ryder, Terence L. Williams -- twilliams@mrrlaw.com -- Mazanec, Raskin & Ryder, Todd M. Raskin - - traskin@mrrlaw.com -- Mazanec, Raskin & Ryder & Andrew M. Wargo -- amwargo@mdwcg.com -- Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin. INTEL CORPORATION: Accused by "Reis" of Selling Defective CPUs -------------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD REIS and ZACHARY FINER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. INTEL CORPORATION, Case No. 5:18-cv- 00074-SVK (N.D. Cal., January 4, 2018), alleges that Intel breached its implied warranties by selling the Plaintiffs and Class members defective Intel central processing units. The Defect renders the Intel CPUs unmerchantable and unfit for their ordinary or particular use or purpose, the Plaintiffs contend. They assert that Intel has refused to recall, repair or replace, free of charge, all Intel CPUs or any of their defective component parts or refund the prices paid for such CPUs. Intel Corporation is a business incorporated under the laws of the state of Delaware with its principal place of business located in Santa Clara, California. Intel is engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing, distributing, and/or selling computer products, including processors and the defective Intel CPUs that are at issue.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeffrey L. Fazio, Esq. Dina E. Micheletti, Esq. FAZIO MICHELETTI LLP 2410 Camino Ramon, Suite 315 San Ramon, CA 94583 Telephone: (925) 543-2555 Facsimile: (925) 369-0344 E-mail: jlf@fazmiclaw.com dem@fazmiclaw.com - and - Adam J. Levitt, Esq. Amy E. Keller, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT & CASEY LLC Ten North Dearborn Street, Eleventh Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 214-7900 Facsimile: (440) 953-9138 E-mail: alevitt@dlcfirm.com akeller@dlcfirm.com - and - Mark M. Abramowitz, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT & CASEY LLC 7556 Mentor Avenue Mentor, OH 44060 Telephone: (440) 953-8888 Facsimile: (440) 953-9138 E-mail: mabramowitz@dlcfirm.com - and - W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq. Leslie Pescia, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, P.C. 218 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36103 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 E-mail: Dee.Miles@beasleyallen.com Leslie.Pescia@beasleyallen.com INTEL CORPORATION: Sued by Jones Over Defective Core Processors --------------------------------------------------------------- JASON JONES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. INTEL CORPORATION, Case No. 1:18-cv-00029-TWP-MPB (S.D. Ind., January 4, 2018), is brought on behalf of all persons in the state of Indiana, who purchased a defective Intel core processor ("CPUs"). Intel's x86-64x CPUs suffer from a security defect, which causes the CPUs to be exposed to troubling security vulnerabilities by allowing potential access to extremely secure kernel data (the "Defect"), Mr. Jones alleges. He contends that the only way to "patch" this vulnerability requires extensive changes to the root levels of the Operating System, which will dramatically reduce performance of the CPU. Intel Corporation is a citizen of the state of Delaware and of the state of California, as it is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware, with its principal place of business in California. For at least 10 years, Intel has marketed, distributed, and warranted these defective Intel CPUs in Indiana and throughout the United States, says the complaint.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Irwin B. Levin, Esq. Richard E. Shevitz, Esq. Vess A. Miller, Esq. Lynn A. Toops, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 Facsimile: (317) 636-2495 E-mail: ilevin@cohenandmalad.com rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com vmiller@cohenandmalad.com ltoops@cohenandmalad.com J. CREW: "Parker" Suit Remanded to Illinois State Court ------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey issued an Order granting Defendant's Motion to Transfer the case captioned ANITA PARKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. J. CREW GRP., INC., J. CREW LLC, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Civ. No. 2:17-cv-1214 (D.N.J.), to the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division. Plaintiff sought remand while Defendants filed a motion to dismiss or alternatively to transfer the case here under 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Plaintiff filed this putative class action in an Illinois state court asserting violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) amendment to the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 168, when J. Crew Group, Inc., and J. Crew LLC (Defendants) printed more than the last five digits of Plaintiff's credit card number on transaction receipts. Defendant J. Crew Group, Inc., removed this action to an Illinois federal district court. This case presents a unique circumstance since the Court would remand the matter to a state court outside its jurisdiction. Nevertheless, there is persuasive Third Circuit case law showing that a transferee court is deemed to inherit all the authority of a transferor court. Now exercising the equivalent powers of the transferor Northern District of Illinois Court where removal took place, the Court remands the case to where it originated -- the Illinois state court. Thus, the Court remands the case to the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division. A full-text copy of the District Court's January 11, 2018 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yb3cz9mc from Leagle.com. ANITA PARKER, Plaintiff, represented by WILLIAM CLAWGES MORLOK -- wmorlok@swartzcampbell.com -- SWARTZ CAMPBELL LLC & ROBERT A. CLIFFORD, CLIFFORD LAW OFFICES, 120 North LaSalle Street, 31st floor, Chicago, IL 60602 J. CREW GROUP, INC., Defendant, represented by STEVEN ROBERT MARINO -- steven.marino@dlapiper.com -- DLA PIPER LLP, ANDREW O. BUNN -- andrew.bunn@dlapiper.com -- DLA PIPER, LLP, pro hac vice & Steven R. Marino -- steven.marino@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper LLP, pro hac vice. JP MORGAN CHASE: Childress Seeks to Certify Class of Obligors ------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled GARY AND ANNE CHILDRESS, RUSSELL AND SUZANNAH HO, and MICHAEL CLIFFORD, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. JP MORGAN CHASE & CO., JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., CHASE BANK USA, N.A. and CHASE BANKCARD SERVICES, INC., Case No. 5:16-cv-00298-BO (E.D.N.C.), move the Court for an order certifying this class: All persons identified in Defendants' records as obligors or guarantors on an obligation or account (excluding home loans) who, at any time on or after September 11, 2001, received and/or may have been eligible to receive additional compensation related to military reduced interest rate benefits from Defendants, but excluding persons who have executed a release of the rights claimed in this action. The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to designate them as Representative Plaintiffs for the Class, and to appoint Smith & Lowney, PLLC, as Class Counsel and Shanahan McDougal, PLLC, as Local Class Counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ESc3Zh8D The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kieran J. Shanahan, Esq. Brandon S. Neuman, Esq. Christopher S. Battles, Esq. SHANAHAN MCDOUGAL, PLLC 128 E. Hargett Street, Third Floor Raleigh, NC 27601 Telephone: (919) 856-9494 Facsimile: (919) 856-9499 E-mail: kieran@shanahanmcdougal.com bneuman@shanahanmcdougal.com cbattles@shanahanmcdougal.com - and - Knoll D. Lowney, Esq. SMITH & LOWNEY PLLC 2317 E. John Street Seattle, WA 98112 Telephone: (206) 860-2883 Facsimile: (206) 860-4187 E-mail: knoll@smithandlowney.com The Defendants are represented by: Nathan B. Atkinson, Esq. SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, PLLC 110 Oakwood Drive, Suite 500 Winston-Salem, NC 27103 Telephone: (336) 725-4710 Facsimile: (336) 725-4476 E-mail: natkinson@spilmanlaw.com - and - Alan E. Schoenfeld, Esq. Fiona J. Kaye, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 7 World Trade Center 250 Greenwich Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 937-7294 Facsimile: (212) 230-8888 E-mail: alan.schoenfeld@wilmerhale.com fiona.kaye@wilmerhale.com LEFT RIGHT LLC: Ednie Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- D. EDNIE AND A. FLORES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LEFT RIGHT, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, BANKS TARVER, an individual, KEN DRUCKERMAN, an individual, and DOE ONE through and including DOE TEN, Case No. 2:18-cv-00519 (C.D. Cal., January 19, 2018), seeks to recover alleged unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation under the California Labor Code. Left Right, LLC, is a Delaware Limited Liability Company, which conducted business within the County of Los Angeles, California. Left/Right creates television and film projects that illuminate the drama and comedy of real life. Left Right employed Ednie and Flores for the production History of Science Fiction - LR (the "Production"). The Individual Defendants are the co-presidents of Left Right. The Plaintiffs are unaware of the true names, identities or capacities of the Doe Defendants.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alan Harris, Esq. David Garrett, Esq. Min Ji Gal, Esq. HARRIS & RUBLE 655 North Central Avenue, 17th Floor Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (323) 962-3777 Facsimile: (323) 962-3004 E-mail: harrisa@harrisandruble.com dgarrett@harrisandruble.com mgal@harrisandruble.com LEGACY LAND: Bradley Files Suit Over Bouncing Checks ---------------------------------------------------- JAMES T. BRADLEY and GARRET LAMBERT, In their own right and on behalf of others Similarly situated v. LEGACY LAND MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. 2:18-cv-00007 (S.D.W. Va., January 3, 2018), is brought on behalf of a class of all West Virginia residents against whom wages were due under the West Virginia Wage Payment and Collection Act and Fair Labor Standards Act, who were paid by a check drawn on an account that, at the time the checks were written, did not have sufficient funds to cover all of the checks written on the account. Legacy Land Management, Inc., is a West Virginia Corporation licensed to do business in West Virginia and doing business as business in West Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Anthony J. Majestro, Esq. POWELL & MAJESTRO, PLLC 405 Capitol Street, Suite P1200 Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 346-2889 Facsimile: (304) 346-2895 E-mail: amajestro@powellmajestro.com - and - Anthony M. Salvatore, Esq. HEWITT & SALVATORE, PLLC 204 North Court Street Fayetteville, WV 25840 Telephone: (304) 574-0272 Facsimile: (304) 574-0273 E-mail: asalvatore@hewittsalvatore.com LONG ISLAND GUTTERS: Peraza Seeks to Recover Overtime Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE PERAZA, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. GEORGE DIMOU, KEVIN (last name unknown) and ABC CORP. d/b/a LONG ISLAND GUTTERS, and GUTTERS OF LONG ISLAND, INC., Case No. 2:18-cv-00042-JS-ARL (E.D.N.Y., January 3, 2018), seeks to recover from the Defendants alleged unpaid wages for overtime work performed, and damages, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. ABC CORP. d/b/a LONG ISLAND GUTTERS is a New York Corporation whose principal place of business is located in Deer Park, New York. GUTTERS OF LONG ISLAND, INC., is a New York Corporation headquartered in Deer Park. The Defendant is a manufacturer, distributor, and installer of residential and commercial gutter systems who also do construction, siding and roofing work. George Dimou is the Chief Executive Officer or a corporate officer of the Corporate Defendants, while Kevin is the Manager.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marcus Monteiro, Esq. MONTEIRO & FISHMAN LLP 91 N. Franklin Street, Suite 108 Hempstead, NY 11550 Telephone: (516) 280-4600 Facsimile: (516) 280-4530 E-mail: mmonteiro@mflawny.com LOS ANGELES MATTRESS: "Santos" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- JENNIFER CASTILLO SANTOS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. LOS ANGELES MATTRESS PLUS, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. BC689084 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., January 4, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages, compensatory damages and related relief arising from the Defendants' alleged violations of the California Labor Code, Industrial Welfare Commission Order No. 7-2001, and the Business and Professions Code. Los Angeles Mattress is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of California and a citizen of California. Los Angeles Mattress does business in the furniture stores industry. The Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names, capacities, relationships, and extents of participation in the conduct alleged herein, of the Doe Defendants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David G. Spivak, Esq. Sehyung "Logan" Park, Esq. THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM 16530 Ventura Blvd., Suite 312 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone (818) 582-3086 Facsimile (818) 582-2561 E-mail: david@spivaklaw.com logan@spivaklaw.com - and - Afshin Mozaffari, Esq. MOZAFFARI LAW 1101 Montana Avenue, Suite D Santa Monica, CA 90403 Telephone: (323) 696-0702 Facsimile: (323) 546-3466 E-mail: amozaffari@mozaffarilaw.com LTD FINANCIAL: Seeks Third Circuit Review of Ruling in "Bordeaux" ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Advantage Assets II Inc. and LTD Financial Services LP filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Roberta Bordeaux v. LTD Financial Services LP, et al., Case No. 2-16-cv- 0243, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Jan. 31, 2018, the District Court issued an Opinion granting Class Certification in the case. Ms. Bordeaux, a New Jersey resident, owed Citibank a past-due credit card debt on her account, which it then sold to Advantage Assets. LTD Financial, the debt collecting branch of Advantage Assets, mailed Bordeaux a letter stating the amount due, offering three different settlement options with payment plans. The letter cautioned that discharge of the debt might have tax consequences. The Plaintiff alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The appellate case is captioned as Roberta Bordeaux v. LTD Financial Services LP, et al., Case No. 18-8005, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Respondent ROBERTA BORDEAUX, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, is represented by: Yongmoon Kim, Esq. KIM LAW FIRM 411 Hackensack Avenue Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 273-7117 E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com - and - Philip D. Stern, Esq. Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq. STERN THOMASSON LLP 150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor Springfield, NJ 07081 Telephone: (973) 379-7500 Facsimile: (973) 532-0866 E-mail: philip@sternthomasson.com andrew@sternthomasson.com Defendants-Petitioners LTD FINANCIAL SERVICES LP and ADVANTAGE ASSETS II INC. are represented by: Monica M. Littman, Esq. Richard J. Perr, Esq. FINEMAN KREKSTEIN & HARRIS P.C. Ten Penn Center 1801 Market Street, Suite 1100 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 893-8749 Facsimile: (215) 893-8719 E-mail: mlittman@finemanlawfirm.com rperr@finemanlawfirm.com MACA RESTAURANT: "Cabrera" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations ------------------------------------------------------- Adrian Cabrera, Eligio Santiago, and Luswing Hernan Maldonado, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MACA Restaurant, Corp. dba Firenze Ristorante, EMDC 2nd Avenue Corp. dba Firenze Ristorante, and Manuel Caisaguano, Case No. 1:18-cv-00433 (S.D. N.Y., January 17, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage and overtime premiums pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiffs are former bussers, runners, porters, food preps, line cooks, and delivery employees at Defendants' Italian restaurant located in the Yorkville neighborhood of Manhattan. Defendant MACA Restaurant Corp. is an active New York Corporation doing business as "Firenze Ristorante" with its principal place of business at 1555 Second Avenue, New York, NY 10028. Defendants have been in the food service business. The Individual Defendant has owned, operated, and managed Firenze Ristorante since it opened in its prior location in or around 1981 through the present in its current location at 1555 Second Avenue, New York, New York 10028. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brent E. Pelton, Esq. Taylor B. Graham, Esq. PELTON GRAHAM LLC 111 Broadway, Suite 1503 New York, NY 10006 Tel: (212) 385-9700 Fax: (212) 385-0800 E-mail: pelton@peltongraham.com MARATHON PETROLEUM: Yates Appeals Order in ERISA Suit to 6th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Jefferey Yates filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in his lawsuit titled Jefferey Yates v. Rodney Nichols, et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-01389, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Toledo. The appellate case is captioned as Jefferey Yates v. Rodney Nichols, et al., Case No. 18-3075, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the District Court granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case for Mr. Yates' failure to state a claim. The breach-of-fiduciary-duty and putative class-action case arises under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Marathon Petroleum spun off from its parent company, Marathon Oil. When Marathon Petroleum established its employee-retirement plan, Defendants plan administrator Rodney Nichols, the plan's investment committee, and members of that committee allegedly placed $88 million in plan assets into a fund holding only Marathon Oil common stock. Participants could then hold the stock or sell it and invest the proceeds in a different fund, but they could not purchase additional Marathon Oil stock. At the time of the plan's creation, Marathon Oil stock traded at $33.28 per share. Within months of the spin-off, shares had dropped below $20; by mid-June 2017, Marathon Oil's stock was worth less than $13 per share. Plaintiff Jefferey Yates, a former Marathon Petroleum employee and plan participant, brought this suit in June 2017, on behalf of himself, the Marathon Petroleum Thrift Plan, and all similarly situated plan participants. He raises essentially three claims for breaches of the defendants' fiduciary duties and a claim of co-fiduciary liability. The Plaintiff first alleges that the Defendants breached their duty of prudence by permitting participants to invest in Marathon Oil common stock. According to the Plaintiff, the Marathon Oil stock was excessively risky and thus an imprudent option for an employee-retirement plan. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Appellant brief is due on February 28, 2018; -- Appellee brief is due on March 30, 2018; and -- A Telephone Mediation conference was scheduled for February 13, 2018, at 10:00 a.m. (ET) with Rod McFaull.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant JEFFEREY YATES, On behalf of the Marathon Petroleum Thrift Plan and a class of others similarly situated, is represented by: Robert A. Izard, Jr. IZARD, KINDALL & RAABE 29 S. Main Street, Suite 215 West Hartford, CT 06107 Telephone: (860) 493-6292 E-mail: rizard@ikrlaw.com Defendants-Appellees RODNEY P. NICHOLS, Administrator for Marathon Petroleum Thrift Plan, MARATHON PETROLEUM CORPORATION SAVINGS PLAN INVESTMENT COMMITTEE, TIMOTHY GRIFFITH, TOM KACZYNSKI and JOHN DOES, 1-10, are represented by: Thomas P. Dillon, Esq. SHUMAKER, LOOP & KENDRICK 1000 Jackson Street Toledo, OH 43604-5573 Telephone: (419) 241-9000 E-mail: tdillon@slk-law.com - and - Eric S. Mattson, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN 1 S. Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 853-7000 E-mail: emattson@sidley.com MDL 2804: Lewis County to Join Opioid Crisis Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- WWNYTV.com reports that Lewis County is the latest to join a class-action lawsuit against major manufacturers of opioid drugs. It's a change in direction for lawmakers who had previously declined to participate. More than a dozen New York counties, including St. Lawrence County, are working with law firm Simmons, Hanly, Conroy, P.C. Lewis County Legislature Chair Larry Dolhof says the county wants "to try to recover some of the costs that the county incurs with the expense of the opioid addiction problem." While lawmakers say there isn't one specific cause of the drug problem, they believe pharmaceutical companies deliberately push for the overuse of these highly addictive drugs. "I don't see it as the manufacturers in a position of taking full blame," Mr. Dolhof said, "but they certainly do share in the responsibility." Legislator Jerry King wants to make sure if the counties win the lawsuit, the money won't just be put into the general fund, but go directly towards combating the opioid crisis. "We need to make sure we get the money where it's going to help the people," Mr. King said. The lawsuit won't cost the counties anything unless there's a settlement. The law firm will get 25 percent of any winnings. [GN] MDL 2804: Marion County Taps Law Firms to Review Legal Options -------------------------------------------------------------- Jim Ross, writing for Ocala, reports that the Marion County Commission on Feb. 6 retained a collection of law firms to review county government's potential courses of action concerning the opioids crisis. States and municipalities nationwide have been filing lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies, doctors and other health care players. The goal, in general, is for governments to recoup losses incurred because of improper actions that led to drug addiction, abuse, injury and death. The commission unanimously accepted County Attorney Guy Minter's recommendation to retain West Palm Beach-based The Romano Law Group; Maryland-based Schochor, Federico and Staton, P.A.; Washington, D.C.-based Pires Cooley; and Cleveland-based Spangenberg, Shibley & Liber, LLP. This doesn't mean a lawsuit or suits definitely will be filed; it just means the firms will review Marion County's legal position and represent its interests. Another firm that was courting the county's business had emphasized multi-district litigation in federal court. That would make Marion County one of hundreds or thousands of plaintiffs in class-action suits. Also, that firm has targeted opioid manufacturers and distributors. Romano is more inclined to take action in state court and consider local defendants, such as pharmacy retailers or medical providers who engaged in improper activities. "If we've got people creating this problem right here in Marion County, we should do something that is going to impact those people," Minter told commissioners. "We're trying to deter the continuation of this." For any number of legal reasons, Marion County might find itself in federal court, anyway. If that happens, Romano's affiliated counsel are positioned to handle such matters. Also, Minter noted, Gainesville attorney Rod Smith is working with Romano, "so we would have somebody close by who we could deal with." As for the finances: The Romano team has a contingent fee arrangement. The team pays all costs, and thus Marion County has no exposure. The team has a tiered fee system that entitles it to a percentage (as little as 10 percent and as much as 25 percent) of any judgment or settlement. Such a structure "is in the ballpark of any of these firms" that handle such work, and in many cases is better, Minter said. Marion County has been hit hard by the opioids crisis. Local law officers are equipped with Narcan for emergency use. Ocala's mayor has established a task force to study the problem. On Feb. 6, the Ocala Police Department announced a program where officers will transport people seeking help to The Centers or Perspectives, another treatment facility. (See story, page A1.) Resident Jack Stackman, a regular attendee and speaker at commission meetings, objected to Minter's discussion being a "walk-on" item at the Feb. 6 commission meeting. In other words, it wasn't specifically noted on the meeting agenda, and thus the public did not have prior notice that the issue was going to be discussed. "There was no reason for this to be a walk-on," he told commissioners. [GN] MEARS DESTINATION: Rodriguez Moves to Certify Class Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned VICTOR RODRIGUEZ et al. v. MEARS DESTINATION SERVICES, INC. et al., Case No. 6:17-cv- 01113-PGB-DCI (M.D. Fla.), move for an order granting conditional certification of the action as a Fair Labor Standards Act representative action on behalf of: "All individuals in the State of Florida who have signed a contract with Defendants purportedly working as an independent contractor in Mears's Luxury Fleet Division at any time on or after June 19, 2014 through and including the date of entry of judgment in this case, who were not paid a minimum wage, or at their regular rate of pay, for time worked on or off-the-clock and/or one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for all work performed in excess of forty (40) hours per work week." The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to: 1. direct the Defendants to provide to the Plaintiffs' counsel necessary information (to the extent available in Defendants' records), including each class member's full name, and last known address and telephone number; and 2. approve their proposed notice to be given to each Class Member. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=EHcgAg2z The Plaintiffs are represented by: Thomas R. Bundy III, Esq. LAWRENCE & BUNDY LLC 8115 Maple Lawn Blvd., Suite 350 Fulton, MD 20759 Telephone: (240) 786-4512 Facsimile: (240) 786-4998 E-mail: thomas.bundy@lawrencebundy.com - and - Leslie J. Bryan, Esq. Lisa M. Haldar, Esq. LAWRENCE & BUNDY LLC 1180 W. Peachtree St., N.W., Suite 1650 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 400-3350 E-mail: leslie.bryan@lawrencebundy.com lisa.haldar@lawrencebundy.com - and - Carlos J. Burruezo, Esq. Bertha L. Burruezo, Esq. BURRUEZO & BURRUEZO, PLLC 941 Lake Baldwin Lane, Suite 102 Orlando (Baldwin Park), FL 32814 Telephone: (407) 754-2904 E-mail: carlos@burruezolaw.com bertha@burruezolaw.com MERCK & CO: Faces FOP Antitrust Suit Over Zetia Price-fixing ------------------------------------------------------------ FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, MIAMI LODGE 20, INSURANCE TRUST FUND on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. MERCK & CO., INC.; MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP.; SCHERING-PLOUGH CORP.; SCHERING CORP.; MSP SINGAPORE CO. LLC; GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS, LTD.; and GLENMARK GENERICS INC., U.S.A., Case No. 2:18-cv-00035- RAJ-RJK (E.D. Va., January 18, 2018), alleges that FOP paid and reimbursed more for Zetia and its AB-rated generic equivalents than it would have absent the Defendants' anticompetitive conduct to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the prices and allocate markets and customers. FOP brings the action under the Clayton Act for injunctive relief and costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees, against the Defendants for the injuries sustained by the Plaintiff and the Class Members by reason of violations of Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act. Plaintiff FOP is a governmental plan established and funded through contributions from the City of Miami and the plan's members, who are current and retired sworn officers from the City of Miami Police Department and their dependents. FOP was established pursuant to a duly executed Trust Agreement for the purpose of providing medical, surgical and hospital care or benefits, including prescription drug benefits, to its members. Merck & Company, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of New Jersey, with its principal place of business in Kenilworth, New Jersey. Merck & Company is or was the parent company of Defendants Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation and MSP Singapore Company LLC. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of New Jersey, with its principal place of business in Kenilworth. Schering-Plough Corporation was a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of New Jersey, with its principal place of business in Kenilworth. Schering Corporation was a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of New Jersey, with its principal place of business in Kenilworth. In 2009, as part of Merck & Company, Inc.'s acquisition of Schering-Plough Corporation, Merck & Company, Inc. merged into Schering-Plough Corporation. Schering-Plough Corporation subsequently changed its name to Merck & Company, Inc., and the company originally known as Merck & Company, Inc. changed its named to Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation. MSP Singapore Company LLC is a company organized and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware, with its principal place of business in Kenilworth. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited is a company organized and existing under the laws of India, with its corporate office in Mumbai, India. Glenmark Generics Inc., U.S.A., formerly known as Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Inc., U.S.A., is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware and having its principal place of business in Mahwah, New Jersey. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Wyatt B. Durrette, Jr., Esq. Christine A. Williams, Esq. Kevin J. Funk, Esq. DURRETTE, ARKEMA & GILL PC 1111 East Main Street, 16th Floor Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 775-6900 Facsimile: (804) 775-6911 E-mail: wdurrette@daglawrva.com cwilliams@daglawrva.com kfunk@daglawrva.com - and - Jayne A. Goldstein, Esq. SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP 1625 North Commerce Parkway, Suite 320 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33326 Telephone: (954) 515-0123 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 E-mail: jgoldstein@sfmslaw.com - and - Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Esq. SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP 35 E. State Street Media, PA 19063 Telephone: (610) 891-9880 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 E-mail: nfinkelman@sfmslaw.com MID-SOUTH MACHINE: "Burley" Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Scott M. Burley, individually and on behalf of all similarly- situated persons v. Mid-South Machine and Maintenance, Inc., and Ricky Butler and Donna Butler, Case No. 3:18-cv-00059 (M.D. Tenn., January 18, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid hourly and overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Plaintiff Scott M. Burley currently resides in Murfreesboro, Tennessee and is a citizen of the United States. Within the last three-year period, Plaintiff Burley was employed by Defendants as a machinist and machinist's helper from approximately February of 2016 through March of 2017. Defendant Mid-South Machine and Maintenance, Inc. is a privately owned company which provides precision machining, fabrication, welding, maintenance and other services in Tennessee. Defendants Ricky and Donna Butler were owners and co-owners of Mid-South Machine and Maintenance, Inc. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Trevor Howell, Esq. HOWELL LAW, PLLC Customs House, 701 Broadway Suite 401, Box 17 Nashville, TN 37203 E-mail: trevor@howelllawfirmllc.com - and - Peter F. Klett, Esq. R. Cameron Caldwell, Esq. DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC Fifth Third Center 424 Church Street, Suite 800 Nashville, TN 37219-2392 Tel: (615) 244-6538 E-mail: pklett@dickinsonwright.com ccaldwell@dickinsonwright.com MILLER ENERGY: Certification of Class Sought in "Gaynor" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Kenneth Gaynor, Marcia Goldberg, Gabriel R. Hull and Christopher R. Vorrath, Lead Plaintiffs in the consolidated lawsuit styled KENNETH GAYNOR, et al., Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. DELOY MILLER, et al., Case No. 3:15-cv- 00545-TAV-CCS (E.D. Tenn.), move the Court for an order certifying a class consisting of: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Miller Energy preferred shares pursuant and/or traceable to the public offerings on February 13, 2013, May 8, 2013, and/or June 28, 2013 Final Prospectus Supplements for the 10.75% Series C Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock ("Series C") and/or the public offerings on September 26, 2013, October 17, 2013, and/or August 21, 2014 Final Prospectus Supplements for the 10.5% Series D Fixed Rate/Floating Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock ("Series D") filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") (collectively, "Offerings") and who were damaged thereby ("Class"). Excluded from the Class are Defendants and their families, the officers and directors and affiliates of Defendants, at all relevant times, members of their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns, and any entity in which Defendants have or had a controlling interest. The Lead Plaintiffs also seek an order: (i) appointing themselves as Class Representatives; and (ii) appointing Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as Class Counsel and Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC as Local Class Counsel. The same Motion is also filed in Case Nos. 3:15-cv-00546-TAV-CCS and 3:16-cv-00232-TAV-CCS. Copies of the Motions are available at no charge at: * http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=7JaXm77Y * http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=4WVGMP9B * http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=litW06Yz The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jack Reise, Esq. Stephen R. Astley, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 750-3000 Facsimile: (561) 750-3364 E-mail: JReise@rgrdlaw.com sastley@csgrr.com - and - Christopher M. Wood, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 414 Union Street, Suite 900 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 244-2203 Facsimile: (615) 252-3798 E-mail: cwood@rgrdlaw.com - and - Douglas S. Johnston, Jr., Esq. Jerry E. Martin, Esq. Timothy L. Miles, Esq. BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC Bank of America Plaza 414 Union Street, Suite 900 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 244-2202 Facsimile: (615) 252-3798 E-mail: djohnston@barrettjohnston.com jmartin@barrettjohnston.com tmiles@barrettjohnston.com - and - Curtis V. Trinko, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CURTIS V. TRINKO, LLP 16 West 46th Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 490-9550 Facsimile: (212) 986-0158 E-mail: ctrinko@trinko.com - and - Werner R. Kranenburg, Esq. KRANENBURG 80-83 Long Lane London EC1A 9ET United Kingdom Telephone: +44 20 3174 0365 E-mail: werner@kranenburgesq.com MONITECH INC: Fourth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Cottle" Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Jessica Cottle filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Jessica Cottle v. Monitech, Inc., Case No. 7:17-cv-00137-BO, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina at Wilmington. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit seeks award, reasonable costs and attorneys' fees incurred in this action, including expert fees, pursuant to the Consumer Leasing Act. The Defendant offers "a fully integrated ignition interlock device program including manufacturing, installation, service and comprehensive monitoring and reporting". According to the complaint, the Defendant's lease agreements with the Plaintiff and all putative class members are defective for the same exact reasons: they do not provide the segregated disclosures required by the CLA and Regulation M in a manner substantially similar to that prescribed by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) -- the government agency charged with oversight of the Consumer Leasing Act until the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in 2011. The Defendant engineers, manufactures, and installs ignition interlock devices, which "prevent a vehicle from operating if [one's] blood alcohol content exceeds the legal limit established by the state. The Defendant leases its ignition interlock devices to drivers throughout the state of North Carolina through use of "consumer leases" as defined under the CLA. The appellate case is captioned as Jessica Cottle v. Monitech, Inc., Case No. 18-1080, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Fee or application to proceed as indigent was due February 20, 2018; -- Case Initial forms are due within 14 days; -- Opening Brief and Appendix are due on February 28, 2018; and -- Response Brief is due on March 30, 2018.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant JESSICA COTTLE, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, is represented by: Jesse S. Johnson, Esq. GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC 5550 Glades Road Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 826 5477 Facsimile: (561) 961 5684 E-mail: jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com - and - Wesley S. White, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF WESLEY S. WHITE 2300 East 7th Street Charlotte, NC 28204 Telephone: (702) 824-1695 E-mail: wes@weswhitelaw.com Defendant-Appellee MONITECH, INC., is represented by: Clifton L. Brinson, Esq. Irene Oberman Khagi, Esq. Carl Norris Patterson, Jr., Esq. SMITH, ANDERSON, BLOUNT, DORSETT, MITCHELL & JERNIGAN, LLP P. O. Box 2611 Raleigh, NC 27602-2611 Telephone: (919) 821-6605 Facsimile: (919) 821-6800 E-mail: cbrinson@smithlaw.com ikhagi@smithlaw.com cpatterson@smithlaw.com OLIVINA NAPA: Evans Files Suit Over False Ad -------------------------------------------- Patrick Evans, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Olivina Napa Valley LLC, Case No. 3:18-cv-00055 (M.D. Tenn., January 17, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, the New York General Business Law and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. The action seeks to remedy the deceptive and misleading business practices of Olivina Napa Valley LLC with respect to the marketing and sales of Olivina Men products throughout the country. The Plaintiff says Defendant manufactures, sells, and distributes the Products using a marketing and advertising campaign claiming that its Products are "NaturallyPure." However, Defendant's advertising and marketing campaign is false, deceptive, and misleading because the Products contain synthetic ingredients. Plaintiff Patrick Evans is an individual consumer and was a citizen of Bronx, New York. Defendant Olivina Napa Valley LLC is a corporation with its principal place of business in Franklin, Tennessee. Defendant manufactures, markets, advertises and distributes the Products throughout the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Benjamin A. Gastel, Esq. BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Blvd., Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Tel: (615) 254-8801 Fax: (615) 255-5419 E-mail: gerards@bsjfirm.com PARKWAY TROPICS: Misclassifies Exotic Dancers, "Cavazos" Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ashley Cavazos, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PARKWAY TROPICS, a Domestic Profit Corporation and EDWARD SAYFIE a/k/a JR, an individual jointly and severally, Case No. 1:18-cv-00011 (W.D. Mich., January 5, 2018), alleges that the Defendants misclassified the Plaintiff and others as independent contractors, as opposed to employees, at all times in which they worked as exotic dancers or entertainer dancers at the Defendants' adult nightclub. Parkway Tropics is a Michigan Corporation with a registered address in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Parkway Tropics operates a nightclub. Edward Sayfie is a manager, employee or agent of Parkway Tropics.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Anthony Alvarez, Esq. AVANTI LAW GROUP, P.C. 600 28th St. SW Wyoming, MI 49509 Telephone: (616) 257-6807 E-mail: ralvarez@avantilaw.com PINNACLE ENTERTAINMENT: Allen Moves to Certify Three Collectives ---------------------------------------------------------------- Richard L. Allen, Valery S. Sanchez, Lisa Mesplay and Katherine Kobermann, Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled RICHARD L. ALLEN, et al. v. PINNACLE ENTERTAINMENT, INC., et al., Case No. 4:17-cv- 00374-GAF (W.D. Mo.), moves for conditional class certification of these collectives: a. Nationwide Timekeeping Policy Collective: All hourly employees who worked at Pinnacle or Pinnacle's subsidiary properties or casinos in the United States at any time from three years prior to the filing of the Complaint, who clocked-in and clocked-out on an automated timeclock; b. Nationwide Tip Credit Notice Policy Collective: All hourly employees who worked at Pinnacle or Pinnacle's subsidiary properties or casinos in the United States at any time from three years prior to the filing of the Complaint, and who were paid a direct hourly wage that was less than the federal minimum wage at that time; and c. Nationwide Table Games Supervisor Collective: All Table Games Supervisors, or others with the same or similar job titles, duties, and compensation structures, who worked at Pinnacle or Pinnacle's subsidiary properties or casinos in the United States at any time from three years prior to the filing of the Complaint, and who were classified as exempt from the FLSA's overtime requirements. The Plaintiffs filed suit against Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc., PNK (River City), LLC d/b/a River City Casino & Hotel, and Ameristar Casino Kansas City, LLC, alleging that the Defendants had a policy and practice of failing to properly pay Plaintiffs Allen and Sanchez, and other similarly situated employees, overtime and/or minimum wage in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Missouri law. The Defendants also allegedly misclassified Plaintiffs Mesplay and Kobermann, and other similarly situated employees, as exempt under the FLSA, and denied them compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to: -- appoint Plaintiffs Richard L. Allen and Valery S. Sanchez as class representatives for the Nationwide Timekeeping Policy Collective and Nationwide Tip Credit Notice Policy Collective; -- appoint Plaintiffs Lisa Mesplay and Katherine Kobermann as class representatives for the Nationwide Table Games Supervisor Collective; -- appoint Osman & Smay LLP and McClelland Law Firm, P.C., as class counsel for each collective; -- order the Defendants to produce necessary information for each member of each collective; -- approve the proposed FLSA Collective Notice to Class Members and Consent Form; -- order that the Notice be mailed via first-class mail and electronic mail to such persons within 45 days of the order granting Plaintiffs' motion for conditional class certification; -- order the posting of the Notice of the pending suit in conspicuous locations at Defendants' subsidiary casinos and properties where putative class members are employed (including break room bulletin boards or bulletin boards where job notices are posted) during the opt-in period; -- order a reminder postcard or electronic mail notice to putative class members 30 days before the opt-in deadline; and -- order that all Consent Forms of the putative class members be received and filed with the Court within 120 days of the order granting Plaintiffs' motion for conditional class certification. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=CkBhdg8j The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew E. Osman, Esq. Kathryn S. Rickley, Esq. OSMAN & SMAY LLP 8500 W. 110th Street, Suite 330 Overland Park, KS 66210 Telephone: (913) 667-9243 Facsimile: (866) 470-9243 E-mail: mosman@workerwagerights.com krickley@workerwagerights.com - and - Ryan L. McClelland, Esq. MCCLELLAND LAW FIRM, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION The Flagship Building 200 Westwoods Drive Liberty, MO 64068-1170 Telephone: (816) 781-0002 Facsimile: (816) 781-1984 E-mail: ryan@mcclellandlawfirm.com PORT AUTHORITY: Sued for Illegally Videotaping Exams ---------------------------------------------------- Colby Hamilton, writing for Law.com, reports that in-house medical personnel at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey are secretly video recording interactions between its employees and doctors, a new class action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York alleges. Charlene Talarico, a senior administrative secretary, stated that, after a physical "altercation" with a senior employee in August 2016, she visited the Port Authority's Office of Medical Services in Manhattan to have an injured hand examined. According to the complaint, Ms. Talarico was seen by Dr. Pascale Kerlegrand, a Port Authority physician who diagnosed her with a sprain. Ms. Talarico went on to file a complaint against the employee in New Jersey municipal court. As part of the discovery in that case, Talarico said she obtained video security footage connected to the fight. One of those videos, she said, "reflected her entire medical exam by Dr. Kerlegrand." The video appeared to come from a stationary security camera in the closed exam room, according to the complaint. While she "remained fully clothed during her medical exam," Ms. Talarico said the room contained a privacy curtain typical of an area where "patients undress in order to receive medical care." Ms. Talarico said she did not consent to the filming. The complaint -- which alleges 14th Amendment search and seizure violations, and parallel state privacy claims -- seeks class status for the "hundreds or thousands" of Port Authority employees "who may have been examined and covertly surveilled" during medical exams. Weissman & Mintz's William Schimmel represents Ms. Talarico and declined to comment. In an emailed statement from a Port Authority spokesman, the authority denied the allegations at the heart of the suit. "We do not comment on pending litigation. But the Port Authority's employees should be reassured that the Port Authority emphatically does not, and did not, have video cameras in private medical examination rooms," the statement said. [GN] RDX TRANSPORT: Pettigrew Sues Over Misclassification of Drivers --------------------------------------------------------------- JACK PETTIGREW II, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RDX TRANSPORT, INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1 -20, Case No. BC689083 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., January 4, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for their alleged willful misclassification of the Plaintiff and other Class Members as independent contractors, and their failure to properly pay current and former truck drivers. RDX is a California corporation with its principal place of business in Fresno, California. RDX is a trucking and logistics company that transacts millions of dollars of business transporting general freight and dried foods in California to destinations across California, including to Oakland and Long Beach (in Los Angeles County). The Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig J. Ackermann, Esq. Sam Vahedi, Esq. ACKERMANN & TILAJEF, P.C. 1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 610 Los Angeles, CA 90035 Telephone: (310) 277-0614 Facsimile: (310) 277-0635 E-mail: cja@ackermanntilajef.com sv@ackermanntilajef.com - and - Jonathan Melmed, Esq. MELMED LAW GROUP P.C. 1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 610 Los Angeles, CA 90035 Telephone: (310) 824-3828 Facsimile: (310) 862-6851 E-mail: jm@melmedlaw.com RENT-A-CENTER INC: "Williams" Class Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri ----------------------------------------------------------------- The lawsuit captioned Williams, et al. v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., Case No. 1722-CC11893, was removed on January 5, 2018, from the Circuit Court of St. Louis City, Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (St. Louis). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:18-cv-00026-JAR to the proceeding.[BN] Plaintiffs Myra Williams and Sade Beaton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Christopher E. Roberts, Esq. David T. Butsch, Esq. BUTSCH ROBERTS & ASSOCIATES, LLC 231 S. Bemiston, Suite 260 Clayton, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 863-5700 Facsimile: (314) 863-5711 E-mail: roberts@butschroberts.com butsch@butschroberts.com Defendant Rent-A-Center, Inc., is represented by: Jocelyn A. Villanueva, Esq. Nicholas L. DiVita, Esq. Timothy R. West, Esq. BERKOWITZ OLIVER, LLP 2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 1200 Kansas City, MO 64108 Telephone: (816) 561-7007 Facsimile: (816) 561-1888 E-mail: jvillanueva@berkowitzoliver.com ndivita@berkowitzoliver.com twest@berkowitzoliver.com REPROS THERAPEUTICS: "Franchi" Suit Challenges Sale to Allergan --------------------------------------------------------------- ADAM FRANCHI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. REPROS THERAPEUTICS INC., PATRICK FOURTEAU, KATHERINE A. ANDERSON, DANIEL F. CAIN, LARRY DILLAHA, NOLA E. MASTERSON, SAIRA RAMASASTRY, MICHAEL G. WYLLIE, ALLERGAN SALES, LLC, and CELESTIAL MERGER SUB, INC., Case No. 1:18-cv-00053-UNA (D. Del., January 3, 2018), stems from a proposed transaction, pursuant to which Repros will be acquired by Allergan and Celestial Merger Sub, Inc. On December 11, 2017, Repros' Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Allergan. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub commenced a tender offer, set to expire on January 29, 2018, and shareholders of Repros will receive $0.67 in cash for each share of Repros common stock. Repros is a Delaware corporation and maintains its principal executive offices in Woodlands, Texas. The Company is a development stage biopharmaceutical company focused on the development of new drugs to treat hormonal and reproductive system disorders. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. Allergan is a Delaware limited liability company and a party to the Merger Agreement. Merger Sub is a Delaware corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Parent, and a party to the Merger Agreement.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com - and - Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (484) 324-6800 E-mail: rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com RUSHMORE LOAN: Leones Appeals S.D. Florida Ruling to 11th Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Silvia Leones filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Silvia Leones v. Rushmore Loan Management Services LLC, Case No. 0:17-cv-61266-WPD, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit was filed against Rushmore Loan on June 27, 2017, and assigned to the Hon. Judge William P. Dimitrouleas. The nature of suit is stated as consumer credit. Rushmore Loan provides residential mortgage loan servicing and customer support. The appellate case is captioned as Silvia Leones v. Rushmore Loan Management Services LLC, Case No. 18-10137, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- The appellant's brief was due February 20, 2018; -- The appendix is due no later than 7 days from the filing of the appellant's brief; and -- Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons was due on or before February 7, 2018, as to Appellee Rushmore Loan Management Services LLC.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant SILVIA LEONES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Jonathan Harris Kline, Esq. JONATHAN KLINE, P.A. 2761 Executive Pk. Dr. Fort Lauderdale, FL 33331 Telephone: (954) 888-4646 Facsimile: (954) 888-4647 E-mail: Jonathan.Kline@JKLawFL.com Defendant-Appellee RUSHMORE LOAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES LLC is represented by: Dale A. Evans, Jr., Esq. Douglas A. Goldin, Esq. LOCKE LORD, LLP 525 Okeechobee Blvd., Suite 1600 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: (561) 833-7700 Facsimile: (561) 655-8719 E-mail: dale.evans@lockelord.com Doug.Goldin@lockelord.com RUTHERFORD COUNTY, TN: Probationers Set to Get Settlement Payout ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sam Stockard, writing for Murfreesboro Post, reports that tens of thousands of former probationers who could be eligible for awards through a class-action lawsuit settlement with Rutherford County and Providence Community Corrections have been mailed forms to claim their money. The final step in the case is to make sure as many people as possible can obtain the money they're entitled to receive through a federal judge's preliminary approval of the $14.3 million settlement, according to Alec Karakatsanis, an attorney with Civil Rights Corps who brought the lawsuit. "This settlement is an important one not only because it will pay a fund of $14.3 million to some of Rutherford County's poorest people whose constitutional rights were violated, but also because it ensures that the legal system will protect their rights going forward," Mr. Karakatsanis said. Anyone required to pay fines, fees or costs stemming from a misdemeanor or traffic case in Rutherford County from Oct. 1, 2011 to Oct. 5, 2017 and was under the supervision of PCC or Rutherford County's probation department could be a member of the settlement class, according to the website www.pccrutherfordsettlement.com. Anyone with questions also can call (888) 805-9210. People who owed or paid money to PCC could be eligible to receive cash awards from a settlement fund based on the amount they paid or owed to PCC and the length of time they were on probation, according to the web site. The site enables people to click on a claim form to seek payment from the fund, a step they must take by April 27, 2018. A settlement administrator will determine the amount they will receive based on the information they provide. Those who file claims by that date will give up their right to be part of another lawsuit arbitration or proceeding against the defendants for the same legal claims resolved this settlement. People also could remain in the settlement but object to its terms by writing the court and explaining their dissatisfactions by April 27. In addition, people could go to a fairness hearing June 25 and ask to speak to the court about the settlement's fairness. A group of residents filed the federal class-action lawsuit in October 2015 contending they were the "victims of an extortion scheme" in which the county and PCC "conspired to extract as much money as possible from misdemeanor probationers through a pattern of illegal and shocking behavior." Rutherford County began contracting with PCC several years ago because it had a large number of outstanding fees it couldn't collect from people convicted of misdemeanors in General Sessions Court. But when PCC took over Rutherford County's probation system, rather than receiving a fee from the county, it earned millions in profits annually by requiring payments from low-income people under its supervision. Often this meant having probationers sent to jail because they couldn't afford to pay its private fees and trapping them in a cycle of debt, endless probation extensions and more jail time, the plaintiffs' attorneys said. PCC and Rutherford County admitted no wrongdoing as part of the settlement in the lawsuit. "There are some things we're going to have to change going forward and how we manage misdemeanors coming through the court system, etc.," Rutherford County Mayor Ernest Burgess said after the lawsuit settlement. Burgess also said the county made substantial progress in serving probationers differently through its government-run department than PCC did. Rutherford County set up its own probation service in April 2016 after PCC was acquired by a California-based company and dropped probation services. Washington, D.C.-based Equal Justice Under Law filed the lawsuit Oct. 1, 2015, and the law firm Baker Donelson filed a landmark RICO and constitutional class action lawsuit, Rodriguez v. Providence, in federal court in Nashville. Mr. Karakatsanis set up Civil Rights Corps and continued handling the case after a split with Equal Justice. [GN] SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Consumers Sue Over Plasma TV Defect -------------------------------------------------------- Ryan Boysen, writing for Law360, reports that a disgruntled consumer slapped Samsung and Sears with a proposed class action in Utah federal court on Feb. 5, alleging the pair manufactured and sold faulty plasma televisions prone to quick deaths through overheating. Charles D. McCallon says Samsung knowingly outfitted several models of its plasma TVs with inferior component parts in a bid to make its televisions more affordable, "at least at the outset." The televisions routinely burn out long before the eight-year lifespan any "reasonable" consumer would expect, Mr. McCallon says. The case is McCallon v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al, Case No., 2:18-cv-00114 (D. Utah.). The case is assigned to Judge Magistrate Judge Evelyn J. Furse. The case was filed February 5, 2018. [GN] SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Fails to Provide Timely Breaks, "Lam" Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- ALFRED LAM, an individual, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, a public entity, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. CGC-18-563516 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., January 4, 2018), accuses the Defendants of violating the California Labor Code by failing to provide the Plaintiff and members of the putative class with timely meal and rest breaks, and proper wage statements. The Plaintiff is a current employee in the Juvenile Probation Department for San Francisco. The City and County of San Francisco is a governmental entity, and/or a municipal body, duly organized and existing under the laws of the state of California and situated in the City and County of San Francisco. The City and County operate the Juvenile Probation Department (Youth Guidance Center), which is administered by the Juvenile Probation Commission. The Commission consists of seven members appointed by the Mayor of the City and County of San Francisco.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marcus J. Bradley, Esq. Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq. Taylor L. Emerson, Esq. BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP 2815 Townsgate Road, Suite 130 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Telephone: (805) 270-7100 Facsimile: (805) 270-7589 E-mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com TEmerson@bradleygrombacher.com SANDISK LLC: Class Certification Sought in Securities Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- City of Bristol Pension Fund, City of Milford, Connecticut Pension & Retirement Board, Pavers and Road Builders Pension, Annuity and Welfare Funds, the City of Newport News Employees' Retirement Fund, and Massachusetts Laborers' Pension Fund, Lead Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled IN RE: SANDISK LLC SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 3:15-cv-01455-VC (N.D. Cal.), move the Court for an order: (i) certifying the case as a class action; (ii) appointing the Lead Plaintiffs as class representatives; and (iii) appointing Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP, as class counsel. The securities fraud claims at issue present the quintessential candidates for class certification under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Lead Plaintiffs contend. Lead Plaintiffs, five large institutional investors who collectively manage billions of dollars, allege that the Defendants misled the market regarding the financial and operational performance of SanDisk's critical Enterprise business and Fusion-io segment. This artificially propped up or inflated SanDisk's stock price and caused investors substantial losses when the truth was revealed, the Lead Plaintiffs argue. The Court will commence a hearing on March 29, 2018, at 10:00 a.m., to consider the Motion. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=lWRk1HLa The Lead Plaintiffs are represented by: Deborah Clark-Weintraub, Esq. Max Schwartz, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP The Helmsley Building 230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 223-6444 Facsimile: (212) 223-6334 E-mail: dweintraub@scott-scott.com mschwartz@scott-scott.com - and - Jonathan Gardner, Esq. Carol C. Villegas, Esq. Ross M. Kamhi, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 E-mail: jgardner@labaton.com cvillegas@labaton.com rkamhi@labaton.com - and - Steven J. Toll, Esq. Elizabeth Aniskevich, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 E-mail: stoll@cohenmilstein.com eaniskevich@cohenmilstein.com - and - Christopher Lometti, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 88 Pine Street, 14th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 838-7797 Facsimile: (212) 838-7745 E-mail: clometti@cohenmilstein.com The Defendants are represented by: Keith E. Eggleton, Esq. Boris Feldman, Esq. Catherine Moreno, Esq. Michael Roland Petrocelli, Esq. WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 650 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050 Telephone: (650) 493-9300 Facsimile: (650) 493-6811 E-mail: keggleton@wsgr.com boris.feldman@wsgr.com cmoreno@wsgr.com mpetrocelli@wsgr.com STAPLES GROUP: Worsley Seeks to Certify Class of AS Managers ------------------------------------------------------------ The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled JEANIE WORSLEY, On behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. THE STAPLES GROUP, INC, and STAPLES CONTRACT & COMMERCIAL, INC., Case No. 2:17-cv- 02254-CM-JPO (D. Kan.), moves the Court for an order: 1) finding that the Plaintiff has met her burden under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) with regards to her Fair Labor Standards Act claim and conditionally certifying the Plaintiff's claims as a collective action; 2) authorizing a notice to be mailed to all members of the class consisting of Account Services Manager, and other persons with similar job duties and compensation structures, employed by Staples Contract & Commercial, Inc. at any time within the past three (3) years; 3) requiring the Defendant to provide to the Plaintiff a list of the first and last names, last-known addresses, telephone numbers, e-mail addresses, dates of employment, date of birth, location of employment, and the last four digits of the individual's social security number of all members of the putative class; 4) requiring the Defendant to post the Notice of this lawsuit in conspicuous locations where it employs its Account Services Managers and others with similar job titles, duties and compensation structures; 5) tolling the statute of limitations from the date of the filing of the Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Class Certification until the close of the opt-in period; 6) designating Jeanie Worsley as class representative; and 7) approving of the Plaintiff's counsel to act as class counsel in this matter. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=q0t97mtw The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew E. Osman, Esq. Kathryn S. Rickley, Esq. OSMAN & SMAY LLP 8500 W. 110th Street, Suite 330 Overland Park, KS 66204 Telephone: (913) 667-9243 Facsimile: (866) 470-9243 E-mail: mosman@workerwagerights.com krickley@workerwagerights.com The Defendants are represented by: Daniel B. Boatright, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 1201 Walnut, Suite 1450 Kansas City, MO 64106 Telephone: (816) 627-4400 Facsimile: (816) 627-4444 E-mail: dboatright@littler.com SWISSPORT SA: Faces Class Action Over Meal Break, FCRA Violations ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Los Angeles employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP, lodged a putative class action lawsuit against Swissport SA, LLC for allegedly failing to provide their workers in California with the legally required thirty minute uninterrupted meal periods and rest periods. The class action also alleges that Swissport failed to properly reimburse their California employees for necessary business expenses they incurred on the company's behalf. The Swissport SA, LLC class action is currently pending in the Los Angeles County Superior Court for the State of California, Case No. BC691058. The lawsuit filed against Swissport SA, LLC alleges that the aviation services company failed to provide their California employees with the legal required thirty (30) minute uninterrupted meal break prior to their fifth hour of work. The complaint alleges "DEFENDANT was aware that PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members did not take their meal and rest periods because of the workload and time constraints imposed upon them by DEFENDANT but DEFENDANT refused to remit premium payments to these employees for their missed meal and rest breaks." The Class action lawsuit also alleges that the company violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by unlawfully, unfairly and/or deceptively having in place company policies, practices and procedures that uniformly obtained credit reports on prospective employees without first obtaining valid authorization consent forms. For more information about the class action lawsuit filed against Swissport SA, LLC, please call Attorney Nicholas De Blouw at (858) 999-1118. Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP, is a Northern California employment law firm that dedicates its practice to helping employees, fight back against unfair business practices, including violations of the California Labor Code and Fair Labor Standards Act. The firm has offices located in San Diego, Los Angeles, Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento and Chicago. [GN] TAYLOR, MI: Seeks Prelim. Approval of $31K Deal in "Garner" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The parties in the lawsuit titled LAWRENCE M. GARNER, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. CITY OF TAYLOR, a Municipal Corporation, JOHN DOE BUILDING INSPECTORS; JANE DOE BUILDING INSPECTORS, Case No. 2:16-cv-13374-VAR-RSW (E.D. Mich.), jointly ask the Court to preliminarily approve their Class Action Settlement Agreement. The Plaintiff filed a Class Action Complaint on September 16, 2016. The Plaintiff alleges that the City improperly administered its Building and Building Regulations Ordinance in violation of due process rights under the International Property Maintenance Code and in Violation of Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The proposed Settlement Class is comprised of: All persons and entities who currently own or at one time owned any parcel of real property located within the City of Taylor who or which has been issued civil infractions for failing to obtain a Certificate of Compliance for a Residential Dwelling or Residential Unit, and subsequently paid them, stemming from an inspection under the IPMC and the City Code, at any time since September 16, 2009 and through October 31, 2017. The City of Taylor has agreed to establish a settlement fund in an amount up to $31,000, which will be used in significant part to pay the claims of the Settlement Class Members, who are entitled to participate in the distribution of the settlement proceeds pursuant to the Settlement Agreement. Class counsel shall apply to the Court for an award of attorney's, fees in the amount of $10,333, which represents one- third of the settlement fund, plus reasonable out-of-pocket expenses. The Defendant will pay attorney fees and reasonable out-of-pocket expenses before any other deduction from the fund. The Defendant will pay the Named Plaintiff $1,500 from the Settlement Fund for representing the Settlement Class. The cost of administering the claims through a third-party administrator will also be paid from the Settlement Fund. A copy of the Joint Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=lOaIsw5z The Plaintiff is represented by: Aaron D. Cox, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF AARON D. COX, PLLC 23380 Goddard Rd. Taylor, MI 48180 Telephone: (734) 287-3664 E-mail: aaron@aaroncoxlaw.com - and - Mark K. Wasvary, Esq. MARK K. WASVARY, P.C. 2401 W. Big Beaver Rd., Suite 100 Troy, MI 48084 Telephone: (248) 649-5667 E-mail: markwasvary@hotmail.com Defendant City of Taylor is represented by: Gustaf R. Andreason, Esq. Michael F. Wais, Esq. Jonathan F. Karmo, Esq. HOWARD & HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC 450 W. Fourth St. Royal Oak, MI 48067-2557 Telephone: (248) 645-1483 E-mail: mwais@howardandhoward.com TD AMERITRADE: Sued by Gray Over Losses From Risky Trading Tactic ----------------------------------------------------------------- THACKERY S. GRAY, and YELENA F. GRAY, On Behalf Of Themselves And All Others Similarly Situated v. TD AMERITRADE, INC., and SHEAFF BROCK INVESTMENT ADVISORS, LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-00419 (N.D. Ill., January 19, 2018), alleges that the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties, as well as their contractual duties, to the Plaintiffs and proposed class members. The Plaintiffs and the putative Class members were TD Ameritrade customers and participants in TD Ameritrade's AdvisorDirect program. The Plaintiffs and the putative Classes participated in a "put options income" trading strategy recommended by TD Ameritrade and Sheaff Brock. The Plaintiffs contend that TD Ameritrade was obligated to monitor the trades to ensure they were consistent with the parties' relationship. The Plaintiffs allege that the "put options income" trading strategy that Sheaff Brock executed, and that TD Ameritrade effected and should have monitored, contradicted the strategy the Defendants described in writing and orally, and agreed to execute on behalf of Plaintiffs and the putative Classes. Not only was the trading strategy different and considerably riskier than the agreed upon strategy, it was also regularly unsuccessful and generated significant losses, the Plaintiffs tell the Court. The Plaintiffs add that they and the putative Classes have lost significant amounts of money as a direct result of the Defendants' conduct and breaches of their contractual fiduciary duties and other contractual duties. TD Ameritrade, Inc., is incorporated in New York and has its principal place of business in Nebraska. TD Ameritrade provides its customers with an online trading platform and typically receives a commission for each trade executed in its customers' accounts. TD Ameritrade also operates what it calls an "AdvisorDirect" program. Through its AdvisorDirect program, TD Ameritrade introduces its customers to Registered Investment Advisors, who can manage customers' accounts on their behalves. One of the RIAs that TD Ameritrade introduces its customers to is Sheaff Brock. Sheaff Brock Investment Advisors, LLC, is an Indiana limited liability company. Sheaff Brock is a privately-held corporation that provides investment advisory services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Edward Wallace, Esq. Andrew D. Welker, Esq. WEXLER WALLACE LLP 55 W Monroe Street, Suite 3300 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 346-2222 Facsimile: (312) 346-0022 E-mail: eaw@wexlerwallace.com adw@wexlerwallace.com - and - Charles J. Crueger, Esq. CRUEGER DICKINSON, LLC 4532 N. Oakland Ave. Whitefish Bay, WI 53211 Telephone: (414) 210-3900 E-mail: cjc@cruegerdickinson.com - and - Sean M. Sweeney, Esq. Patrick O'Neill, Esq. HALLING & CAYO, S.C. 320 E. Buffalo Street, Suite 700 Milwaukee, WI 53202 Telephone: (414) 271-3400 Facsimile: (414) 271-3841 E-mail: sms@hallingcayo.com pto@hallingcayo.com TIERRA LEASE: Court Certifies Class of Laborers in "Metting" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. Magistrate Judge Henry J. Bemporad granted a joint motion for conditional class certification filed by the parties in the lawsuit captioned RUSSELL METTING, on behalf of himself and others similarly-situated v. TIERRA LEASE SERVICE, LLC, JOSEPH NEWBERRY, LESLIE NEWBERRY, FRANK STABLER, JUAN CHAPA, JOHN CHAPA and TOMMY TISE, Case No. 5:17-cv-00044-DAE (W.D. Tex.). This class is conditionally certified: Current and former roustabouts, operators, foremen and skilled laborers employed since December 1, 2014, who were not compensated for travel time and/or work performed at Defendant's yard prior to or after each shift at the assigned job site; Or Current and former roustabouts, operators, foremen and skilled laborers employed since December 1, 2014, who received less than minimum wage on paychecks during their last month of employment with Defendant. Judge Bemporad directs the Defendants to provide Plaintiff with the names, addresses, and phone numbers (if available), of all putative class members. The Defendant need not provide the Plaintiff with known e-mail addresses for all putative class members at this time. The Court also approves the Proposed Notice to Potential Class members, both the English and Spanish versions. The Court also approves the Proposed Consent to Sue Form. The Plaintiff may publish one notice in two South-Texas based newspapers. The Defendant must post both the English and Spanish versions of the notice in a conspicuous place, regularly visited by employees at the Defendant's storage yard, for the duration of the opt-in period. The opt-in period will expire 70 days from the entry of this Order. The Plaintiff's lead counsel shall be responsible for and bear all costs associated with publishing the notice to all putative class members. A copy of the Joint Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=EgBHesTR A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=WdDnzPui The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles W. Branham, III, Esq. Rachel C. Moussa, Esq. DEAN, OMAR & BRANHAM, LLP 302 N. Market Street, Suite 300 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 722-5990 Facsimile: (214) 722-5991 E-mail: tbranham@dobllp.com rmoussa@dobllp.com The Defendants are represented by: Rachel Steely, Esq. Michael F. Ryan, Esq. GARDERE WYNNE SEWELL LLP 1000 Louisiana, Suite 2000 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 276-5500 Facsimile: (713) 276-5555 E-mail: rsteely@gardere.com mryan@gardere.com TITLE SOURCE: Swamy Moves to Certify Real Estate Appraisers Class ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned SOM SWAMY, on Behalf of Himself and on Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated v. TITLE SOURCE, INC., Case No. 3:17-cv-01175-WHA (N.D. Cal.), seeks class certification of a class consisting of: all persons who are or have been employed by Defendant Title Source, Inc. as a real estate appraiser for Defendant within the State of California at any time from March 7, 2013 (i.e., within four years prior to the date on which this action was filed) to the final disposition of this case (the "California Class"). Title Source is in the business of providing appraisal reports to customers, primarily banks and lenders, during the evaluation of mortgage applications. The proposed Class Members constitute a group of workers, who perform the same primary duty -- the production of appraisal reports for Title Source to sell to these customers. The case mainly concerns one question: whether the completion of appraisal reports constitutes work that is exempt from the overtime requirements, Mr. Swamy contends. Citing In McKeen- Chaplin v. Provident Savings Bank, 862 F.3d 847 (9th Cir. 2017), Mr. Swamy asserts that the Ninth Circuit addressed a very similar question and held that this type of work does not constitute exempt work. Mr. Swamy also asks the Court to appoint him as the Class Representative and his counsel as Class Counsel. The Court will commence a hearing on February 22, 2018, at 8:00 a.m., to consider the Motion. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Iws0lxv2 The Plaintiff is represented by: Lorrie T. Peeters, Esq. CAFFARELLI & ASSOCIATES LTD. 10265 Beardon Dr. Cupertino, CA 95014 Telephone: (408) 216-0599 Facsimile: (312) 577-0720 E-mail: lpeeters@caffarelli.com - and - Don Foty, Esq. Galvin Kennedy, Esq. KENNEDY HODGES, LLP 4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 E-mail: gkennedy@kennedyhodges.com dfoty@kennedyhodges.com TOKYO ELECTRIC: Ordered to Pay $10MM Over 2011 Nuclear Disaster --------------------------------------------------------------- Minami Funakoshi, writing for Reuters, reports that a Tokyo court on Feb. 7 ordered Tokyo Electric Power (Tepco) to pay around 1.1 billion yen ($10 million) to a group of Fukushima residents, local media reported, nearly seven years after the company's reactor meltdowns in northeastern Japan. A group of 321 people residents from Minami-soma in Fukushima prefecture had sought around 11 billion yen in damages in a class action suit, according to the reports. Minami-soma is a city about 30 km (19 miles) from Tepco's Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant, where reactors melted down after being hit by a massive tsunami in March 2011. After the disaster, some areas near the plant became no-gone zones, forcing many residents to flee their homes. A Tepco spokesman said a ruling was made by the Tokyo court on Feb. 7, but declined to comment further. Tepco has long been criticized for ignoring the threat posed by natural disasters to the Fukushima plant, and the company and government were lambasted for their handling of the crisis. Last year, a district court in Fukushima ruled in the largest class action lawsuit brought over the 2011 nuclear disaster that the company and the Japanese government were liable for damages totaling about 500 million yen. A group of about 3,800 people, mostly in Fukushima prefecture, filed the earlier class action suit, the biggest number of plaintiffs out of about 30 similar class action lawsuits filed across the nation. [GN] TOTAL PHARMACY: Court Denies Bobo's Drugs' Bid to Certify Class --------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. James S. Moody, Jr., denied the Plaintiff's motion to certify class filed in the lawsuit entitled BOBO'S DRUGS, INC. v. TOTAL PHARMACY SUPPLY, INC. and LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 8:17-cv-02553-JSM-AAS (M.D. Fla.). The Plaintiff filed both its Complaint and Motion to Certify Class on October 30, 2017. The Motion does not include a memorandum of law in support as required by Local Rule 3.01(a). Instead, the Plaintiff writes conclusory statements such as that the prerequisites of Rule 23(a) are met in part "[u]pon information and belief," according to the Order. The Court agrees with the Defendants in their response that at this time, the Plaintiff's Motion must be denied because its allegations lack factual support. "The Plaintiff should keep in mind the specifics of Local Rule 4.04 if it wishes to file another motion for class certification in the future," Judge Moody notes. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Xr0QVzZt TRADER JOE'S: Falsely Misrepresents Vitamin E Oil, Cesta Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- JESSICA CESTA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TRADER JOE'S COMPANY, and DOES 1 15 through 10, inclusive, Case No. BC689087 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., January 5, 2018), accuses the Defendants of misrepresenting Trader Joe's "Vitamin E Oil" product. The proposed class action lawsuit is brought on behalf of all purchasers of Trader Joe's Vitamin E Oil (the "Product"), sold at retail outlets throughout California and the United States. The Plaintiff contends that despite the label, Trader Joe's "Vitamin E Oil" is made mostly of soybean oil -- a cheaper, filler oil. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants intentionally mislead and shortchange consumers by falsely and deceptively misrepresenting the Product as a vitamin E oil, when in reality, the Product is a blend of oils, including soybean oil, vitamin E oil, and coconut oil. Trader Joe's Company is a corporation headquartered in Monrovia, California. Trader Joe's is the one of the owners, manufacturers, and distributors of the Product, and is one of the companies that created and/or authorized the false, misleading, and deceptive packaging for the Product. The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are presently unknown to the Plaintiff.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq. Shireen M. Clarkson, Esq. Bahar Sodaify, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. FILED 9255 Sunset Blvd., Suite 804 Los Angeles, CA 90069 Telephone: (213) 788-4050 Facsimile: (213)788-4070 E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com sclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com bsodaify@clarksonlawfirm.com TRANS UNION: Accused by "De La Rosa" Class Suit of Violating FCRA ----------------------------------------------------------------- Juan De La Rosa, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Trans Union, LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-00073- RJS (S.D.N.Y., January 4, 2018), alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Trans Union LLC develops and delivers information and risk management solutions. The Company offers various credit monitoring products, risk management solutions, marketing services, and other related solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Christopher Mallon, Esq. MALLON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PLLC One Liberty Plaza, Suite 2301 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (646) 759-3663 Facsimile: (646) 759-3663 E-mail: consumer.esq@outlook.com TROY CAPITAL: "Cruz" Suit Seeks Damages Under FDCPA --------------------------------------------------- Braian Cruz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Troy Capital, LLC and John Does 1-25, Case No. 1:18- cv-00717 (D. N.J., January 17, 2018), seeks damages, and declaratory and injunctive relief under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Plaintiff Braian Cruz is a resident of the State of New Jersey, County of Camden Defendant Troy Capital, LLC is a debt collector. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. RC LAW GROUP, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 E-mail: ysaks@rclawgroup.com TRUMP UNIVERSITY: 9th Cir. Upholds $25MM Class Action Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Marivic Cabural Summers, writing for USA Herald, reports that a federal appeals court upheld the $25 million settlement agreement in the class action lawsuit against Trump University. Students accused the now defunct for-profit education company of fraud for using misleading marketing practices. On Feb. 6, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Trump University can now move forward with the settlement agreement. The appeals court denied the petition of Sherri Simpson, the lone objector to the deal. Simpson, a bankruptcy lawyer in Florida, wanted to opt out of the agreement and pursue her own lawsuit against President Donald Trump. Simpson paid $19,000 for classes and a mentorship program offered by Trump University. The lawyers representing Simpson argued that the earlier notice sent to Trump University participants indicated that they have the right to drop out of the class action lawsuits immediately or after any settlement proposal. The court of appeals disagreed and stated that the notice to class action participants promised only one opportunity to opt out. The district court did not abuse its discretion in approving the settlement. District court acted well by approving Trump University settlement In its ruling, the court of appeals stated, "Both classes of plaintiffs would have faced significant hurdles had they proceeded to trial, including the difficulty of prevailing in a jury trial against either the president-elect (if the trial had proceeded as scheduled) or the sitting president. Under these challenging circumstances, the district court acted well within its discretion by approving the settlement." During the 2016 presidential election, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman filed a lawsuit against Trump University and Mr. Trump. Two class action lawsuits were also filed against them in the Southern District of California. On December 19, 2016, the defendants reached a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs, but did admit wrongdoing. Trump University agreed to pay $21 million to class action participants and $4 million to New York Attorney General's Office. At the time, a spokesperson for The Trump Organization explained that settling the lawsuits was necessary to allow the president to focus on the needs of the country. New York AG's comment In a statement, Mr. Schneiderman said, the court of appeal's approval of the settlement "means that victims of Donald Trump's fraudulent university will soon receive the $25 million in relief they deserve." He added that the final settlement ensures that class members "will receive an even higher settlement than anyone originally anticipated." Furthermore, Mr. Schneiderman said, "For years, President Trump refused to compensate the victims of his sham university. His reversal in 2016 -- and the large-scale settlement that resulted -- opened the door for student victims to finally obtain the restitution they deserve." [GN] TSU GLOBAL: "Williams" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ DEQUAN WILLIAMS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. TSU GLOBAL SERVICES INC. d/b/a CENTER CITY TRANSPORTATION INC. and CENTER CITY LIMO, Case No. 1:18-cv-00072- RRM-ST (E.D.N.Y., January 5, 2018), seeks to recover alleged unpaid overtime and misappropriated tips for the Plaintiff and his similarly situated co-workers, who have worked for the Defendant in the state of New York as "Drivers." TSU Global Services Inc. is a domestic corporation, authorized to do business pursuant to the laws of the state of New York. TSU maintains its principal place of business in Long Island City, New York. TSU describes itself as a company that "has been leading the way in corporate and personal transportation in New York City for the past twenty years." TSU touts its "diverse team of professional drivers are the best in the business, bringing with them dozens of years of experience in the field." Drivers transport TSU's customers in its buses, vans, and other vehicles.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Troy L. Kessler, Esq. Garrett Kaske, Esq. SHULMAN KESSLER LLP 534 Broadhollow Road, Suite 275 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 499-9100 E-mail: tk@shulmankessler.com gkaske@shulmankessler.com UNITED STATES: Fate of Indonesian Immigrants Still Uncertain ------------------------------------------------------------ Steph Solis, writing for Asbury Park Press, reports that a federal judge's ruling that temporarily blocked the deportations of Indonesian Christians without legal status in New Jersey offers them a lifeline, but it's unclear whether they ultimately will be allowed to stay in the U.S. U.S. District Judge Esther Salas in Newark blocked the removal of dozens of Indonesian Christians in New Jersey on Feb. 2 while she reviews a class-action lawsuit that would grant them a second chance to apply for asylum, based on an uptick in religious attacks in Indonesia. It may be weeks, even months, before the judge issues a final decision on their request. The ruling benefits several Indonesian Christian families who entered sanctuary at the Reformed Church of Highland Park. The group included Harry Pangemanan, 47, a church member who led a team of volunteers in rebuilding some 209 Shore homes damaged during Superstorm Sandy, and also traveled to other states to help victims of other natural disasters. "It's good to hear the good news. We don't want to be overly optimistic, particularly out of sensitivity to the families and children who are affected," said Matthew Hersh, a councilman in Highland Park who has supported the church's sanctuary initiative. "Everything is still up in the air." Mr. Pangemanan, whose tale of volunteerism and sanctuary went viral, said he and his family of four left the church on Feb. 4. Yohanes Tasik, another Indonesian Christian, said he planned to leave sanctuary on Feb. 5. Two others, Silfia Tobing and Arthur Jemmy, an Indonesian couple living in Edison, were aiming to return home on Feb. 6. The ruling doesn't stop agents from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement from detaining them, but it stops them from deporting them or moving current detainees to a facility in another district while the class-action lawsuit is reviewed. The Rev. Seth Kaper-Dale said he's not too concerned that ICE would make more arrests. "ICE could choose to detain everybody in this class, put them in Elizabeth Detention Center," Rev. Kaper-Dale said on Feb. 3 during a prayer service at the church. "That would be really dumb." ICE officials did not respond to multiple requests for comment. The local men are among dozens of ethnic Chinese Christians in New Jersey who fled persecution in Indonesia, a Muslim-majority nation, and overstayed their visas. They repeatedly requested asylum, but immigration courts denied their petitions because they applied after a one-year deadline imposed by Congress in a 1996 immigration law. Congressional critics of illegal immigration in the U.S. are pushing for changes that would criminalize visa overstays and curtail family-based migration. The story of the local families unfolds as the White House and Congress are considering a replacement to the expiring Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which has protected hundreds of thousands of unauthorized immigrants from deportation. Republicans are pushing for a budget deal that would reauthorize DACA and grant a path to citizenship for some 1.8 million immigrants who entered the country as children, in exchange for a $25 billion "trust fund" for a wall along the southwestern border and sharply restricting legal immigration. The new restrictions could include prosecuting people who overstayed their visas. Rep. Jim Banks, R-Ind., endorsed the changes. "Any DACA agreement should strengthen border security, improve enforcement technology, increase interior enforcement and address visa overstays," he wrote in a recent tweet. Rev. Kaper-Dale said the negotiations over DACA largely ignore the estimated 4.2 million children with immigrant parents who lack legal status. He wonders what will happen to them if their parents are deported. Mr. Pangemanan and his wife raised two U.S.-born daughters, ages 11 and 15, in Highland Park. He said he overstayed his visa because he feared religious persecution in his home country. During his time in New Jersey, Mr. Pangemanan went on several disaster relief missions with the church. He led a team of volunteers to rebuild 209 Jersey Shore homes hit by Sandy. He also joined volunteers in other states providing relief during Hurricane Irene in New York, the drinking water crisis in Flint, Mich., and Hurricane Harvey in Texas. "He forgot about his own life. He worried about everyone else," Laura Traynor, one of dozens of Union Beach homeowners helped by Mr. Pangemanan, told the Asbury Park Press. Although these Indonesians Christians failed to obtain asylum, ICE allowed them to remain in the country. The agency granted them "orders of supervision" if the agreed to come out of the shadows in 2009. But they remained unauthorized immigrants. The New Jersey case follows a similar case in New England where a federal judge ruled in favor of Indonesian Christians without legal status. Indonesian Christians in New Hampshire entered a similar agreement with an ICE field office known as "Operation Indonesian Surrender." They reportedly learned last year that ICE agents were ordered to discontinue the orders of supervision. While those in sanctuary and their relatives celebrated Judge Salas' ruling, they asked the community not to forget about immigrants without legal status detained or already deported by ICE. Roby Sanger, a Metuchen resident, was arrested Jan. 25 after taking his two daughters at school. So was Gunawan Liem of Franklin Park after he dropped off his daughter at a school bus stop. Parlin Sinaga, a father of three from Woodbridge, was detained by ICE in October. Feb. 3 marked his 111th day in detention. ICE Acting Director Thomas Homan told CNN in an interview that the unauthorized immigrants had no one to blame but themselves. "When someone enters this country illegally or someone overstays their visa, they know they're in this country illegally," Homan said. "If they take it upon themselves to have a child in this country and becomes a U.S. citizen by birth, he put his family in that position, not ICE, not border patrol." [GN] VILLAGE OF HOLLY: Gumbleton Appeals Oakland Cir. Ct. Ruling ----------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Heidi Marie Gumbleton filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled HEIDI MARIE GUMBLETON v. VILLAGE OF HOLLY, Case No. 2017-157734-CZ, in the Oakland County Circuit Court. The appellate case is captioned as HEIDI MARIE GUMBLETON v. VILLAGE OF HOLLY, Case No. 342025, in the Michigan Court of Appeals.[BN] Plaintiff HEIDI MARIE GUMBLETON/ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED is represented by: Dale M. Smith, Esq. 808 E Maple St. Holly, MI 48442 Telephone: (248) 634-7831 Facsimile: (248) 634-0096 E-mail: catydal@aol.com Defendant-Appellee VILLAGE OF HOLLY is represented by: Caroline Brooks Giordano, Esq. MILLER, CANFIELD, PADDOCK AND STONE, P.L.C. 101 North Main Street, 7th Floor Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Telephone: (734) 668-7732 Facsimile: (734) 747-7147 E-mail: giordano@millercanfield.com VODAFONE GROUP: Sued by Ferrare for Violating Australian Law ------------------------------------------------------------ CHARLES FERRARE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. VODAFONE GROUP PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY, VITTORIO COLAO and NICK READ, Case No. 1:18-cv-00466 (S.D.N.Y., January 18, 2018), alleges that the Defendants made false and 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. Vodafone is a London company with principal offices located in Berkshire, England. The Company also maintains an American regional headquarter in New York City. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. Vodafone is one of the world's largest telecommunications companies and provides a range of services, including voice, messaging, data and fixed communications. The Company has mobile operations in 26 countries, partners with mobile networks in 50 more, and fixed broadband operations in 19 markets.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Eduard Korsinsky, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 30 Broad Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: ek@zlk.com WEST BLOOMFIELD, MI: Court Vacates Summary Dismissal in "Logan" --------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of Michigan issued an Opinion vacating the judgment of the Circuit Court granting Defendant's Summary Judgment in the case captioned KEVIN LOGAN, Individually and on Behalf of All others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF WEST BLOOMFIELD, Defendant-Appellee, No. 333452 (Mich App.). Plaintiffs brought a self-styled class-action suit against West Bloomfield Charter Township, challenging fees levied by the township's building division. Their complaint asserted equitable and legal claims. The circuit court summarily dismissed plaintiffs' complaint in part upon the township's motion. The court dismissed the class plaintiffs' and Logan's individual Headlee Amendment claims arising before September 16, 2014, on statute of limitations grounds pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(7). The Mich. App. granted leave to appeal limited to the issue of whether the circuit court erred when it dismissed plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim premised on the township's alleged violation of the CCA. Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim premised on the township's alleged violation of the CCA (not the Headlee Amendment as incorrectly posited in the circuit court's opinion) pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8). Plaintiffs contend that the circuit court erred because: (1) they were permitted to plead alternative and inconsistent causes of action, and (2) the circuit court incorrectly ruled that plaintiffs were precluded from raising a claim of unjust enrichment premised on MCL 125.1522(1) where that statute did not expressly provide a legal remedy for violations of its provisions. In their CCA claim, plaintiffs assert that the township's building division fees were unreasonable and misappropriated for non-building division purposes in violation of MCL 125.1522(1). In the Headlee Amendment claim, plaintiffs contended that the township's fees were actually an illegal tax. There is no bright- line test for distinguishing between a valid user fee and a tax that violates the Headlee Amendment. Generally, a fee is `exchanged for a service rendered or a benefit conferred, and some reasonable relationship exists between the amount of the fee and the value of the service or benefit. A tax, on the other hand, is designed to raise revenue. Three primary criteria guide a court's determination: (1) a user fee must serve a regulatory purpose rather than a revenue-raising purpose, (2) user fees must be proportionate to the necessary costs of the service, and (3) a fee is voluntary. While the factual considerations are similar and interrelated, plaintiffs were not required to exclusively allege one claim over the other. Moreover, given that there is no bright-line test for a Headlee Amendment claim, it is entirely possible that plaintiffs' Headlee Amendment claim might fail, leaving them without an adequate legal remedy absent their unjust enrichment claim. Therefore, it was appropriate for plaintiffs to raise both claims in their complaint. The Mich. App. vacates the summary disposition judgment in relation to plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim and remanded for further proceedings. The Mich. App. does not retain jurisdiction. A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals' January 11, 2018, Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9448wdh from Leagle.com. LESLIE ANNE LOGAN, 3080 Orchard Lake Rd., Ste C, Keego, Harbor, MI, 48320 for KEVIN W. LOGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant. VAHAN C. VANERIAN, 2600 Troy Center Dr. PO Box 5025. Troy, MI 48084-4770, for CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF WEST BLOOMFIELD, Defendant- Appellee. WHITE COUNTY, TN: Certification of Class Sought in "Stall" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled DAVID STALL v. SHERIFF ODDIE SHOUPE, et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-00060 (M.D. Tenn.), moves to certify a class consisting of: all persons 1) who were free at the time of filing this action, 2) who were offered of a thirty-day reduction in jail time in exchange for receiving a vasectomy, 3) who were incarcerated at the White County Jail at any time during the period beginning October 9, 2016 and ending July 27, 2017, and 4) who did not sign up for an actual vasectomy. Oddie Shoupe is the Sheriff of White County, Tennessee. The Defendants instituted a planned eugenics program, coercing Plaintiff and other inmates under their care and custody to trade 30 days in reduced jail time, for at least temporary sterilization in the form of vasectomies, the Plaintiff asserts. The Plaintiff argues that the Defendants' modern-day Eugenics program has violated the Equal Protection rights of the class, and that is why he seeks to enjoin the Defendants' alleged unlawful conduct and obtain declaratory relief, as well as all allowable class damages. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=kunI5ZnE The Plaintiff is represented by: William H. Stover, Esq. STOVER LAW GROUP 222 2nd Ave. North, Suite 326 Nashville, TN 37201 Telephone: (615) 613-0541 Facsimile: (615) 613-0546 E-mail: ws@Wstoverlaw.com - and - Mario B. Williams, Esq. NEXUS CARIDADES ATTORNEYS, INC. 44 Broad Street, NW, Suite 200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (404) 654-0288 Facsimile: (703) 935-2453 E-mail: mwilliams@nexuscaridades.com WHITE COUNTY, TN: Garrett Seeks to Certify Class of Ex-Inmates -------------------------------------------------------------- Clara Molly Garrett, Cheyene Paige Mabe and Tonya Gail Qualls, Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned CLARA MOLLY GARRETT v. SHERIFF ODDIE SHOUPE, et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-00059 (M.D. Tenn.), file with the Court their consolidated motion to certify a class defined as: All persons 1) who were free at the time of filing this action, 2) who received a Nexplanon Implant in exchange for the offer of a thirty-day reduction in jail time, and 3) who received said Nexplanon implant while incarcerated at the White County Jail at any time during the period beginning October 9, 2016 and ending July 27, 2017. Oddie Shoupe is the Sheriff of White County, Tennessee. The Defendants instituted a planned eugenics program, coercing the Plaintiffs and other inmates under their care and custody to trade 30 days in reduced jail time, for at least temporary sterilization in the form of Nexplanon injections, according to the Plaintiffs. The Defendants' modern-day Eugenics program has violated the Fourteenth Amendment Substantive and Procedural Due Process rights of the class, the Plaintiffs contend. That is why the Plaintiffs say they seek to enjoin the Defendants' unlawful conduct and obtain declaratory relief, as well as all allowable class damages. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=NCIuTjqZ The Plaintiffs are represented by: William H. Stover, Esq. STOVER LAW GROUP 222 2nd Ave. North, Suite 326 Nashville, TN 37201 Telephone: (615) 613-0541 Facsimile: (615) 613-0546 E-mail: ws@Wstoverlaw.com - and - Mario B. Williams, Esq. NEXUS CARIDADES ATTORNEYS, INC. 44 Broad Street, NW, Suite 200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (404) 654-0288 Facsimile: (703) 935-2453 E-mail: mwilliams@nexuscaridades.com XUNLEI LIMITED: Faces "Dookeran" Securities Suit Over OneCoin ------------------------------------------------------------- RUNCIE DOOKERAN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. XUNLEI LIMITED, LEI CHEN, ERIC ZHOU and TAO THOMAS WU, Case No. 1:18-cv-00467 (S.D.N.Y., January 18, 2018), is a federal securities class action on behalf of all investors, who purchased or otherwise acquired Xunlei American Depositary Shares seeking remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Class Period begins on October 10, 2017, when Xunlei issued a press release announcing the introduction of "OneCoin" to the market on October 12, 2017, a blockchain-based product with no central bank endorsed value. Mr. Dookeran accuses the Defendants of failing to disclose that: (1) Xunlei had engaged into an unlawful financial activity; (2) OneCoin was a form of disguised Initial Coin Offering; (3) Xunlei was engaged into the promotion of an Initial Miner Offering; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, the Defendants' statements about Xunlei's business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Xunlei is incorporated in the Cayman Islands with its principal offices located in Shenzhen, China. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. Xunlei is a cloud- based acceleration technology company operating an Internet platform in China based on cloud technology to enable users to access, manage, and consume digital media content.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eduard Korsinsky, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 30 Broad Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: ek@zlk.com YELP INC: "Azar" Suit Alleges Exchange Act Violations ----------------------------------------------------- Roei Azar, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Yelp, Inc., Jeremy Stoppelman and Lanny Baker, Case No. 3:18-cv-00400 (N.D. Calif., January 18, 2018), is a securities class action on behalf of all purchasers of common stock of Yelp between February 10, 2017 and May 9, 2017, inclusive, alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint asserts that the Defendants made false and misleading statements which caused Yelp common stock to trade at an artificially inflated prices during the class period. Plaintiff Roei Azar purchased Yelp common stock during the Class Period and suffered damages. Defendant Yelp is a California corporation with its principal executive offices located in San Francisco, California. Yelp's stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker YELP. Yelp is an online review company to seek to provide a platform for businesses and consumers to interact regarding goods and services. Yelp provides business with both free and paid services and derives most of its revenue though the sale of advertising products. Defendant Jeremy Stoppelman is, and was at all relevant times, the Chief Executive Officer of Yelp and a member of its Board of Directors. Defendant Lanny Baker is, and was at all relevant times, the Chief Financial Officer of Yelp. [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 Tel: (310) 201-9150 Fax: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: lportnoy@glancylaw.com - and - Corey D. Holzer, Esq. Marshall P. Dees, Esq. Alexandria P. Rankin, Esq. HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC 1200 Ashwood Parkway, Suite 410 Atlanta, GA 30338 Tel: (770) 392-0090 Fax: (770) 392-0029 ZWICKER & ASSOCIATES: Accused by "Espeleta" for Violating FDCPA --------------------------------------------------------------- Gladys Espeleta, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Zwicker & Associates, P.C., Case No. 2:18-cv-00021- JMA-GRB (E.D.N.Y., January 3, 2018), alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The lawsuit is assigned to Judge Joan M. Azrack and referred to Magistrate Judge Gary R. Brown. Zwicker & Associates, P.C., operates as a law firm. The Company offers debt collection and other legal services to various sectors.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan L. Gentile, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF GUS MICHAEL FARINELLA 110 Jericho Turnpike, Suite 100 Floral Park, NY 11001 Telephone: (516) 326-2333 Facsimile: (516) 305-5566 E-mail: rlg@lawgmf.com * Class Actions Over Robocalls Against Major Cruise Lines Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- Chabeli Herrera, writing for Miami Herald, reports that nearly everyone is familiar with the call: A too-good-to-be-true offer for a "free" cruise, promising a stress-free Caribbean getaway -- as long as you BUY NOW. But it's when would-be travelers actually start to look at the details of their "free" vacation that things can get messy. Available dates may be severely limited. The seller may try to add on a hotel stay -- for a price. Travelers may find out they'll need to first sit through a timeshare presentation or pay government taxes or port fees -- despite the prohibition by Florida law that the only allowable charge for a prize is the cost of delivery. And those who cancel may find getting a refund to be nearly impossible. "When you start asking those questions and thinking about the hoops you have to jump through, the hassle might outweigh the 'free' cruise part," said Colleen McDaniel, senior executive editor at Cruise Critic, a cruise review website that has seen numerous complaints about "free" cruise offers. Still, many travelers bite, lured by a steeply marked-down vacation. All too often, such "free" travel offers can be deceptive schemes perpetrated by Florida-based companies trying to piggyback on South Florida's status as the Cruise Capital of the World. And, granted, some discounted voyages have yielded positive experiences. Facebook user Kelly Faust Ray said on Cruise Critic in the summer of 2017 that she had a "great time" on her "free" cruise. According to her post, she paid $29 a night plus taxes for a hotel stay in Fort Lauderdale, $15 for three daily buffets for two at the hotel, plus tax and gratuities, and government taxes and fees on the cruise. "We did have to go to a [90-minute] timeshare presentation -- we were out in [90 minutes]. How we figure it is this: We don't make $300 at our jobs in [90 minutes], you don't get something for nothing," she commented. "[Ninety minutes] out of our day is doable." But in many instances, such "free" travel deals turn into trouble for consumers: Last year, the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services received 1,028 complaints about travel or vacation plans, making it the No. 8 most common complaint. The department characterizes "free" cruise deals that require travelers to pay additional fees as travel scams. Online message boards, forums and social media sites are also rife with consumer posts complaining about "free" cruise schemes or seeking answers about offers they received. A 2010 post on maritime lawyer Jim Walker's Cruise Law News blog about Caribbean Cruise Line, a travel agency that allegedly sells "free" cruises and has been sued in a class action lawsuit, spawned a 72-comment spree that spanned six years, through August 2016. The company, not related to major line Royal Caribbean Cruises, has an "F" rating from the Better Business Bureau. The majority of the complaints on Walker's site referred to the business practices of Caribbean and similar firms. An editorial post about Caribbean's practices on the popular site Cruise Critic drew 84 comments. Facebook is home to a number of complaints about "free" cruise deals. As is Twitter. "Got a phone call telling me I won a free cruise today. Was cautiously optimistic for a few moments. Obviously a scam. Can't answer unknown numbers," tweeted user @Jamie_Thompson in November. How it works The scheme typically begins with a phone call telling the listener that he or she has won a "free" cruise, or asking the consumer to participate in a political survey. Some start with a post shared on Facebook, a text message or a mailer. Some travelers take the deal -- often only to rethink it when they can't book a date that matches their schedules or when they find out about additional fees. When they try to cancel for a refund, they find themselves trapped in a complex web of companies working together to market the "free" cruise, handle the booking and charge consumers -- making it difficult, if not impossible, to secure reimbursement. In most cases, none of those companies is the actual cruise line. While the issue is not new, several consumers recently reached out to the Miami Herald about problems with "free" or discounted cruise deals. Among them was Rebecca Wood, a retail worker from Port Wentworth, Georgia, who was planning to sail on an early October voyage on Bahamas Paradise Cruise Line. The one-ship (soon to be two) Fort Lauderdale-based line operates two-night voyages between the Port of Palm Beach and Grand Bahama Island. Wood and her boyfriend, Spencer Brown, said they received multiple unsolicited calls for a discounted cruise vacation -- with the caveat that they'd have to sit through a timeshare presentation. The callers said they were representatives of Bahamas Paradise Cruise Line, Wood said. But the phone numbers were actually associated with a Tampa-based travel agency called Blue Star Cruises. (Wood has filed a complaint with the state of Florida.) During the booking process, in December 2016, agents at Blue Star gave the couple a different number to call if they had questions, Wood said. It belonged to Orlando-based Grand Celebration Cruises. 1,028 Number of complaints about travel or vacation plans to the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services in 2017 Grand Celebration Cruises' name was similar to the name of the ship the couple was booking -- the 1,900-passenger Grand Celebration, owned by Bahamas Paradise Cruise Line. But the firm's name actually belonged to an inactive company y in Florida. Grand Celebration Cruises was in operation for only four months in early 2017, according to state records. Thinking they were being contacted by the cruise line, Bahamas Paradise, Wood and Brown went ahead with the $428 reservation. Then, shortly before the couple's sailing, the trip was canceled. Bahamas Paradise Cruise Line's ship was chartered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency to house hurricane relief workers in St. Thomas from Sept. 23 to Dec. 23. As a result, all the voyages in that time frame were canceled. The cruise line promised via a news release to refund affected travelers, so why were Wood and Brown struggling to get their refund? Although they didn't know it when they booked, they were dealing with four marketing companies at once. None of them was the actual cruise line, Bahamas Paradise. Blue Star Cruises called offering the discounted cruise. Fort Lauderdale-based Reservation and Fulfillment Services, Inc., emailed the itinerary. Fort Lauderdale-based Royal Seas Cruises emailed the notice that the cruise was canceled. And the now- defunct Grand Celebration Cruises billed them. "This whole time we thought we had booked directly through the cruise line," Wood said. "It was extremely misleading." She said she spoke to multiple representatives at Reservation and Fulfillment Services, for which she had contact numbers from email correspondence regarding her itinerary. The options offered: to take an all-land vacation in Florida, take a ferry to the Bahamas, or reschedule the cruise for another date within the next six months -- but pay the port fees again. "We said, 'None of these options are going to work for us, we want our money back.' And [the representative] said, 'Well that's not going to happen,'" Wood recalled. "They said, 'You paid a discounted rate.' I said, 'What I paid shouldn't matter. I'm not the one that is canceling the trip.' " Wood was caught in what experts allege is a tactic that is tried on hundreds, if not thousands, of travelers every year. The players involved in this complicated scheme may change, but the strategy remains the same. "It's all about plausible deniability," said Christopher Elliott, a consumer advocacy expert who has helped many travelers unravel these kinds of schemes across the travel industry. "You have entity A, the cruise line; entity B, the travel agency; and entity C, the fulfillment company. If something goes wrong with the trip, there is some finger pointing, some shoulder shrugging, but nobody is going to get a refund." In Wood's case, every company involved in the couple's reservation had behind it a string of complaints and unsatisfactory ratings from the Better Business Bureau. The exception is the cruise line itself, Bahamas Paradise Cruise Line, which has no rating with the Better Business Bureau but three stars on Yelp. Blue Star Cruises, a nearly 2-1/2-year-old company, has an "F" rating from the bureau and 46 complaints. Reservations and Fulfillment Services, Inc., established in December 2014, has scored a "C-". Royal Seas Cruises, also established in December 2014, has an "F" rating and 207 complaints filed against it in what the Better Business Bureau has identified as a pattern of similar grievances. Grand Celebration Cruises, in operation from February to June 2017, has a flunking grade with the bureau, too, an "F," and 35 complaints. But like most consumers, Wood didn't check the companies out before she booked, because she had no reason to know they were involved -- until later. When asked about Wood's reservation, Royal Seas Cruises vice president Melissa Hanson said via email that Wood and Brown, who made the reservation, "is not and has never been a customer of Royal Seas Cruises, so we have no information relating to them." Emails provided by the couple to the Herald tell a different story. One, from Royal Seas Cruises, the marketing firm, cited the couple's reservation number and was signed by the company with a street address matching the one for Royal Seas documented in state records. The server address from which the email was sent, royalseascs.com, re-directs to royalseascruises.com. "I see that the customer received an email that referenced Royal Seas, but that does not mean that it was sent by Royal Seas," Hanson said. "I am confused as well, but as I said earlier, this is not our customer." The other companies involved in Wood and Brown's reservation -- Blue Star Cruises, Reservations and Fulfillment Services, Inc., and Grand Celebration Cruises -- did not respond to several requests by the Miami Herald for comment. In October 2017, Wood and Brown filed a complaint with the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services against Reservations and Fulfillment Services, Inc., according to records from the department. But the agency pursued a case against the cruise line, Bahamas Paradise, instead. After multiple attempts to reach the cruise line with no response, the case was closed Jan. 26, state documents show. The case was reopened this month, the department said, but against the company with which Wood originally lodged her complaint: Reservations and Fulfillment Services, Inc. She has yet to secure a refund. Fighting 'free' cruise offers Wood's next step: Consider filing a lawsuit. But she and other victims face challenges there, too. Most maritime lawyers don't take on "free" cruise deal cases because the amount of money involved doesn't justify the legal costs of hiring an attorney, said three Miami-based maritime attorneys. "Unless you're dealing with a case on a class-action basis, it's hard to justify the time and tremendous expense of litigation," said Michel Winkleman, a maritime lawyer with Miami-based Lipcon, Margulies, Alsina and Winkleman. "That's part of a broader problem with corporations in general where they are taking advantage of individual consumers on such a small basis and it makes it difficult for lawyers to seek recourse for them." Major cruise lines allegedly have been involved, too. A 2012 class action lawsuit that claimed Carnival Cruise Line, Royal Caribbean International and Norwegian Cruise Line authorized Resort Marketing Group and related companies to make recorded robocalls offering "free" cruises, reached a settlement of up to $12.5 million in 2017. Because the defendants were major corporations, Chicago-based Burke Law Offices and Massachusetts-based Broderick Law and Law Office of Matthew P. McCue stand to share as much as nearly $4.4 million in fees and costs, although the court has yet to award legal fees. Also as part of the settlement, consumers who received unwarranted phone calls could be awarded up to $900 for the calls if they filed a claim. Some other class action lawsuits dealing with similar issues also have been successful. A 2012 case against Caribbean Cruise Line, the Fort-Lauderdale based travel agency, claiming the company was robocalling an estimated 900,000 people with political surveys and then offering them a "free" cruise, ended in a settlement of up to $76 million. People affected were entitled to $500 per call. A similar case against Caribbean brought on in 2015 by the Federal Trade Commission and attorneys general in 10 states, including Florida, ended in a permanent injunction for some of the companies that assisted Caribbean Cruise Line in running an illegal telemarketing campaign. According to the complaint, consumers were flooded by literally billions of robocalls -- and "free" cruise offers. A class action suit brought by two other consumers, Leshia Baxter of Arkansas and Arthur Keshishyan of California, on behalf of others who have claimed they received unsolicited calls was filed in July 2017, initially against Grand Celebration Cruises and Blue Star Cruises for allegedly making the calls and offering a "free" cruise package in exchange for taking a political survey. "This is a scam," the complaint alleges, "which, as the Washington Attorney General's Office has described, involves 'the patent illegality of commercial robo-calling and misrepresentations that it's a political poll.' Not only is the 'free' cruise not free, the survey is simply a marketing tool with no legitimate political basis." The lawsuit has yet to be resolved. Also still unresolved are three class action lawsuits against Royal Seas Cruises, all filed between May 2017 and January 2018, which include similar allegations of unsolicited calls for "free" cruises. In these seven cases and others that draw consumer complaints, patterns arise: Some of the companies, whether cruise line or travel agency, are represented by attorneys in a single law firm; some have common management. Case in point: In a September 2016 deposition for a personal injury case, Edward Norman Levitan, former executive vice president and chief financial officer at Bahamas Paradise Cruise Line, highlighted the relationship between some of South Florida's small cruise lines that offer quick trips to the Bahamas. According to Levitan, some of the same individuals who owned cruise company Imperial Majesty Cruise Line also later held ownership in Celebration Cruise Line -- a cruise line with an "F" Better Business Bureau rating -- before both companies closed after issues with their ships. Some of those same individuals then started Bahamas Paradise Cruise Line, bringing with them 50 to 60 percent of the former employees of Celebration Cruise Line, Levitan said. Bahamas Paradise retained the reservation-processing software used by Celebration. Cruise lines typically work with many agents or wholesalers to market their sailings. At the time of the 2016 deposition, Bahamas Paradise had contracts with approximately 70 wholesalers to market its cruises. Glenn Ryerson, former executive vice president for sales and marketing at Bahamas Paradise Cruise Line, put that number at more than 100 in a November 2017 Miami Herald interview. Among them, Ryerson said, was Royal Seas Cruises. But with major cruise lines, consumers generally pay the same price, whether they book directly with the company or with a travel agent, and prices are widely advertised. The cruise line pays the travel agent a preset commission, typically 15 percent. Like some other smaller lines, Bahamas Paradise allows the booking entity to set the price -- and choose what commission it gets -- as long as the cruise line gets its share. "So we quote them a specific net rate and they sell it for whatever they can sell it for and, you know, included in packages that they promote as travel packages and/or some of them just sell just the cruise itself," Levitan explained in the deposition, taken by maritime attorney Winkleman. Why this persists So if such practices are known to occur, creating problems for many consumers, why do these companies persist? In part, it's because the lawsuits that are filed generally name only the companies involved, and not the individuals who own or run them. Most businesses are registered as a corporation, partnership or limited liability company for tax purposes and to protect the owners against personal liability in case of legal proceedings. "Part of the reason you set up a corporation is to insulate yourself from personal liability," Winkleman said. "If there is nothing to go after in terms of insurance and assets, then no lawyer is going to take your case. These small little fly-by- night companies, they are [sometimes] nothing more than office space and a phone, so when they are committing wrongdoing, there is essentially nothing to go after." Most of the class action suits target companies for breaching the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, which restricts telemarketing calls and requires telemarketers to get written consent from consumers before robocalling them. As a result, the company may be shut down, but "the individuals can take all their assets and move them to a new company," said Elliott, the consumer advocate. All they need to do is file the new company name and articles of incorporation or organization online at sunbiz.org. The cost: between $70 and $160. The government's powers are also limited. The Florida Attorney General's Office's Consumer Protection Division, which gets many of the complaints, has only civil enforcement duty and can't press criminal charges against individuals. And though the state attorney's office may be able to pursue criminal charges, there isn't much incentive for them to do so. "Think about how low in the totem pole this is for them," Winkleman said. "If they are dealing with murders and rapes, this is really at the bottom of the totem pole for them." "Free" cruise deal cases involve relatively small amounts of money, too, so they are rarely brought by police to the attention of the state attorney's offices, said Jeff Marcus, chief assistant state attorney in Broward County, home to several of the companies involved in Wood's case. "I don't know that it's ever been presented to us as an investigation being done by police," Marcus said. If the amount of money involved is small, a single incident may not be severe enough to be a criminal action, he said. [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 * * *