/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/180320.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, March 20, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 57 Headlines ALLIED INTERSTATE: 3rd Cir. Flips Dismissal of "Tatis" FDCPA Suit AMERICAN SECURITIES: Faces "Homestead" Suit in New Jersey ANG DINER: Court Conditionally Certifies "Tello" Workers Class APPLE INC: Removes "Santino" Suit to C.D. California ARYZTA LLC: Appeals Award of Attorneys' Fees in "Barnes" Suit BPCL MANAGEMENT: Made Solicited Calls, "Eisenband" Suit Claims BRENTWOOD VILLAGE: Court Certifies "Borum" Apt. Residents Class BUCCINI/POLLIN: Faces "Levin" Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania BUILD A DREAM: Made Unsolicited Call, "Navarro" Suit Claims CALIFORNIA: Akers Ranch Suit Alleges Public Nuisance CBS CORPORATION: Faces "Hunkins" Suit over Wrongful Death CDK GLOBAL: FG Downing Suit Alleges Antitrust Violations CENTRAL CREDIT SERVICES: Santiago Alleges Violation of FCRA CIOX HEALTH: Removes "Graham" Suit to E.D. Missouri COMMUNITY RESOURCE: "Fiallo" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation CONTINENTAL SERVICE: Further Proceedings in "Lepak" Suit Stayed COURIER EXPRESS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Kincaid" Suit Says CRAZY HORSE: BakerHostetler Attorney Discusses 4th Circuit Ruling CREDIT CORP: Court Stays Further Proceedings in "Derosia" Suit CRUISIN' CHUBBYS: Exotic Dancers Class Certified in "Jones" Suit CVS HEALTH: Faces John Doe Suit over HIV/AIDS Treatment DISCOVER BANK: Court Grants Arbitration in "Johnson" FCRA Suit DIVERSIFIED RECOVERY: "Bradley" Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation EQUISOLAR INC: "Alaniz" Suit Seeks Damages Under CTA ETC INSTITUTE: Removes "Williams" Suit to N.D. California EXACTTARGET LLC: Court Grants Prelim OK of "Simms" Class Deal EXPERIAN INFORMATION: "Rosen" Suit Alleges Violation of FCRA FEDERAL REALTY: Faces "Brodie" Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania FERRARA CANDY: Iglesias Moves to Certify Consumers Class in Cal. FIT CLUB: Faces "Hagans" Suit over Failure to Pay OT Wages FREEDOM FINANCIAL: Made Unsolicited Calls, "Berman" Suit Claims GENOCEA BIOSCIENCES: Scott+Scott to Lead in Securities Suit GOOGLE LLC: Court Grants Huawie's Bid to Dismiss Nexus 6P Suit ILLINOIS: Titus Moves to Certify Class of Pontiac Jail Detainees INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS: Zepeda Sues over Use of Biometrics J.A. CAMBECE: "Brook" Suit Moved to District of Massachusetts JEFFERY H JORDAN: Court Grants Prelim. OK of "Barrientos" Deal JUNO THERAPEUTICS: Faces "Piloco" Suit Over Proposed Merger KOHN LAW: Court Denies Arbitration of "Rizzo" FDCPA, FCRA Claims LEGACY SUPPLY: Court Grants Prelim OK of $625K Class Settlement LUMINESS DIRECT: Faces 1st "Ruthrauff" TCPA Suit LUMINESS DIRECT: Faces 2nd "Ruthrauff" TCPA Suit METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION: Farina Sues over Cashless Toll MONAT GLOBAL: Sohovich Sues over Hair Loss After Use of Products MONSANTO COMPANY: Beam Suit Moved to N.D. California MONSANTO COMPANY: Coleman Suit Moved to N.D. California MONSANTO COMPANY: Crowe Suit Moved to N.D. California MONSANTO COMPANY: Scott Suit Moved to N.D. California MONSANTO COMPANY: Sullivan Suit Moved to N.D. California MONSANTO COMPANY: Toyer Suit Moved to N.D. California MONSANTO COMPANY: White Suit Moved to N.D. California MONSANTO COMPANY: "Bedenbender" Suit Move to N.D. California MONSANTO COMPANY: "Dehard" Suit Moved to N.D. California MONSANTO COMPANY: "Hudson" Suit Moved to N.D. California MONSANTO COMPANY: "Luckey" Suit Moved to N.D. California MONSANTO COMPANY: "Ruffin" Suit Moved to N.D. California MONSANTO COMPANY: "Schwartz" Suit Moved to N.D. California MONSANTO COMPANY: "Williams" Suit Moved to N.D. California MONSANTO COMPANY: "Wolfe" Suit Moved to N.D. California MONSANTO COMPANY: Sharp Sues over Sale of Roundup Products N.A.R. INC: Page Alleges Wrongful Conduct over Debt Collection NEWPORT BEACH: Ubaldi Alleges Wrongful Debt Collection NISSAN EXTENDED: Arkliss Sues over 0% Financing Scheme NORM REEVES: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Khan" Suit Claims NORTHSTAR MEMORIAL: Removes "Uschold" Suit to N.D. California OPENROAD MANAGEMENT: "Collins-Laster" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages PACKERS SANITATION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Sanchez Jr." Says PATHWAY LEASING: "Fails" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations PHOENIX LIFE: Court Declines to Dismiss "Halpern" Suit QUALITY RESOURCES: Court Certifies "Toney" TCPA Class RBC CAPITAL: Faces "Pfeifer" Suit in Florida Palm Beach County RITE CHECK: Fails to Pay Wages, "Guerrero" Suit Claims ROBERT BOSCH: Bid for Production of Docs for European Suit Denied ROBINHOOD CRYPTO: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Tecson" Claims SALSAS AND BEER: Ordered to Produce Designee for Deposition SANTA BARBARA, CA: Murray Seeks to Certify ADA Class and Subclass SANTO COYOTE: "Batista" Suit Seeks Damages under FLSA SAVOY BANCORP: Faces "Delacruz" Suit in S.D. New York SCHUMACKER ELECTRICAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wage, "Kelley" Claims SHAKE SCHACK: Faces "Bostick" Suit over Failure to Pay Overtime SOUTH PASADENA CARE: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Schwade" Suit Says ST. LOUIS RAMS: "McAllister" Suit to State Court SURETEMPS LLC: Catherine Seeks Certification of Hoppers Class SWISSPORT SA: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, "Jackson" Suit Claims SYSTEMS & SERVICES: "Chavez" Suit Seeks Damages Under TCPA TAKEDA AMERICA: Court Allows Indirect Purchasers to Amend Suit TRAVELERS INDEMNITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Hoyt" Claims TREEHOUSE FOODS: Court Denies Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit TURNER OIL: Wins Prelim. Approval of $500K Deal in "Stanley" Suit ULTA BEAUTY: Removes "Devries" Suit to N.D. Illinois UNITED PARCEL: Removes "Vawter" Suit to C.D. California UNITED STATES: Ramirez Moves to Certify Class of Immigrant Teens WAL-MART STORES: Goins Moves for Class Certification Under TCPA WALTERS & MASON: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Teixeira" Suit Says WEBCOLLEX LLC: Conde Alleges Wrongful Debt Collection Conduct WEINGARTEN REALTY: "Muschong" Suit Moved to Orlando Dist. Court WEST COAST: Court OKs $1MM "Rincon" PAGA Action Settlement WYNDHAM WORLDWIDE: Court Dismisses "Embree" XPO LOGISTICS: Pregent Moves for Certification of CS Reps Class * Securities Class Action Settlement Dollars Decline in 2017 ********* ALLIED INTERSTATE: 3rd Cir. Flips Dismissal of "Tatis" FDCPA Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, issued an Opinion reversing the District Court's judgment granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned MICHELLE TATIS, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Appellant, v. ALLIED INTERSTATE, LLC; JOHN DOES 1-25, No. 16-4022 (3rd Cir.). The question presented before the Third Circuit is whether a collection letter sent to collect a time-barred debt that makes a settlement offer to accept payment in settlement of the debt could violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act's general prohibition against any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. Tatis filed a class action in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging that Allied's letter violated the FDCPA. The complaint alleged that Tatis interpreted the word settlement in the letter to mean that she had a legal obligation to pay the debt, and the least-sophisticated debtor would hold a similar belief. She also claimed the letter was a false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with collecting the debt. Allied filed a motion to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim, and the District Court granted the motion. In doing so, the Third Circuit looked primarily to its decision in Huertas v. Galaxy Asset Management, 641 F.3d 28, 32-33 (3d Cir. 2011) (per curiam), which it read to hold that an attempt to collect a time-barred debt does not violate the FDCPA unless it is accompanied by the threat of legal action. And because Allied's use of the word settlement did not constitute threatened legal action, the Court found dismissal of the complaint appropriate. To effectuate these purposes, Congress proscribed the use of any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt and provided a list of sixteen examples of such prohibited conduct. These include making false representations about the character, amount, or legal status of any debt and threatening to take any action that cannot legally be taken or that is not intended to be taken. In Huertas, the plaintiff received a letter seeking to collect a time-barred debt. Suit was brought under 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e(2)(A), alleging that the collection letter Huertas received falsely represented the legal status of his debt which, like Tatis's, was time-barred under New Jersey law. Huertas v. Galaxy Asset Mgmt., 2010 WL 936450 (D.N.J. Mar. 9, 2010). The Third Circuit disagreed for several reasons. First, the Third Circuit explained that Huertas's debt remained valid under New Jersey law even after the statute of limitations had run. Huertas. But even though the debt was still owed, Huertas had a complete legal defense against having to pay it. Next, the Third Circuit explained that when the expiration of the statute of limitations does not invalidate a debt, but merely renders it unenforceable, the FDCPA permits a debt collector to seek voluntary repayment of the time-barred debt so long as the debt collector does not initiate or threaten legal action in connection with its debt collection efforts. Thus, Huertas stands for the proposition that debt collectors do not violate 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e(2)(A) when they seek voluntary repayment of stale debts, so long as they do not threaten or take legal action. But the FDCPA sweeps far more broadly than the specific provision found in Section 1692e(2)(A). It prohibits any "false, deceptive, or misleading representation" associated with debt-collection practices. Accordingly, this appeal requires the Third Circuit to decide whether collection letters may run afoul of the FDCPA by misleading or deceiving debtors into believing they have a legal obligation to repay time-barred debts even when the letters do not threaten legal action. In sum, because the Third Circuit concluded that the least- sophisticated debtor could plausibly be misled by the specific language used in Allied's letter, it will vacate the District Court's order granting Allied's motion to dismiss and remand for further proceedings. In doing so, the Third Circuit reiterates what it said both in Huertas and elsewhere: standing alone, settlement offers and attempts to obtain voluntary repayments of stale debts do not necessarily constitute deceptive or misleading practices. In keeping with the text and purpose of the FDCPA, the Third Circuit merely reiterates that any such letters, when read in their entirety, must not deceive or mislead the least- sophisticated debtor into believing that she has a legal obligation to pay the time-barred debt. Accordingly, the Third Circuit will vacate the District Court's order granting Allied's motion to dismiss and remand the case for further proceedings. A full-text copy of the Third Circuit's February 12, 2018 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybgb7wph from Leagle.com. Ari H. Marcus -- Ari@MarcusZelman.com -- (Argued), Yitzchak Zelman -- Yzelman@MarcusZelman.com -- Marcus & Zelman, 1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101, Ocean, NJ 07712, Counsel for Appellant. James C. Martin -- jcmartin@reedsmith.com -- (Argued), Kellie A. Lavery, Reed Smith, 136 Main Street, Suite 250, Princeton, NJ 08540, Counsel for Appellee. AMERICAN SECURITIES: Faces "Homestead" Suit in New Jersey --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Securities LLC. The case is captioned as City of Homestead, Florida, Plaintiff v. American Securities LLC; Matthew Lebaron; and Scott Wolff, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-02241-JLL-JAD (D.N.J., Feb. 16, 2018). According to the complaint of the Plaintiff, the Defendants for engaged in a conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition in the sale and marketing of liquid aluminum sulfate, by agreeing to allocate customers and rig bids for, and to raise, stabilize, and maintain the price of liquid aluminum sulfate sold in the U.S., all of which were intended to, and did, cause Plaintiff and the other members of the Class to pay artificially inflated and supracompetitive prices for liquid aluminum sulfate. American Securities is the investment arm of American Securities, L.P. specializing in direct and fund of fund investments. The firm specializes in senior debt and equity investments in leveraged buyouts, recapitalization, going private transactions, industry consolidations, growth capital investment, and middle market investments. American Securities was founded in 1947 and is based in New York, New York with an additional office in Shanghai, China. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William L. Mentik, Esq. LERNER, DAVID, LITTENBERG, KRUMHOLZ & MENTLIK, LLP 600 South Avenue West Westfield, NJ 07090-1497 Telephone: (908) 654-5000 Facsimile: (908) 654-7866 E-mail: wmentlik@lernerdavid.com - and - Jay B. Shapiro, Esq. Samuel O. Patmore, Esq. Abigail G Corbett, Esq. Maria A Fehretdinov, Esq. Jenea E. Reed, Esq. Jason Koslowe, Esq. ALHADEFF & SITTERSON, P.A. 150 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 789-3200 Facsimile: (305) 789-3395 E-mail: jshapiro@stearnsweaver.com spatmore@stearnsweaver.com acorbett@stearnsweaver.com mfehretdinov@stearnsweaver.com jreed@stearsnweaver.com jkoslowe@stearnsweaver.com - and - Marvin A. Miller. Esq. Matthew A. Van Tine, Esq. Andrew Szot, Esq. Kathleen E. Boychuck, Esq. MILLER LAW LLC 115 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 2910 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 332-3400 Facsimile: (312) 676-2676 E-mail: mmiller@millerlawllc.com mvt@millerlawllc.com aszot@millerlawllc.com kboychuck@millerlawllc.com - and - Richard M. Kerger, Esq. KERGER & HARTMAN, LLC 33 S. Michigan Street, Suite 100 Toledo, OH 43604 Telephone: (419) 255-5990 Facsimile: (419) 255-5997 E-mail: rkerger@kergerlaw.com ANG DINER: Court Conditionally Certifies "Tello" Workers Class -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Eastern District New York issued a Memorandum and Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification in the case captioned TONY TELLO, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. A.N.G. DINER CORP., d/b/a SILVER SPOON DINER, HALKIOS RESTAURANT CORP. d/b/a SILVER SPOON DINER, XIOTIS REST. CORP. d/b/a SILVER SPOON DINER, GEORGE RAKITZIS, NICK RAKITZIS, & ANNA MAIDIOTIS, Defendants, No. 17 CV 749 (RRM) (CLP)(E.D.N.Y.). Currently before the Court is plaintiff's motion for: (1) conditional certification of the Fair Labor Standards Act claims as a collective action, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b). According to the Complaint, plaintiff Tony Tello was employed by the defendants. For the last six years, Tello was employed as a counter person, acting as cashier, taking phone orders, and arranging for and packing delivery orders. According to the Complaint, plaintiff was paid in cash and, until three years prior to the filing of the Complaint, he never received any paystubs or wage statements containing the information required by New York law. Plaintiff alleges that there are other employees in positions at the restaurant that require little skill, and who have worked more than 40 hours per week without receiving proper overtime and spread of hours pay as required by NYLL. It is further alleged that these individuals also did not receive the proper wage notices or weekly wage statements. Collective Action Certification Under FLSA Section 216(b) Legal Standard Under the FLSA, employers are required to compensate covered employees for all work performed, including overtime, in order to prevent labor conditions detrimental to the maintenance of the minimum standard of living necessary for health, efficiency, and general well-being of workers. In opposing certification, defendants argue that first, plaintiff Tello fails to allege that he was not properly paid overtime under the FLSA and second, that plaintiff has failed to show that there are similarly situated individuals who were subject to the same unlawful policies. Whether Plaintiff Has Adequately Alleged an Overtime Violation Here, the Complaint clearly alleges that Mr. Tello and other employees received flat weekly salaries and did not get paid overtime for the hours worked over 40 in a given week. Although defendants ask this Court to consider Francisco Tello's Declaration and several of plaintiff's pay stubs as evidence that plaintiff's claim is unfounded, the law in this Circuit is clear that the proper inquiry at this stage is whether plaintiff has made the requisite showing, without reference to what defendant may have sought to inject into the record. Accordingly, the Court rejects defendants' invitation to weigh the competing declarations of the employees and determine the merits of this case at this time, and finds that plaintiff has adequately alleged violations of the overtime provisions of the FLSA sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. Thus, the Court proceeds to analyze defendants' argument that plaintiff has failed to meet his modest burden for conditional certification of his FLSA collective action. Whether Plaintiff Is Similarly Situated to Other Employees The Court finds that the allegations in the Complaint and in plaintiff Tello's Declaration, which are corroborated by the Declaration of Salvador Martinez, are sufficient to satisfy the minimal showing required for conditional certification. The lawsuit alleges that defendants violated the FLSA by paying their employees a flat weekly salary and by failing to pay overtime pay for any hours worked over 40. Not only has the named plaintiff Tello presented a Declaration stating that he was subject to these pay policies, but he also observed others who worked similar schedules and were paid in the same manner. His Declaration is corroborated by that of Martinez, who claims he was paid the same amount every week regardless of the number of hours he worked, and that he was not paid overtime for the hours worked over 40 in a week. Courts have granted certification where the plaintiff can attest to knowing of and identifying similarly situated employees. Here, both the named plaintiff and Mr. Martinez claim to be aware, from personally speaking with and observing other employees, that there are other individuals who are similarly situated for the purposes of certification. Accordingly, the Court finds that plaintiff has met the minimal burden of showing a factual nexus between the plaintiff and employees similarly situated to plaintiff who may have been victims of a common policy or practice that violated the FLSA's overtime requirements. Therefore, plaintiff's motion for conditional certification is granted. A full-text copy of the District Court's February 12, 2018 Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yb4oxhla from Leagle.com. Tony Tello, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by: David Stein, Esq. SAMUEL & STEIN 38 W 32nd St #1110, Ste 1110 New York, NY 10001 A.N.G. Diner Corp., doing business as, Halkios Restaurant Corp., doing business as, Xiotis Rest. Corp., doing business as, George Rakitzis, Nick Rakitzis & Anna Maidiotis, Defendants, represented by: Anastasi Pardalis, Esq. Ariadne Anna Panagopoulou Alexandrou, Esq. Joseph D. Nohavicka, Esq. PARDALIS & NOHAVICKA LLP 950 3rd Ave, 25th floor New York, NY, 10022 APPLE INC: Removes "Santino" Suit to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of Nikita Santino and Aaron Rabbanian, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Apple Inc., Defendant, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, (Case No. BC690396) to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California and assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-01252-SVW-SK (C.D. Cal., Feb. 15, 2018). The case is assigned to Judge Stephen V. Wilson, and referred to Magistrate Judge Steve Kim. Apple Inc. designs, manufactures, and markets mobile communication and media devices, and personal computers to consumers, and small and mid-sized businesses; and education, enterprise, and government customers worldwide. The company sells and delivers digital content and applications through the iTunes Store, App Store, Mac App Store, TV App Store, iBooks Store, and Apple Music. It also sells its products through its retail and online stores, and direct sales force, as well as through third- party cellular network carriers, wholesalers, retailers, and value-added resellers. Apple Inc. was founded in 1977 and is headquartered in Cupertino, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin Heikali, Esq. FARUQI AND FARUQI LLP 10866 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1470 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (424) 256-2884 Facsimile: (424) 256-2885 E-mail: bheikali@faruqilaw.com - and - Joshua Nassir, Esq. FARUQI AND FARUQI LLP 10866 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1470 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (424) 256-2884 Facsimile: (424) 256-2885 E-mail: jnassir@faruqilaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Theano Evangelis Kapur, Esq. GIBSON DUNN AND CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 Telephone: (213) 229-7726 Facsimile: (213) 229-6726 E-mail: tevangelis@gibsondunn.com - and - Theodore J Boutrous , Jr., Esq. GIBSON DUNN AND CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 Telephone: (213) 229-7000 Facsimile: (213) 229-7520 E-mail: tboutrous@gibsondunn.com - and - Timothy William Loose, Esq. GIBSON DUNN AND CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 Telephone: (213) 229-7000 Facsimile: (213) 229-7520 E-mail: tloose@gibsondunn.com - and - Christopher Chorba, Esq. GIBSON DUNN AND CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 Telephone: (213) 229-7000 Facsimile: (213) 229-7520 E-mail: cchorba@gibsondunn.com ARYZTA LLC: Appeals Award of Attorneys' Fees in "Barnes" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Aryzta LLC filed an appeal from the District Court's Order, and Memorandum Opinion and Order entered by the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin on December 20, 2017, awarding attorneys' fees and costs in favor of the Plaintiff in the action entitled JAMEL BARNES v. ARYZTA, LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-07358, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The appellate case is captioned as JAMEL BARNES v. ARYZTA, LLC, Case No. 18-1182, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The case was filed in state court on August 17, 2017, and removed by the Defendant to the District Court on October 12, 2017. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated individuals, alleges that the Defendant violates the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act and is liable for negligence. The Plaintiff seeks (1) a declaratory judgment that Defendant violated BIPA and acted negligently; (2) injunctive and other equitable relief as is necessary to protect the interests of the class, including an order requiring Defendant to collect, store, and use biometric identifiers or biometric information in compliance with BIPA; (3) statutory damages under BIPA, as well as attorneys' fees and costs; (4) pre- and post-judgment interest, and (5) any other relief that the Court deems reasonable and just. The Defendant contends that the time-clock in issue does not collect or store an employee's fingerprint or any other biometric identifier or biometric information to establish any statutory liability under the BIPA on behalf of Plaintiff or a purported class. The Class Action Reporter reported on Jan. 30, 2018, that the District Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting the Plaintiff's motion to remand the lawsuit to the state court.[BN] The Plaintiff-Appellee is represented by: Benjamin Harris Richman, Esq. J. Eli Wade Scott, Esq. Roger J. Perlstadt, Esq. Sydney M. Janzen, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300 Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 589-6370 E-mail: brichman@edelson.com ewadescott@edelson.com rperlstadt@edelson.com sjanzen@edelson.com - and - Todd Logan, Esq. EDELSON PC 123 Townsend Street, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94107 Telephone: (415) 638-9660 E-mail: tlogan@edelson.com - and - David J. Fish, Esq. John C. Kunze, Esq. Kimberly A. Hilton, Esq. THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C. 200 E. Fifith Ave., Suite 123 Naperville, IL 60563 Telephone: (630) 355-7590 E-mail: dfish@fishlawfirm.com kunze@fishlawfirm.com khilton@fishlawfirm.com The Defendant-Appellant is represented by: Kevin M. O'Hagan, Esq. Jamie L. Filipovic, Esq. Kristen A. Cemate, Esq. O'HAGAN MEYER, LLC One East Wacker Drive, Suite 3400 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 422-6100 Facsimile: (312) 422-6110 E-mail: kohagan@ohaganmeyer.com jfilipovic@ohaganmeyer.com kcemate@ohaganmeyer.com BPCL MANAGEMENT: Made Solicited Calls, "Eisenband" Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- DZIYANA EISENBAND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BPCL MANAGEMENT, LLC f/k/a BAHAMAS PARADISE CRUISE LINE, LLC d/b/a BAHAMA ISLAND CRUISES, Defendant, Case No. 9:18-cv-80192-DMM (S.D. Fla., Feb. 18, 2018) seeks to stop Defendants' wide-scaling telemarketing campaign consisting of prerecorded calls to the cellular telephones of Plaintiff and others, without their prior express written consent. BPCL Management, LLC f/k/a Bahamas Paradise Cruise Line, LLC d/b/a Bahama Island Cruises is a Florida limited liability company with its principal place of business located at 2419 E. Commercial Blvd., Suite 100, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33308. The company is the marketing and shore side personnel management company for the M/S Grand Celebration cruise ship. The Company directs, markets, and provides its business activities throughout the State of Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 400-4713 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 Facsimile: (786) 623-0915 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com BRENTWOOD VILLAGE: Court Certifies "Borum" Apt. Residents Class --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court, District of Columbia, issued a Memorandum Opinion granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in the case captioned ADRIANN BORUM, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BRENTWOOD VILLAGE, LLC, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 16-1723 (RC)(D.D.C.). Plaintiff Adriann Borum moved to certify a class of residents of her apartment complex, Brookland Manor, whom she believes have been harmed or are at risk of being harmed by Brentwood Village, LLC's proposed redevelopment and activities surrounding it, and for the appointment of her lawyers as counsel for that class. The planned redevelopment will eliminate four- and five-bedroom apartments in the complex, and will reduce the number of three- bedroom apartments as well. This policy, Ms. Borum claims, will have a disparate impact on hundreds of residents based on their familial status in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and the D.C. Human Rights Act DCHRA). LEGAL STANDARDS A district court exercises broad discretion in deciding whether to permit a case to proceed as a class action. However, Rule 23 does not set forth a mere pleading standard. Instead, a plaintiff must affirmatively demonstrate her compliance with the Rule that is, she must be prepared to prove that there are in fact sufficiently numerous parties, common questions of law or fact, etc. Ms. Borum has moved for certification of the following hybrid class under Rules 23(b)(2) and (b)(3): All households who reside or have resided at Brookland Manor in a three-, four-, or five-bedroom unit with one or more minor child, and (i) have been displaced from a three-, four-, or five- bedroom unit at Brookland Manor since October 1, 2014 (the date that Defendants proposed their First Stage PUD to the Zoning Commission), or (ii) are at risk of being displaced from a three- , four-, or five-bedroom unit at Brookland Manor. Rule 23(a) Requirements It provides that members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all members only if: (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; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Families displaced between October 1, 2014 and the conclusion of this litigation. Ms. Borum has moved to include in her class those who have resided at Brookland Manor in a three-, four-, or five- bedroom unit with one of more minor child and have been displaced from those apartments since October 1, 2014. Here, it is appropriate to consider those residents who have already been displaced or will displaced before the conclusion of this litigation as a separate subclass because without this separation, the class Ms. Borum has proposed would be overbroad and ineligible for certification. First, Ms. Borum has moved to include in the class those individuals who have been displaced since October 1, 2014, without specifying whether individuals included in that group need to have been displaced because of the redevelopment in order to be included. Therefore, it is impossible to tell from her proposed definition whether those individuals have any claims in common, as required by Rule 23(a)(2). Second, at this point, none of the large apartments on which putative class members rely to house their families have been eliminated. Therefore, the cause of displacement for any of these putative class members will not be the mere elimination of large apartments, which is the foundational cause of the other class members' claims. If, however, this group does come into existence following the Court's class certification order, or if Plaintiffs are subsequently able to identify individuals who have already been displaced because of the redevelopment, Ms. Borum may renew her motion for certification of this subclass. But it should be noted that unless Ms. Borum has also been displaced due to the redevelopment plan by then, her injury (a risk of displacement) will not be typical to those putative class members who have at that point already been displaced. Therefore, unless Plaintiffs have added a new named plaintiff whose injury is typical of the proposed subclass, and who will be able to fairly and adequately represent the interests of that class, Ms. Borum's renewed motion for class certification would likely be denied then as well. Families still living in three-, four-, or five-bedroom apartments Numerosity Ms. Borum first contends that she has established that her proposed class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. Based on the most recently available data, Ms. Borum's expert, Dr. Andrew Beveridge, estimates that there were 118 families (totaling 543 people) in three-, four-, and five-bedroom apartments in Brookland Manor in January 2017. Therefore, Ms. Borum argues that the class she proposes is "so numerous that joinder would be impracticable." Defendants object to Ms. Borum's claim of numerosity on several grounds. Occupancy Standards Defendants spend a large portion of their opposition brief attacking the analysis of Ms. Borum's expert, Dr. Andrew Beveridge, and his estimation of how many individuals are at risk of being displaced by the redevelopment plan. Defendants may be correct that Dr. Beveridge used the wrong standard in determining how many bedrooms each family requires, thereby inflating the number of individuals who will actually be forced to move should the redevelopment proceed unaltered. But such a standard is not relevant to determining how many families are currently living in large apartments who are at risk of displacement because they will not be able to move back into similarly large apartments when the redevelopment is complete, as the class is currently defined. At this point in the proceedings, Ms. Borum has demonstrated that that group, so defined, is sufficiently large to satisfy Rule 23(a)'s numerosity requirement. Non-Parental Adults Next, Defendants argue that the class which plaintiff defines is overbroad and runs contrary to this Court's admonition because it seeks to include individuals not qualifying for familial status under the FHA and the DCHRA. As Ms. Borum points out in her reply, courts in other circuits have recognized the broad meaning of aggrieved person in the familial status context, and have allowed other co-residents to challenge policies that discriminate against families, similar to the way that white residents may challenge policies that discriminate based on race, even when those white residents are not the ones being discriminated against, but have still suffered a concrete injury. Ms. Borum alleges that putative class members in this case, including non-parental adults living in large apartments with minor children and their guardians, are at risk of being displaced from a three-, four-, or five-bedroom unit at Brookland Manor by a policy that she hopes to prove has a disparate impact on individuals based on their familial status. If proven, such a risk would be a cognizable injury capable of conferring Article III standing. As such, the Court finds that non-parental adults living with minor children and their guardians in three-, four-, and five- bedroom apartments in Brookland Manor have standing to sue under the FHA. And because they stand to suffer the same injury-in-fact as the parents and minors contained within the class displacement due to the Defendants' redevelopment plan and seek the same relief an injunction ordering Defendants to alter their redevelopment plan in a way that eliminates its disparate impact on families they are properly counted as members of the class for the purposes of numerosity. Residents of Three-Bedroom Apartments Defendants also argue that Ms. Borum's inclusion in the headcount of families living in 3BR apartments when the record is uncontradicted that the Redevelopment Plan will include at least 64 3BR apartments is another glaring deficiency in her numerosity analysis. While some families currently living in three-bedroom apartments will likely be able to stay in such apartments, and therefore will not be harmed by Defendants' actions, others, because they will be competing with families currently residing in four- and five-bedroom apartments, will be unable to move into one of the 64 new three-bedroom apartments. Even though, by Defendants' estimate, there were only 31 families living in three-bedroom apartments in 2017, the number of families that may be displaced from their four- or five-bedroom apartments is far larger than 33. Thus, when the families displaced by the elimination of the four- and five- bedroom apartments are included in the equation, more than 64 families will be competing for three-bedroom apartments. Therefore, families in three-bedroom apartments also currently suffer a risk of displacement, and are properly included in the class. Families Whose Minor Children Have Now Turned 18 Defendants next question Ms. Borum's inclusion in her headcount of families whose children were minors on October 1, 2014 (the date the First-Stage PUD application was filed) or on August 26, 2016 (the date the Complaint was filed), but have now turned 18, or will before 2020, when the anticipated next phase of the redevelopment plan proceeds. Individuals living in apartments that no longer have minor children no longer fit within the class definition of people residing in large apartments with minor children and their guardians who are at risk of displacement. Therefore, individuals in households that no longer contain minor children cannot be counted as class members going forward. However, Defendants have not argued that excluding the residents of households that recently housed minor children, but no longer do, from the class member count decreases the number of putative class members to a number below forty residents. Additionally, the number of households that aged out of the class definition between January 2017 and the certification of this class is likely small, and according to Defendants' expert, likely fewer than 45. As such, with a count of 118 apartments housing 543 people as recently as last year, the Court finds that Ms. Borum has established numerosity, even excluding those households, which are likely few in number, that no longer contain minor children. Impracticability of Joinder This case involves two claims disparate impact and discriminatory statements which can both be addressed through an injunction. As such, adjudicating each class members' claims together will save resources for both the parties and the Court. And while the class members in this case are not dispersed indeed, they are about as geographically concentrated as class members can be and can be easily identified, many of them lack the resources to bring a complex civil rights suit on their own. In some cases in which class members are geographically compact and not too numerous, joinder may not be impracticable. But in a case such as this, with hundreds of class members, where many class members are low income, and many are minor children, the Court finds that to proceed through joinder rather than class action would not only overly burden putative class members, but also very likely waste judicial resources. As such, the Court finds that Ms. Borum has demonstrated that the putative class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. Commonality Ms. Borum also contends that she satisfies Rule 23(a)'s commonality requirement because she is challenging a single policy or practice that has a disparate impact on Brookland Manor residents based on their familial status. Defendants respond that Ms. Borum has not demonstrated that all of the putative class members suffered the same injury. While some of the issues Defendants raise may be relevant to determining whether the redevelopment does have a disparate impact on residents based on their familial status, they would serve as components in the overall calculation of whether the policy has a disparate impact. That does not change the fact that, if Ms. Borum's claim of disparate impact is proven, all class members will have suffered the same injury (the risk of being displaced). Here, the question of whether this redevelopment will have a disparate impact based on familial status is one such common question. As such, Ms. Borum has satisfied Rule 23(a)(2)'s commonality requirement. Typicality Ms. Borum next contends that her claims are typical of all class members' claims, because she asserts rights under both the FHA and DCHRA based on the systematic actions of the Defendants. Defendants claim that Ms. Borum's claim is not typical because she has yet to suffer any displacement and is not at risk of being displaced until at least late 2020. Here, Defendants have not demonstrated that Ms. Borum's claims differ significantly from those of other class members who are still residing at Brookland Manor. And, if Defendants' argumentation regarding the numerosity and commonality prongs of Rule 23(a) are any indication, the defenses that Defendants claim apply to Ms. Borum will also be the defenses they use to defend against the claims of other class members. Therefore, it is clear that Ms. Borum's claims, and the defenses she will need to address when this case is decided on the merits, will be typical of the class as a whole. As such, she meets the requirements of Rule 23(a)(3). Adequacy of Representation Last, Ms. Borum contends that she and her attorneys will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Defendants claim that Ms. Borum has not met the adequacy requirement for several reasons. First, they claim that Ms. Borum has a conflict of interest with a substantial number of putative class members because there is a significant disagreement within the class about whether the redevelopment should go forward as currently planned. Here, Ms. Borum has alleged injuries under the FHA and DCHRA, both past (discriminatory statements) and future (displacement that disparately impacts families). These allegations are sufficient to make her an adequate representative. Whether she and the putative class may succeed on the merits of their disparate impact and discriminatory statement claims are questions to be determined on summary judgment or at trial, but not at the class certification stage. For now, Ms. Borum has alleged the same type of injury to herself as she alleges will be suffered by other members of the putative class. As such, she is an adequate representative to bring these claims on behalf of the class. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification is granted in part and denied in part. The following class is certified under Rule 23(b)(2): All individuals who reside at Brookland Manor in a three-, four-, or five-bedroom unit that houses one or more minor child and his or her guardian, and are at risk of being displaced from a three-, four-, or five-bedroom unit at Brookland Manor as a direct result of the proposed redevelopment. A full-text copy of the District Court's February 12, 2018 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/ydderwkx from Leagle.com. ADRIANN BORUM & ORGANIZING NEIGHBORHOOD EQUITY IN SHAW AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Plaintiffs, represented by Maureen Frances Browne -- mbrowne@cov.com, COVINGTON & BURLING LLP, Amber M. Charles -- acharles@cov.com -- COVINGTON & BURLING LLP, Catherine Cone -- catherine_cone@washlaw.org -- WASHINGTON LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS & URBAN AFFAIRS, Nooree Lee -- nlee@cov.com -- COVINGTON & BURLING LLP, Samuel F. Adriance -- sadriance@cov.com -- COVINGTON & BURLING LLP, pro hac vice & Matthew K. Handley, WASHINGTON LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS & URBAN AFFAIRS. BRENTWOOD ASSOCIATES, L.P., EDGEWOOD MANAGEMENT CORPORATION & MID-CITY FINANCIAL CORPORATION, Defendants, represented by Richard W. Luchs, GREENSTEIN DELORME & LUCHS, PC & William C. Casano, GREENSTEIN DELORME & LUCHS, P.C., 1620 L Street, N.W., Suite 900. Washington, DC 20036 BUCCINI/POLLIN: Faces "Levin" Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------- Joanne Kleiner Levin, as legal guardian of Joy Barbara Levin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Buccini/Pollin Group, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00738PD (E.D. Pa., Feb. 20, 2018) is brought against the Defendant for failure to provide individuals with disabilities accessible transportation services that are equivalent to the transportation services provided to nondisabled guests. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant's complimentary shuttle service was not wheelchair accessible and was told that Defendant would not provide an alternative transportation service. The Buccini/Pollin Group, Inc. engages in real estate acquisition, finance, development, management/operation, construction management, leasing, and disposition activities in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeastern regions of the United States. Its portfolio includes hotel, office, retail, residential, entertainment, and parking properties. The company was founded in 1993 and is based in Washington, District Of Columbia with additional offices in Wilmington, Delaware; Conshohocken, Pennsylvania; and Baltimore, Maryland. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Bruce Carlson, Esq. Gary F. Lynch, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com glynch@carlsonlynch.com BUILD A DREAM: Made Unsolicited Call, "Navarro" Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- Carolyn Navarro, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Build A Dream, Inc., and Does 1 through 10, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-01290-DMG-AS (C.D. Cal., Feb. 16, 2018) seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of sending unsolicited solicitation phone calls without the recipient's prior express written consent. Build a Dream, Inc., is a construction lender. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 tfriedman@toddflaw.com CALIFORNIA: Akers Ranch Suit Alleges Public Nuisance ---------------------------------------------------- Akers Ranch, Elkhorn Outdoor Sports, LLC, Marie Giordano, Carol A. Gissell, Jordan Crossing Ministries, Oroville Cycle, Small World Child Care and Learning Center, and Small World Infant Center, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. California Department of Water Resources, and Does 1 through 100, Case No. 18CV00449 (Calif. Super., February 6, 2018), is a class action complaint for dangerous conditions of public property, private and public nuisance, premises liability and inverse condemnation. In February 2017, Oroville Dam's main and emergency spillways were significantly damaged, prompting the evacuation of more than 180,000 people living downstream along the Feather River and the relocation of a fish hatchery. The Plaintiffs allege that the Oroville Dam crisis was not an act of God. As confirmed by independent, expert reports and accounts of DWR insiders, the crisis was caused by decades of mismanagement and intentional lack of maintenance by the California Department of Water Resources. Plaintiff Akers Ranch is a walnut farm located along the Feather River in Oroville, California. Plaintiff Marie Giordano resides in Oroville, California, above the Oroville Dam, and also owns three rental properties in Oroville which are located downstream of the Oroville Dam. Giordano also works in Oroville. Plaintiff Carol A. Gissell resides and owns property in Oroville, California. Plaintiff Jordan Crossing Ministries is a California non-profit that provides job training and other skill sets. It also provides housing for fathers and children. Jordan Crossing Ministries operates out of Oroville, California. Plaintiff Oroville Cycle is a pro ski shop located downstream from the Oroville Dam. Oroville Cycle operates out of Oroville, California. Plaintiff Small World Child Care and Learning Center is a child daycare center for children ages two to five. Small World Child Care operates out of Oroville, California. Plaintiff Small World Infant Center is an infant daycare center for children up t0 the age of 3. Small World Infant Center operates out of Oroville, California. Defendant DWR was established by the State Legislature in 1956. It presently employees about 2,800 state civil service employees, including engineers, construction personnel, and environmental specialists. DWR is headed by a Director appointed by the governor. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq. Niall P. McCarthy, Esq. Adam M. Shapiro, Esq. Toriana S. Holmes, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE, & MCCARTHY, LLP San Francisco, Airport Office Center 840 Malcolm Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Tel: (650) 697-6000 Fax: (650) 697-0577 E-mail: jcotchett@cpmlegal.com nmccarthy@cpmlegal.com ashapiro@cpmlegal.com tholmes@cpmlegal.com - and - James V. Nolan, Esq. David W. Janes, Esq. GARDNER, JANES, NAKKEN, HUGO & NOLAN 429 First Street Woodland, CA 95695 Tel: (530) 662-7367 Fax: (530) 666-9116 E-mail: jvnolan@yololaw.com dwjanes@yololaw.com CBS CORPORATION: Faces "Hunkins" Suit over Wrongful Death --------------------------------------------------------- LINDA HUNKINS, individually and as successor-in-interest to GERARD HUNKINS, Plaintiff v. CBS CORPORATION, f/k/a VIACOM INC., successor by merger with CBS CORPORATION, f/k/a WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION; CERTAIN-TEED CORPORATION; CROWN CORK & SEAL COMPANY, INC., individually and as successor-in-interest to MUNDET CORK CORPORATION; FORD MOTOR COMPANY; FOSTER WHEELER ENERGY CORPORATION; GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY; INDUSTRIAL HOLDINGS CORPORATION f/k/a THE CARBORUNDUM COMPANY; INGERSOLL RAND COMPANY; JOHN CRANE INC.; KELLY MOORE PAINT COMPANY, INC.; METALCLAD INSULATION LLC; METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; SOCO WEST, INC.; UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION; DOES 1-850, INCLUSIVE, JENNIFER COMPTON, Defendants, Case No. BC694959 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 15, 2018) is an action against the Defendants seeking damages over the wrongful death of Gerard Hunkins. Decedent Gerard Hunkins suffered from mesothelioma and died on January 22, 2018, as a result of his diagnosis of mesothelioma, a disease related to exposure to asbestos and asbestos-containing products. CBS Corporation operates as a mass media company worldwide. The company operates through four segments: Entertainment, Cable Networks, Publishing, and Local Media. The company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in New York, New York. CertainTeed Corporation manufactures and distributes building materials for residential and commercial building applications. CertainTeed Corporation was formerly known as General Roofing Manufacturing Company. The company was founded in 1904 and is based in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania with manufacturing and distribution facilities throughout the United States and Canada. CertainTeed Corporation operates as a subsidiary of Compagnie de Saint-Gobain S.A. Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc. designs, manufactures, supplies, and markets packaging products for consumer marketing companies. The company sells its products through its sales organization to soft drink, food, citrus, brewing, household products, and personal care industries. It has plants in the United States and internationally. The company is based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Crown Holdings Inc. Ford Motor Company designs, manufactures, markets, and services a range of Ford cars, trucks, sport utility vehicles, and electrified vehicles; and Lincoln luxury vehicles worldwide. The company was founded in 1903 and is based in Dearborn, Michigan. Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation offers construction, engineering, and project management services. The company designs and constructs process plants for oil and gas, natural gas, gas- to-liquids, refining, chemicals, petrochemicals, pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, healthcare, and power industries. The company was formerly known as Foster Wheeler Power Group Inc. Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation was incorporated in 1973 and is based in Clinton, New Jersey. Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation operates as a subsidiary of Foster Wheeler AG. General Electric Company operates as an infrastructure and technology company worldwide. General Electric Company was founded in 1892 and is based in Boston, Massachusetts. Ingersoll-Rand Company (New Jersey) designs, manufactures, sells, and services industrial and commercial products worldwide under the brands Club Car, Hussmann, Ingersoll-Rand, Schlage, Thermo King, Trane. Ingersoll-Rand Company (New Jersey) was incorporated in 2001 and is based in Piscataway, New Jersey. Ingersoll-Rand Company (New Jersey) operates as a subsidiary of Ingersoll-Rand Plc. John Crane Inc. designs and manufactures engineered sealing systems and associated products. John Crane Inc. was formerly known as Crane Packing Company and changed its name to John Crane Inc. in 1987. The company was founded in 1917 and is based in Chicago, Illinois with sales and services locations in the United States and Malaysia; a customer service center in Perth, Australia; a manufacturing and customer service center in Tianjin, China; and a service super center in Singapore. John Crane Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Smiths Group plc. Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc. manufactures and distributes interior or exterior paints for professional painting contractors, architects/designers, general contractors, property/facility managers, and builders. The company was founded in 1946 and is based in San Carlos, California with a manufacturing facility in Hurst, Texas. It also has retail stores in Arkansas, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Texas. Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of K-M Industries Holding Co., Inc. Metalclad Insulation LLC offers asbestos installation and removal services. The company was founded in 1933 and is based in Fullerton, California. Metalclad Insulation LLC operates as a subsidiary of Entrprize Corp. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides life insurance, annuities, employee benefits, and asset management services in the United States. The company was incorporated in 1868 and is based in New York, New York. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is a subsidiary of MetLife, Inc. Union Carbide Corporation operates as a chemical and polymer company worldwide. The company was founded in 1917 and is headquartered in Seadrift, Texas. Union Carbide Corporation is a subsidiary of The Dow Chemical Company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brent J. Zadorozny, Esq. Crystal G. Foley, Esq. Nicholas J. Angelides, Esq. SIMMONS HANLY CONROY 100 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1350 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (310) 322-3555 Facsimile: (310) 322-3655 CDK GLOBAL: FG Downing Suit Alleges Antitrust Violations -------------------------------------------------------- F.G. Downing Development, Inc., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CDK Global, LLC and The Reynolds and Reynolds Company, Case No. 1:18-cv-00987 (N.D. Ill., February 7, 2018), seeks damages, injunctive relief and other relief pursuant to federal antitrust laws; and state antitrust, unfair competition, consumer protection, and unjust enrichment laws. This proposed class action lawsuit is brought against Defendants CDK and R&R for unlawfully allocating markets and customers to monopolize and artificially raise prices throughout the United States for: data management systems; the service of extracting, formatting, integrating, and organizing the data stored on DMS; and the service of business management applications in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Plaintiff F.G. Downing Development, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York with its principal place of business, a retail car dealership, located at 3531 Southwestern Blvd., Orchard Park, New York, 14127. Plaintiff is engaged in the business of purchasing and selling automobiles. Plaintiff purchases DMS services from Defendant CDK. Defendant CDK Global, LLC is a Delaware company and serves as the operating subsidiary of CDK Global, Inc., and provides integrated information technology and digital marketing solutions for the automotive retail industry, including DMS software and services to automobile dealerships throughout the United States. CDK also provides Vendor Services for automobile retailers that address vehicle inventory, sales, and the finance and insurance process. CDK Global, LLC has its principal place of business at 1950 Hassell Road, Hoffman Estates, Illinois 60169. Defendant The Reynolds and Reynolds Company is an Ohio corporation with its corporate headquarters and principal place of business in Montgomery County at One Reynolds Way, Kettering, Ohio 45340. R&R provides DMS software and services to automobile dealerships throughout the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marvin A. Miller, Esq. MILLER LAW LLC 115 S. LaSalle St., Ste. 2910 Chicago, IL 60603 Tel: (312) 332-3400 Fax: (312) 676-2676 E-mail: mmiller@millerlawllc.com CENTRAL CREDIT SERVICES: Santiago Alleges Violation of FCRA ----------------------------------------------------------- Victor Santiago, individually and on behalf all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Central Credit Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01226 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 16, 2018) alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Act. The case is assigned to the Honorable John Robert Blakey and referred to Magistrate Judge Sheila Finnegan. Central Credit Services, Inc. operates as an accounts receivable management company. It specializes in the collection of primary, auto, mortgage, commercial, credit card, installment loan, and retail debt, as well as other types of accounts receivables. The company was founded in 1987 and is based in Jacksonville, Florida with additional facilities and call centers in St. Louis, Missouri; Jacksonville, Florida; and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Central Credit Services, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Central Credit Holdings, Inc. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Celetha Chatman, Esq. COMMUNITY LAWYERS GROUP, LTD. 73 W. Monroe Street Chicago, IL 60603 Suite 502 Telephone: (312) 757-1880 E-mail: cchatman@communitylawyersgroup.com - and - Michael Jacob Wood, Esq. COMMUNITY LAWYERS GROUP, LTD. 73 W. Monroe Street, Suite 502 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 757-1880 E-mail: mwood@communitylawyersgroup.com - and - Sarah Margaret Barnes, Esq. COMMUNITY LAWYERS GROUP, LTD. 73 W Monroe Street, Suite 514 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 757-1880 E-mail: barnes.sarahmar@gmail.com CIOX HEALTH: Removes "Graham" Suit to E.D. Missouri --------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of Brandon Graham, individually and also on behalf of all similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CIOX Health, LLC, Defendant, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from St. Louis City (Case No. 1822-CC00043) to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri and assigned Case No. 4:18- cv-00266-NCC (E.D. Mo., Feb. 16, 2018). The case is assigned to Magistrate Judge Noelle C. Collins. CIOX Health, LLC provides healthcare information solutions. The Company offers services including audit management, electronic records management, release of information, practice management, and revenue cycle management. CIOX Health operates in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Schultz, Esq. SCHULTZ AND ASSOCIATES, L.L.P. 640 Cepi Drive, Suite A Chesterfield, MO 63005-1221 Telephone: (636) 537-4645 Facsimile: (636) 537-2599 E-mail: rschultz@sl-lawyers.com - and - Jonathan B. Potts, Esq. BRYAN CAVE LLP 211 North Broadway, Suite 3600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 259-2403 Facsimile: (314) 552-8403 E-mail: jonathan.potts@bryancave.com COMMUNITY RESOURCE: "Fiallo" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation -------------------------------------------------------- Barbara Fiallo, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Community Resource Network of Florida, Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-00085 (M.D. Fla., February 7, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs and reasonable attorneys' fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Barbara Fiallo performed non-exempt work for the Defendant between March 18, 2015 and August 17, 2017. Defendant provides "homemaker and companion services" in Lee County, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Diane P. Perez, Esq. DIANE PEREZ, P.A. 201 Alhambra Circle, Suite 1200 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Tel: (305) 985-5676 Fax: (305) 985-5677 E-mail: diane@dianeperezlaw.com CONTINENTAL SERVICE: Further Proceedings in "Lepak" Suit Stayed --------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. William E. Duffin grants the Plaintiff's motion to stay further proceedings in the lawsuit captioned CHRISTINA LEPAK v. CONTINENTAL SERVICE GROUP, INC., Case No. 2:18-cv-00219-WED (E.D. Wisc.). On February 9, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a class action complaint. At the same time, the Plaintiff filed what the Court commonly refers to as a "protective" motion for class certification. In this motion, the Plaintiff moved to certify the class described in the complaint but also moved the Court to stay further proceedings on that motion. In Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011), the court suggested that class-action plaintiffs "move to certify the class at the same time that they file their complaint." "The pendency of that motion protects a putative class from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs." However, Judge Duffin states, because parties are generally unprepared to proceed with a motion for class certification at the beginning of a case, the Damasco court suggested that the parties "ask the district court to delay its ruling to provide time for additional discovery or investigation." Judge Duffin, hence, grants the Plaintiff's motion to stay further proceedings. The parties are relieved from the automatic briefing schedule set forth in Civil Local Rule 7(b) and (c). Moreover, for administrative purposes, Judge Duffin rules that it is necessary that the Clerk terminate the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. However, this motion will be regarded as pending to serve its protective purpose under Damasco. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=TxDJHxmo COURIER EXPRESS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Kincaid" Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- TRISH KINCAID, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COURIER EXPRESS/CHARLOTTE, INC.; COURIER EXPRESS/RALEIGH, INC.; COURIER EXPRESS FREIGHT, INC.; COURIER EXPRESS US, INC.; and IDEXX PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00707-AT (N.D. Ga., Feb. 16, 2018) alleged that Defendants have misclassified all courier drivers as independent contractors rather than employees, and failed to pay them overtime, minimum wage, earned wages, and other wages owed under state and federal law. Ms. Kincaid worked as a courier for Defendants from April 18, 2016 until September 2017. Courier Express, Inc. provides courier, freight, and warehousing services in the United States. Courier Express, Inc. was founded in 1985 and is based in Marietta, Georgia with locations in Athens, Charleston, Fayetteville, Jackson, Macon, Orlando, Richmond, Tifton, Asheville, Charlotte, Gainesville, Jacksonville, Memphis, Pensacola, Salt Lake City, Atlanta, Cincinnati, Greensboro, Kinston, Montgomery, Pittsburgh, Savannah, Augusta, Columbia, Greenville/Spartanburg, Knoxville, Myrtle Beach, Pompano Beach, Tallahassee, Birmingham, Louisville, Nashville, Raleigh-Durham, and Tampa. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey B. Sand, Esq. THE WEINER LAW FIRM LLC 7 Piedmont Center, 3rd Floor Atlanta, GA 30305 Telephone: (404) 205-5029 Facsimile: (866) 800-1482 E-mail: js@atlantaemployeelawyer.com - and - Gilda A. Hernandez, Esq. Michael B. Cohen, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A. HERNANDEZ, PLLC 1020 Southhill Dr., Ste. 130 Cary, NC 27513 Telephone: (919) 741-8693 Facsimile: (919) 869-1853 E-mail: ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com mcohen@gildahernandezlaw.com - and - Harold Lichten, Esq. Matthew Thomson, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com mthomson@llrlaw.com CRAZY HORSE: BakerHostetler Attorney Discusses 4th Circuit Ruling ----------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Devinney, Esq. -- wdevinney@bakerlaw.com -- of BakerHostetler, wrote that several Supreme Court decisions have upheld, in various contexts, arbitration agreements that waive the right to assert claims on a class basis. See, e.g., AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011); American Express Corp. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, 570 U.S. 333 (2013); DIRECTV, Inc. v. Imburgia, 577 U.S. __, 136 S.Ct. 463 (2015). But the Fourth Circuit recently showed this trend does not mean an arbitration agreement will serve as a blanket protection against class claims. Degidio v. Crazy Horse Saloon and Restaurant, Inc., No. 17-1145, 2018 U.S. LEXIS App 1178 (4th Cir. Jan. 18, 2018). The plaintiff was a dancer who performed at a club owned by the defendant, Crazy Horse. On August 8, 2013, plaintiff brought a putative class action, and a putative collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), alleging that Crazy Horse violated the FLSA's overtime and minimum wage provisions, as well as other laws, by mischaracterizing her and the club's other performers as independent contractors rather than employees. The plaintiff's employment agreement did not contain an arbitration clause or class action waiver, and the case proceeded through discovery until November 2014. At about the same time that discovery closed, Crazy Horse began requiring its performers to enter into an employment agreement that included an arbitration clause and class waiver. Plaintiff later moved for class certification under Rule 23 and for conditional certification as a collective action under the FLSA. In its opposition, Crazy Horse informed the court about the new employment agreements that contained the arbitration clause, but did not move to compel arbitration or indicate that it intended to do so if the performers who signed the agreements became plaintiffs. Instead, Crazy Horse submitted declarations from performers stating that they preferred to be independent contractors, which Crazy Horse argued precluded class certification because plaintiff was not similarly situated to the putative class members. On September 30, 2015, the trial court granted plaintiff's motion for FLSA certification. The court found that entertainers who performed at Crazy Horse's clubs were employees, not independent contractors. Between November 2015 and January 2016, fourteen opt-in plaintiffs joined the litigation, nine of whom had signed the arbitration agreements. Rather than move to compel arbitration, however, Crazy Horse filed motions to certify questions of law to the South Carolina Supreme Court and filed additional motions for summary judgment. On October 31, 2016, over three years after the case was filed, Crazy Horse moved to compel arbitration. The trial court denied the motion because it found that the employment agreements misled the performers and were the result of Crazy Horse's improper precertification communications with potential opt-in plaintiffs. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court. The Fourth Circuit recognized that the Federal Arbitration Act adopted "a liberal federal policy favoring arbitration agreements." 2018 U.S. LEXIS App 1178 at *8 (citing Concepcion, 563 U.S. at 341). The Fourth Circuit, however, noted that a party can waive its right to arbitration by "so substantially utilizing the litigation machinery that to subsequently permit arbitration would prejudice the party opposing [the motion to compel arbitration]." Id. (citing Fraser v. Merrill Lynch Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 817 F.2d 250, 252 (4th Cir. 1987)). The Fourth Circuit found that Crazy Horse's motion practice and discovery prior to moving to compel arbitration were improper attempts to secure multiple challenges to the merits of plaintiff's claims. The Fourth Circuit also labeled Crazy Horse's conduct to be "disdainful of orderly judicial process" and stated Crazy Horse should have "informed the district court of its intention to compel arbitration at [an] earlier stage of litigation" so the trial court "could have waited to issue merits judgments until the prior arbitration question had been settled." Id. at 3, 12. The Fourth Circuit also disapproved of Crazy Horse entering the arbitration agreements after the litigation was filed. The bottom line is that arbitration agreements are not bulletproof. First, they will not protect a defendant that the court deems to be abusing the judicial process, and courts will apply waiver and other principles to invalidate an arbitration agreement that it perceives is being misused. Second, with respect to timing, if a defendant intends to move to compel arbitration, it should inform the court as soon as possible of its intent, even if the motion is procedurally improper at the time. CREDIT CORP: Court Stays Further Proceedings in "Derosia" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. William E. Duffin granted the Plaintiff's motion to stay further proceedings in the lawsuit titled DENISE DEROSIA v. CREDIT CORP SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 2:17-cv-01671-WED (E.D. Wisc.). On November 28, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a class action complaint. At the same time, the Plaintiff filed what the Court commonly refers to as a "protective" motion for class certification. In this motion, the Plaintiff moved to certify the class described in the complaint but also moved the Court to stay further proceedings on that motion. In Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011), the court suggested that class-action plaintiffs "move to certify the class at the same time that they file their complaint," according to the order. "The pendency of that motion protects a putative class from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs." However, because parties are generally unprepared to proceed with a motion for class certification at the beginning of a case, the Damasco court suggested that the parties "ask the district court to delay its ruling to provide time for additional discovery or investigation." Accordingly, the Plaintiff's motion to stay further proceedings is granted. The parties are relieved from the automatic briefing schedule set forth in Civil Local Rule 7(b) and (c). Moreover, Judge Duffin says, for administrative purposes, it is necessary that the Clerk terminate the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. However, this motion will be regarded as pending to serve its protective purpose under Damasco. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=X8qfG4rY CRUISIN' CHUBBYS: Exotic Dancers Class Certified in "Jones" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. James D. Peterson entered an opinion & order in the lawsuit styled TERIANA JONES and BETHANY MORRISEY, on behalf of themselves and a class of employees and/or former employees similarly situated v. CRUISIN' CHUBBYS GENTLEMEN'S CLUB, EDGE OF THE DELLS, INC., TIMOTHY ENTERPRISES, LLC, KENNY'S FUTURE, LLC, LIVING ON THE EDGE CAMPGROUND & GO-KARTS, INC., PTB, INC., SOUTHERN HEIGHTS, LLC, TIMOTHY D. ROBERTS, KENNETH C. ROBERTS, and LANTZ RAY ROBERTS f/k/a THOMAS LANTZ DOUGLAS, Case No. 3:17- cv-00125-jdp (W.D. Wisc.): -- granting the Plaintiffs' motion to dismiss Jane Roe #5; -- granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification; and -- denying the Defendants' motion for decertification. The Court certifies this class: "Any individual who worked as an exotic dancer at Cruisin' Chubbys Gentlemen's Club from February 22, 2014, to the present."4.The court appoints the law firm of Moen Sheehan Meyer Ltd. as class counsel. Plaintiffs Teriana Jones and Bethany Morrisey were both exotic dancers at Defendant Cruisin' Chubbys Gentlemen's Club. They contend that the Defendants were their joint employer under both state and federal labor laws, but that the Defendants classified them incorrectly as independent contractors, and, as a result, violated legal requirements to pay the Plaintiffs a minimum wage and the higher rate for working overtime. The Plaintiffs also contend that the Defendants violated state and federal law by retaining a portion of the tips the dancers received. A copy of the Opinion & Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=HgYRmkz7 CVS HEALTH: Faces John Doe Suit over HIV/AIDS Treatment ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against CVS Health Corporation. The case is captioned as John Doe One, John Doe Two, John Doe Three, and John Doe Four, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CVS Health Corporation; CVS Pharmacy, Inc.; Caremark RX, L.L.C.; Caremark, L.L.C.; Caremark California Specialty Pharmacy, L.L.C.; National Railroad Passenger Corporation, and Does 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-1031 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 16, 2018). The complaint alleged that Defendants' engaged in a discriminatory business practices targeting those persons whose prescription drug benefit is administered by CVS Caremark and who are prescribed specialty medications for the treatment or prevention of HIV/AIDS. Many enrollees in health plans where CVS Caremark controls and administers the pharmacy benefits are told they are required to obtain their HIV/AIDS Medications from Caremark Specialty Pharmacy d/b/a CVS/Specialty and/or Caremark California Specialty Pharmacy. L.L.C., a wholly-owned subsidiary of CVS Health Corporation. Caremark Specialty only delivers such medications by mail order or mails them to a CVS Pharmacy as a drop shipment location purely for pickup. This program threatens HIV/AIDS patients' health and privacy. If HIV/AIDS patients in those plans do not obtain their HIV/AIDS Medications from Caremark Specialty, then they must either pay more out-of-pocket or pay full-price with no insurance benefits whatsoever -- thousands of dollars or more each month -- to purchase their medications at an in-network community pharmacy where they can receive counseling from a pharmacist and other services they may need to stay alive. CVS Health Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, provides integrated pharmacy health care services. It operates through Pharmacy Services and Retail/LTC segments. The Pharmacy Services segment offers pharmacy benefit management solutions, such as plan design and administration, formulary management, Medicare Part D services, mail order, specialty pharmacy and infusion services, retail pharmacy network management services, prescription management systems, clinical services, disease management programs, and medical pharmacy management services. This segment serves employers, insurance companies, unions, government employee groups, health plans, Medicare Part D plans, managed Medicaid plans, plans offered on public and private exchanges, other sponsors of health benefit plans, and individuals under the CVS Caremark Pharmacy Services, Caremark, CVS Specialty, AccordantCare, SilverScript, Wellpartner, NovoLogix, Coram, Navarro Health Services, and ACS Pharmacy names. The company was formerly known as CVS Caremark Corporation and changed its name to CVS Health Corporation in September 2014. CVS Health Corporation was founded in 1892 and is headquartered in Woonsocket, Rhode Island. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alan M. Mansfield, Esq. WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP 16870 W. Bernardo Dr. Suite 400 San Diego, CA 92127 Telephone: (858) 674-6641 Facsimile: (855) 274-1888 E-mail: amansfield@whatleykallas.com 1 Sansome Street, 35th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 860-2503 Facsimile: (888) 331-9633 - and - Edith M. Kallas, Esq. WHATLEY KALLAS LLP 1180 Avenue of the Americans, 20th Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 447-7060 Facsimile: (800) 922-4851 E-mail: ekallas@whatleykallas.com - and - Jerry Flanagan, Esq. 2701 Ocean Park, Suite 112 Santa Monica, CA 90405 Telephone: (310) 392-0522 DISCOVER BANK: Court Grants Arbitration in "Johnson" FCRA Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin issued an Opinion and Order granting Defendant's Motion for Arbitration and Stay in the case captioned MARK E. JOHNSON, DONNA J. ANDERSON, and JODI M. EICK, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. DISCOVER BANK, Defendant, No. 17-cv-412-jdp (W.D. Wis.). Plaintiffs failed to repay the balances on their credit card accounts and subsequently filed bankruptcy actions. Discover filed claims related to plaintiffs' credit card debt in those actions and attached to the pleadings copies of plaintiffs' monthly billing statements. Included in those statements were plaintiffs' credit scores, which Discover did not redact. Plaintiffs contend that publishing their credit scores was an impermissible use of a consumer report under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1681b. To prevail on its motion to compel arbitration, Discover must show three things: (1) a valid, written agreement to arbitrate exists; (2) plaintiffs' claims fall within the scope of that agreement; and (3) plaintiffs have refused to proceed to arbitration in accordance with the agreement. Whether the arbitration clause is enforceable under federal law Plaintiffs' reliance on the new regulation fails for the simple reason that Congress already repealed the regulation. Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to 'Arbitration Agreements' (82 Fed. Reg. 33210 (July 19, 2017)), and such rule shall have no force or effect. And even if the regulation had not been repealed, it applied only to arbitration agreements entered into on or after March 19, 2018. Whether plaintiffs' claims fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement Plaintiffs cite Garriguenc v. Love to support their argument that dispute should be construed narrowly because that is how a consumer would understand the term. In Garriguec, the test is not what the insurer intended the words to mean but what a reasonable person in the position of an insured would have understood the words to mean. But even if the court assumes that the rule in Garriguenc applies in this case, plaintiffs identify no reason that a reasonable consumer would construe the word dispute as excluding claims in a lawsuit. In fact, plaintiffs do not explain what they believe that dispute means if it does not include controversies claims. If the court were to adopt plaintiffs' view, it would render the arbitration clause meaningless because all litigation consists of claims. Plaintiffs' second argument is that their claims are not covered by the arbitration clause because the card member agreement says nothing about credit scores. It is well established that arbitration clauses are not limited to breach of contract claims if the language of the clause is broad enough to cover other types of claims. Plaintiffs cite no contrary authority and they do not otherwise explain why claims under FCRA and FDCPA cannot be subject to arbitration. The language of the arbitration clause is broad enough to include the claims raised in this case. The clause is not limited to claims arising under the card member agreement and it is not limited to conduct by Discover that has a particular purpose, as plaintiffs suggest. Rather, the clause applies to any claim related to plaintiffs' Discover account. Thus, it is not dispositive whether the card member agreement discusses credit scores. Again, plaintiffs' claims are related to their account because the disclosures they are challenging appear on account statements and were filed in the context of litigation about the collection of a debt owed on the account. Plaintiffs' third argument is that their claims are outside the scope of the arbitration clause because including credit scores on billing statements was never an integral part of, or necessary for, Discover's administration of its Account with Plaintiffs. This is a little closer to the mark because it focuses on the claims' relationship to the account rather than just the agreement. But the obvious flaw with the argument is that the arbitration clause does not require the claim to be an integral part of the account or a necessary part of its administration. The phrase relating to permits a more indirect connection. Although the breadth of the words related to' does not mean the sky is the limit, this is not a situation in which the relationship is so tenuous, remote, or peripheral, that it does not trigger the arbitration clause. In sum, Discover has shown that it has an enforceable arbitration agreement with plaintiffs that covers the claims raised in this case. Because plaintiffs have not identified any other reason for refusing to enforce the agreement, the court will grant Discover's motion to compel and stay the proceedings in this court pending arbitration. Defendant Discover Bank's motion to compel arbitration is granted. A full-text copy of the District Court's February 12, 2018 Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yb7xwj2g from Leagle.com. Mark E. Johnson, On behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Donna J. Anderson, On behalf of herself and all others similarly situated & Jodi M. Eick, On behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Joshua D. Christianson, Christianson & Freund, LLC, 1620 L Street, N.W., Suite 900. Washington, DC 20036, Thomas John Lyons, Jr., Consumer Justice Center, P.A. 367 Commerce Ct Vadnais Heights, MN, 55127- 8506 & Thomas John Lyons, Sr., Lyons Law Firm PA. Discover Bank, Defendant, represented by Charles F. Webber -- chuck.webber@FaegreBD.com -- Faegre Baker Daniels, LLP & Jessica Zoe Savran -- jessica.savran@FaegreBD.com -- Faegre Baker Daniels LLP. DIVERSIFIED RECOVERY: "Bradley" Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation ------------------------------------------------------------ Nickie Bradley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Diversified Recovery Bureau, LLC, Plaza Services, LLC and John Does 1-25, Case No. 6:18-cv-00024 (W.D. Va., February 8, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act. Plaintiff Nickie Bradley is a resident of the State of Virginia, County of Lynchburg City. Defendants are debt collectors. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aryeh E. Stein, Esq. MERIDIAN LAW, LLC 600 Reisterstown Rd, Ste 700 Baltimore, MD 21208 E-mail: astein@meridianlawfirm.com EQUISOLAR INC: "Alaniz" Suit Seeks Damages Under CTA ---------------------------------------------------- Francisco Alaniz, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Equisolar, Inc., Case No. 18-at-00098 (E.D. Calif., February 8, 2018), seeks damages, restitution and injunctive relief for violations of the California Translation Act and California's Unfair Competition Law. This action seeks to enjoin Defendant's practices of unlawfully forcing California consumers to enter into contracts that are not drafted in a language known by the consumer as well as contracts that fail to include required notices of consumers' rights. Plaintiff Francisco Alaniz is a citizen and resident of the City of Wasco, County of Kern, State of California. Defendant Equisolar, Inc. installs solar panels. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Matthew M. Loker, Esq. Elizabeth A. Wagner, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 1303 East Grand Avenue, Suite 101 Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Tel: (800) 400-6808 Fax: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com ml@kazlg.com elizabeth@kazlg.com - and - Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. HYDE & SWIGART 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Ste. 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Tel: (619) 233-7770 Fax: (619) 297-1022 E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com ETC INSTITUTE: Removes "Williams" Suit to N.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of Bruce Williams and Tonya Hennessey, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ETC Institute; A+ Student Staffing; Does 1-50, Inclusive, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco (Case No. CGC-17-563308) to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and assigned Case No. 3:18- cv-01011-MEJ (N.D. Cal., Feb. 15, 2018). The case is assigned to Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James. A+ Student Staffing is a staffing and recruiting company that provides event planning management services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel E. Davey, Esq. WORKMAN LAW FIRM, PC 177 Post Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 782-3660 Facsimile: (415) 788-1028 E-mail: rachel@workmanlawpc.com - and - Robin Gibson Workman, Esq. WORKMAN LAW FIRM, PC 177 Post Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 782-3660 E-mail: robin@workmanlawpc.com The Defendant is represented by: Courtney A Hasselberg, Esq. Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP 650 City Center Drive, Suite 1400 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (714) 545-9200 Facsimile: (714) 850-1030 E-mail: courtney.hasselberg@lewisbrisbois.com - and - Tracy Wei Costantino, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Telephone: (213) 689-0404 Facsimile: (213) 689-0430 E-mail: tracy.costantino@jacksonlewis.com - and - Suzetty C Shen, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS, P.C. 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (310) 923-8603 E-mail: suzetty.shen@jacksonlewis.com EXACTTARGET LLC: Court Grants Prelim OK of "Simms" Class Deal ------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, issued an Order granting Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement in the case captioned LATONYA SIMMS, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. EXACTTARGET, LLC, Defendant, Cause No. 1:14-cv-737-WTL-MJD (S.D. Ind.). For settlement purposes only, the Court certifies the proposed Settlement Class, consisting of: All persons in the United States who received a text message via an ExactTarget texting platform from or on behalf of Simply Fashion during the Class Period (i.e., July 23, 2009, through September 30, 2013). Excluded from the Settlement Class are ExactTarget, its parent companies, affiliates or subsidiaries, or any entities in which such companies have a controlling interest, and any employees thereof; the judge and magistrate judge to whom this case is assigned and any member of those judges' staffs and immediate families; and any persons who timely and validly request exclusion from the Settlement Class. For settlement purposes only, the Court approves the appointment of Plaintiff Latonya Simms as Class Representative. For settlement purposes only, the Court approves the appointment of Ronald A. Marron, Alexis M. Wood, and Kas L. Gallucci of the Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron as Class Counsel and finds that they are competent and capable of exercising the responsibilities of Class Counsel. On Friday, July 20, 2018, at 1:30 p.m., in Room 202, 46 E. Ohio Street, Indianapolis, Indiana, the Court will a hold a Final Approval Hearing on the fairness, adequacy, and reasonableness of the Settlement Agreement, and to determine whether: (i) final approval of the Settlement should be granted and (ii) Class Counsel's application for attorneys' fees and expenses, and an incentive award to the Class Representative, should be granted. No later than May 22, 2018, the Plaintiff shall file her motion for attorneys' fees and expenses, and no later than July 6, 2018, the parties shall file a motion for final approval of the Settlement. A full-text copy of the District Court's February 12, 2018 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yba2uq35 from Leagle.com. LATONYA SIMMS, on behalf of herself, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Ronald Marron -- ron@consumersadvocates.com -- LAW OFFICE OF RONALD MARRON, pro hac vice, Alexis Marie Wood -- alexis@consumersadvocates.com -- LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON, APLC, pro hac vice, Douglas J. Campion doug@djcampion.com, LAW OFFICE OF DOUGLAS J. CAMPION, APC, pro hac vice & Kas L. Gallucci -- kas@consumersadvocates.com -- LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON, pro hac vice. EXACTTARGET, LLC, Defendant, represented by Keith E. Eggleton -- keggleton@wsgr.com -- WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, pro hac vice, Craig E. Bolton -- cbolton@wsgr.com -- WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSAIT & Tonia Ouellette Klausner -- tklausner@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, pro hac vice. EXPERIAN INFORMATION: "Rosen" Suit Alleges Violation of FCRA ------------------------------------------------------------ BARRY ROSEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC.; CLARITY SERVICES, INC.; EASY CASH ASAP; LOANME INC.; MARLETTE FUNDING LLC; MONEYKEY CA, INC.; MONEY LION, INC.; NIIWIN, LLC; AND DOES 1 through 10, Defendants, Case No. BC694538 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 16, 2018) alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act in providing and obtaining consumer reports. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., an information services company, provides information, analytical, and marketing services to organizations and consumers to manage risk and reward of commercial and financial decisions. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. was formerly known as Information Systems and Services, Inc. and changed its name to Experian Information Solutions, Inc. in September 1996. The company was incorporated in 1992 and is based in Costa Mesa, California with additional locations in New York, New York; Parsippany, New Jersey; Burlington, Massachusetts; Lincoln, Nebraska; Atlanta, Georgia; Costa Mesa, California; Schaumburg, Illinois; Allen, Texas; Dublin, Ireland; Nottingham and London, United Kingdom; and Sao Paulo, Brazil. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Experian plc. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter R. Dion-Kindem, Esq. THE DION-KINDEM LAW FIRM PETER R. DION-KINDEM, P.C. 21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 900 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (818) 883-4900 Facsimile: (818) 883-4902 E-mail: peter@dion-kindemlaw.com - and - Lonnie C. Blanchard, III, Esq. THE BLANCHARD LAW GROUP, APC 3311 East Pico Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90023 Telephone: (213) 599-8255 Facsimile: (213) 402-3949 E-mail: lonnieblanchard@gmail.com FEDERAL REALTY: Faces "Brodie" Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania -------------------------------------------------------- CAROLINE BRODIE and JOY LEVINE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FEDERAL REALTY INVESTMENT TRUST, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00716-GAM (E.D. Pa., Feb. 16, 2018) is an action brought against the Defendant alleging violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. The case is assigned to Honorable Gerald A. McHugh. Federal Realty Investment Trust is a self-administered real estate investment trust. The Company specializes in the ownership, management, development, and redevelopment of prime community and neighborhood shopping centers. Federal Realty Investment Trust serves customers in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elizabeth Pollock-Avery, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER LLP 1133 Penn Avenue 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 E-mail: eavery@carlsonlynch.com FERRARA CANDY: Iglesias Moves to Certify Consumers Class in Cal. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned THOMAS IGLESIAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FERRARA CANDY CO., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:17-cv-00849-VC (N.D. Cal.), asks the Court to certify a class of consumers defined as: All persons who purchased opaque boxes of 5-oz. Jujyfruits, 5-oz. Lemonhead, 5.5-oz. Redhots, and 3.5-oz. Trolli in the State of California for personal use and not for resale during the time period February 21, 2013, through the present. Excluded from the Class are Defendants' officers, directors, and employees, and any individual who received remuneration from Defendants in connection with that individual's use or endorsement of the Product. Mr. Iglesias also asks the Court to appoint him as Class Representative and to appoint Ryan Clarkson, Esq., Shireen Clarkson, Esq., and Bahar Sodaify, Esq., of Clarkson Law Firm, P.C., as Class Counsel. The Court will commence a hearing on May 31, 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=TFi3uWpw The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq. Shireen M. Clarkson, Esq. Bahar Sodaify, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 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 FIT CLUB: Faces "Hagans" Suit over Failure to Pay OT Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- SADE HAGANS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FIT CLUB, INC; and KELLEN SCANTLEBURY, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01374-KBF (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 15, 2018) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, maximum liquidated damages and attorneys' fees, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants in New York County, New York, to work as a receptionist, from August 2017 to November 27, 2017. Fit Club, Inc. is a domestic corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James F. Sullivan, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JAMES F. SULLIVAN, P.C. 52 Duane Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 374-0009 Facsimile: (212) 374-9931 FREEDOM FINANCIAL: Made Unsolicited Calls, "Berman" Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Berman, Plaintiff v. Freedom Financial Network, LLC and Freedom Debt Relief, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-01060-DMR (N.D. Cal., Feb. 19, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for sending robotexts and robocalls to the Plaintiff in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Freedom Financial Network, LLC, through its subsidiaries, provides debt relief and financial solutions in the United States. Freedom Financial Network, LLC was founded in 2002 and is based in San Mateo, California with an additional office in Tempe, Arizona. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon B. Fougner, Esq. Edward A. Broderick, Esq. Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. BRODERICK & PARONICH, P.C. 99 High Street, Suite 304 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 738-7080 Facsimile: (617) 830-0327 E-mail: ted@broderick-law.com anthony@broderick-law.com - and - Matthew P. McCue, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW P. MCCUE 1 South Avenue, Suite 3 Natick, MA 01760 Telephone: (508) 655-1415 Facsimile: (508) 319-3077 E-mail: mmccue@massattorneys.net GENOCEA BIOSCIENCES: Scott+Scott to Lead in Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued a Memorandum and Order granting Genocea Investor Group's Motion to Appoint Lead Plaintiffs and Lead Counsel in the case captioned STEVEN EMERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; SHELDON GRONER; BARRY HEANY; and MARK HANESS, Plaintiffs, v. GENOCEA BIOSCIENCES, INC., WILLIAM D. CLARK, and JONATHAN POOLE, Defendants, Civil Action No. 17-12137-PBS, Consolidated Case No. 17-12168-PBS, 17-12474- PBS (D. Mass.). In this proposed class action, two competing lead plaintiffs allege securities fraud by a biopharmaceutical company. The plaintiffs assert that Genocea Biosciences, Inc., and two officers artificially inflated the company's stock price by reporting overly optimistic prospects for a potential herpes treatment when, in reality, the company's finances could not support successful regulatory approval of the drug. When the company later reported that it was abandoning the treatment, its share price fell precipitously. This prompted several plaintiffs to sue under the federal securities laws. General Framework for Appointing a Lead Plaintiff A class member may trigger a rebuttable presumption that she is the "most adequate plaintiff" by satisfying three criteria: (1) filing the complaint or making a timely motion to be lead plaintiff; (2) having the largest financial interest in the relief sought; and (3) otherwise satisfying Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The two competing lead plaintiffs in this case are an individual named Sheldon Groner and a group of five unrelated investors referred to as the Genocea Investor Group (GIG). Groner and GIG join issue over two of the three most adequate plaintiff criteria: the timeliness of GIG's motion to become lead plaintiff, and who has the largest financial interest in the litigation. Timeliness of GIG's Motion Groner first argues that GIG's motion to be lead plaintiff was untimely. According to Groner, because the motion was filed at 6:04 p.m. on January 2, 2018, it was four minutes late under the local filing deadline of 6 p.m. and must be deemed filed the next day. Because January 2, 2018, happened to be the final day in the PSLRA's 60-day window for filing lead-plaintiff motions, Groner argues that GIG's motion was untimely. That said, the Court denies the request to disqualify GIG's motion over a de minimis infraction of four minutes. Groner cites no case law to support his contention that the PSLRA's 60day window is jurisdictional in nature. Although courts typically adhere strictly to the PSLRA's 60-day filing window, the 6 p.m. deadline under the local rules is not sacrosanct. Because GIG's motion was filed on the sixtieth day of the PSLRA's 60-day window, the motion did not turn into a pumpkin at the stroke of 6 p.m. Thus, notwithstanding the four-minute lag under the local rule, the Court will consider the motion. Aggregation of Plaintiffs' Losses The parties agree, although they quibble about the exact figures, that if the GIG members are permitted to aggregate their claims, they have the largest financial interest in the case, exceeding Groner's totals in each of the four categories just described. The parties similarly do not dispute that if aggregation is not permitted, Groner sweeps all four categories and therefore has the largest individual loss under the same metric. The GIG members have submitted a joint declaration discussing, albeit not in tremendous detail, their plan to exercise joint decision-making and work together to actively monitor the activities of counsel. The group reports that it has agreed to regularly review and discuss case filings with counsel through joint conference calls, as well as other measures. GIG also asserts that it has implemented communication procedures to enable [its members] to confer via phone and/or email on short notice to ensure the group is able to make timely decisions. Courts have found communication and decision-making plans like these to be persuasive evidence of group cohesion. Given the communication and decision-making plans described in GIG's joint declaration, and the presentation by counsel concerning the sophistication of the GIG members, the Court is satisfied that the five-person GIG will adequately represent the plaintiffs' interests and will not cede control of the litigation to the attorneys. Accordingly, the Court will permit the members of GIG to aggregate their losses for purposes of the most adequate plaintiff" analysis. It bears mentioning that this decision is without prejudice, and the Court "reserves the right to modify this lead plaintiff structure in the event that litigation is stalled, expenses become unnecessarily duplicative or wasteful, or the structure becomes otherwise unmanageable. GIG's motion to be appointed as lead plaintiff and Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP, and Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, as co-lead class counsel and Block & Leviton, LLP, as liaison counsel is allowed. Groner's parallel motion is denied. A full-text copy of the District Court's February 12, 2018 Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y89gz6eg from Leagle.com. Taylor Walker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jason M. Leviton -- jason@blockesq.com -- Block & Leviton LLP & Shannon L. Hopkins -- shopkins@zlk.com -- Levi Korsinsky LLP. Barry Heaney & Mark Haness, Plaintiffs, represented by Daryl DeValerio Andrews -- daryl@andrewsdevalerio.com -- Andrews DeValerio. Sheldon Groner, Plaintiff, represented by Katherine M. Lenahan -- klenahan@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, pro hac vice, Mitchell J. Matorin, Matorin Law Office LLC, 18 Grove Street, Suite 2 Wellesley, MA 02482, Richard W. Gonnello -- rgonnello@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi & Faruqi LLP, pro hac vice & SHERIEF MORSY -- smorsy@faruqilaw.com -- FARUQI & FARUQI LLP. Genocea Biosciences, Inc., William D. Clark & Jonathan Poole, Defendants, represented by Kristi Lynn Jobson -- kristi.jobson@ropesgray.com -- Ropes & Gray LLP & Randall W. Bodner -- rbodner@ropesgray.com -- Ropes & Gray LLP. Omer Yuksel, Lirio Fiocchi, Scott C. Hartmann, Satya Kunapuli & Raul Zamudio, Movants, represented by Jason M. Leviton, Block & Leviton LLP. Genocea Biosciences, Inc., William D. Clark & Jonathan Poole, Defendants, represented by Kristi Lynn Jobson, Ropes & Gray LLP & Randall W. Bodner, Ropes & Gray LLP. Omer Yuksel, Lirio Fiocchi, Scott C. Hartmann, Satya Kunapuli & Raul Zamudio, Movants, represented by Jason M. Leviton, Block & Leviton LLP. GOOGLE LLC: Court Grants Huawie's Bid to Dismiss Nexus 6P Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, issued an Order granting Huawie Device USA, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction the case captioned IN RE NEXUS 6P PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, Case No. 17-cv-02185-BLF (N.D. Cal.). Here, the Court considers the personal jurisdiction arguments in Huawei's Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint and to Strike Class Allegations. Plaintiffs allege severe defects in their Nexus 6P smartphones. In the operative complaint, Plaintiffs assert causes of action for breach of warranty, fraud, and unjust enrichment against the companies that developed the phone, Huawei Device USA, Inc. (Huawei) and Google LLC (Google). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(1)(A), the Court has personal jurisdiction if the defendant would be subject to the jurisdiction of a court of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located, here California. Because California's long-arm statute is coextensive with federal due process requirements, the Court may exercise personal jurisdiction so long as it comports with due process. Personal Jurisdiction Huawei moves under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), seeking dismissal of Plaintiffs' claims against Huawei for lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiffs assert that Huawei is subject to both general and specific jurisdiction in California. General Jurisdiction Plaintiffs' remaining evidence supporting the exercise of general jurisdiction comes not from the CAC, but instead from exhibits attached to Plaintiffs' rejected request for judicial notice. Even if the Court were to consider these materials, general jurisdiction would still be lacking. Plaintiffs point to Huawei's research and development operations in Santa Clara, California but make no showing that those activities go beyond a substantial, continuous, and systematic course of business" to contacts so continuous and systematic as to render Huawei essentially at home in California. Plaintiffs fall far short of demonstrating that this Court may properly exercise general jurisdiction over Huawei. Specific Jurisdiction In re Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, 137 S.Ct. 1773 (2017), noted that while it sells Plavix in California, it did not develop, manufacture, label, package, or seek regulatory approval of the product in California, and none of the non-residents claimed that they obtained, ingested, or were injured by Plavix in California. The California Supreme Court held that the non-residents were properly subject to specific jurisdiction, but the U.S. Supreme Court reversed. As the U.S. Supreme Court emphasized, specific jurisdiction requires a careful examination of the nature of the asserted claims because the underlying controversy must arise out of or relate to the defendant's contacts with the forum. Put another way, the defendant's suit-related conduct must create a substantial connection with the forum State. There must be an affiliation between the forum and the underlying controversy, principally, an activity or an occurrence that takes place in the forum State and is therefore subject to the State's regulation. As those standards indicate, the focus is on whether each individual defendant's suit-related conduct forms a connection with the forum itself, so the mere fact of a relationship with a resident plaintiff or third party, standing alone, is an insufficient basis for jurisdiction. Because the quality of the evidence uncovered will need to be judged on its own merit, the Court does not purport to rule on what evidence would be sufficient to establish specific jurisdiction. But, unlike the other allegations and evidence, the facts about Huawei's Santa Clara facility and Huawei's California-based collaboration with Google warrant further exploration because they go to the central controversy namely, the development of allegedly defective Nexus 6Ps that underlie at least some of Plaintiffs' claims. In a similar vein, Judge Tigar recently explained that, under Bristol-Myers, a district court may exercise specific jurisdiction when a plaintiff adequately ties the defendant's conduct in the forum to the basis for the claims. There, the plaintiff's allegation that nearly every pivotal clinical trial involved studying the challenged drug] throughout the State of California created a direct connection between the defendant's conduct in California critical clinical trials on the challenged drug and the basis for the plaintiff's claims the inadequacy of those trials. Plaintiffs' amended allegations, including those derived from the limited jurisdictional discovery, must similarly demonstrate the requisite link between Huawei's California conduct and Plaintiffs' underlying claims. Because Bristol-Myers was unavailable when Plaintiffs filed the CAC, Plaintiffs did not have the opportunity to develop their complaint in light of the newly articulated personal jurisdiction standards. Therefore, the Court deems it appropriate to grant Plaintiffs leave to amend the CAC to allege facts about the connection between California and Plaintiffs' claims against Huawei. Accordingly, Huawei's Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is granted with leave to amend. A full-text copy of the District Court's February 12, 2018 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9ke25bq from Leagle.com. Jonathan Makcharoenwoodhi & Edward Beheler, Plaintiffs, represented by Adam E. Polk -- aep@girardgibbs.com -- Girard Gibbs LLP, Andrew William Ferich -- AMF@chimicles.com -- Chimicles and Tikellis LLP, pro hac vice, Benjamin F. Johns -- BFJ@chimicles.com -- Chimicles & Tikellis LLP, pro hac vice, Jessica Linn Titler -- jt@chimicles.com -- Chimicles and Tikellis LLP, pro hac vice, Jordan S. Elias -- je@girardgibbs.com -- Girard Gibbs LLP & Cory Steven Fein, 712 Main St Suite 800. Houston, TX 77002, Attorney at Law. Colton Winfield, Plaintiff, represented by Adam E. Polk, Girard Gibbs LLP, Andrew William Ferich, Chimicles and Tikellis LLP, Benjamin F. Johns, Chimicles & Tikellis LLP, pro hac vice, Jessica Linn Titler, Chimicles and Tikellis LLP, pro hac vice, Jordan S. Elias, Girard Gibbs LLP &Cory Steven Fein, Attorney at Law. Brian Christensen, Plaintiff, represented by Simon Seiver Grille sg@girardgibbs.com -- Girard Gibbs LLP, Adam E. Polk, Girard Gibbs LLP, Andrew William Ferich, Chimicles and Tikellis LLP, Benjamin F. Johns, Chimicles & Tikellis LLP, Daniel C. Girard, Girard Gibbs LLP, Jessica Linn Titler, Chimicles and Tikellis LLP & Jordan S. Elias, Girard Gibbs LLP. Khanh Tran, Paul Servodio, Yuriy Davydov, Kenneth Johnston, Anthony Martorello, Rebecca Harrison, James Poore, Jr., Justin Leone, Roy Berry, Taylor Jones, Alex Gorbatchev & Zachary Himes, Plaintiffs, represented by Adam E. Polk, Girard Gibbs LLP, Jordan S. Elias, Girard Gibbs LLP & Benjamin F. Johns, Chimicles & Tikellis LLP. Huawei Device USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Simon J. Frankel, Covington & Burling LLP & Lindsey Catherine Barnhart, Covington Burling LLP. Google LLC, Defendant, represented by Joshua H. Lerner, Durie Tangri LLP, Catherine Y. Kim, Durie Tangri LLP, Eugene Novikov, Durie Tangri LLP & Ragesh K. Tangri, Durie Tangri LLP. ILLINOIS: Titus Moves to Certify Class of Pontiac Jail Detainees ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled Adam Titus, et al. v. Warden Melvin, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-01094-JES (C.D. Ill.), ask the Court to certify this class: all individuals incarcerated at the Pontiac Correctional Center at the time of the filing of this complaint, and all individuals who will be housed at the Pontiac Correctional Center in the future The proposed class excludes all other houses besides North cellhouse and West cellhouse. Michael Melvin is the Warden of the Pontiac Correctional Center. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=7YiRmpqX INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS: Zepeda Sues over Use of Biometrics ----------------------------------------------------------- ERIC ZEPEDA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS GROUP, INC.; and KIMPTON HOTEL & RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC, Case No. 2018-CH-02140 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., Feb. 16, 2018) is an action against the Defendants' illegal actions in collecting, storing, and using Plaintiff's and the class's biometric identifiers and biometric information without informed written consent, in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. InterContinental Hotels Group PLC owns, manages, franchises, and leases hotels. It operates hotels, resorts, and restaurants under the InterContinental, Kimpton, Hotel Indigo, EVEN, HUALUXE, Holiday Inn, Holiday Inn Express, Staybridge Suites Hotels, Crowne Plaza, Holiday Inn Club Vacations, Holiday Inn Resort, and Candlewood Suites Hotels brand names. As of March 02, 2017, it franchised, leased, managed, and owned approximately 5,200 hotels with 770,000 guest rooms in approximately 100 countries worldwide. The company was founded in 1967 and is headquartered in Denham, the United Kingdom. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Evan M. Meyers, Esq. David L. Gerbie, Esq. William P. Kingston, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Floor Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 893-7002 Facsimile: (312) 275-7895 E-mail: emeyers@mcgpc.com dgerbie@mcgpc.com wkingston@mcgpc.com J.A. CAMBECE: "Brook" Suit Moved to District of Massachusetts ------------------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of David G. Brook, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. J.A. Cambece Law Office, P.C. and J. Anthony Cambece, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit to U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts and assign Case No. 1:18-cv-10314-RWZ (D. Mass., Feb. 19, 2018). The case is assigned to Judge Rya W. Zobel, and referred to Magistrate Judge Marianne B. Bowler. J. A. Cambece Law Office, P.C. provides legal services. The Company offers solutions for financial obligation and debt collection, as well as legal guidance. J. A. Cambece Law Office serves customers in the State of Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth D. Quat, Esq. QUAT LAW OFFICES 929 Worcester Road Framingham, MA 01701 Telephone: (508) 872-1261 E-mail: kquat@quatlaw.com - and - Josef C. Culik, Esq. CULIK LAW PC 10 Post Office Square Suite 800, South Tower Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 830-1795 Facsimile: (617) 830-1576 E-mail: jculik@culiklaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Andrew M. Schneiderman, Esq. Justin M. Fabella, Esq. HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP 28 State Street 24th Floor Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 213-7000 Facsimile: (617) 213-7001 E-mail: aschneiderman@hinshawlaw.com jfabella@hinshawlaw.com - and - Justin M. Fabella, Esq. HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP 28 State Street, 24th Floor Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 213-7004 Facsimile: (617) 213-7001 E-mail: jfabella@hinshawlaw.com JEFFERY H JORDAN: Court Grants Prelim. OK of "Barrientos" Deal -------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. John A. Kronstadt grants the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of settlement in the lawsuit titled Sonia Barrientos v. Law office of Jeffery H. Jordan, Case No. 2:15-cv- 06282-JAK-GJS (C.D. Cal.). According to the Court's civil minutes, the Court states its tentative views that it is inclined to grant the Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval. Counsel address the Court. The Court adheres to its tentative views, and the Motion is granted, provided, however, that Plaintiff shall file a declaration setting forth the extent and nature of her efforts as representative of the Class, including an estimate of the time she spent satisfying such responsibilities. The hearing on the final approval of class action settlement is set for September 17, 2018, at 8:30 a.m., with the motion to be filed no later than August 6, 2018. A copy of the Civil Minutes is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=yl8XuVOl The Plaintiff is represented by: Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 324 S Beverly Blvd., Suite 725 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (888) 595-9111 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: abacon@toddflaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Stephen A. Watkins, Esq. CARLSON & MESSER LLP 5901 W Century Blvd., Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90045-5445 Telephone: (310) 242-2214 Facsimile: (310) 242-2222 E-mail: watkinss@cmtlaw.com JUNO THERAPEUTICS: Faces "Piloco" Suit Over Proposed Merger ----------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT PILOCO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUNO THERAPEUTICS, INC.; HAL BARRON; HANS BISHOP; THOMAS DANIEL; ANTHONY EVNIN; JAY FLATLEY RICHARD KLAUSNER; ROBERT NELSEN; HOWARD PIEN; RUPERT VESSEY; and MARY AGNES WIDEROTTER, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00280-UNA (D. Del., Feb. 16, 2018) is brought against the Defendants in connection with the tender offer by Celgene Corporation through its wholly-owned subsidiary Magpie Corporation, pursuant to which all of the issued and the outstanding shares of Juno common stock will be purchased for $87 per share in cash. The Proposed Transaction is valued at approximately $9 billion. Juno Therapeutics, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, engages in developing cell-based cancer immunotherapies. Juno Therapeutics, Inc. has collaboration agreements with Celgene Corporation, Fate Therapeutics, Inc., Editas Medicine, Inc., MedImmune Limited, and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. The company was formerly known as FC Therapeutics, Inc. and changed its name to Juno Therapeutics, Inc. in October 2013. Juno Therapeutics, Inc. was founded in 2013 and is headquartered in Seattle, Washington. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Blake A. Bennett, Esq. COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A. 1000 West Street, 10th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 984-3800 - and - Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. Miles D. Schreiner, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405 New York, NY 10118 Telephone: (212) 971-1341 Facsimile: (212) 202-7880 E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com mschreiner@monteverdelaw.com KOHN LAW: Court Denies Arbitration of "Rizzo" FDCPA, FCRA Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin issued an Opinion and Order denying Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration in the case captioned SASHA RIZZO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. KOHN LAW FIRM S.C., Defendant, No. 17-cv-408-jdp (W.D. Wis.). Rizzo alleges that she failed to repay the balance on her credit card account, so both Discover and defendant Kohn Law Firm S.C., a law firm that regularly engages in the collection of consumer debts, sued Rizzo in the Circuit Court for Eau Claire County, Wisconsin. Attached to the complaint was a copy of Rizzo's monthly billing statement for her Discover account and included in the statement was Rizzo's credit score, which was not redacted. Rizzo contends that publishing her credit score qualifies as unlawful debt collection activity under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and was an impermissible use of a consumer report under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). In this case, Kohn is relying on an arbitration clause in the card member agreement between Rizzo and Discover. Kohn is not a party to that agreement, but it says that it nevertheless has the right to enforce the arbitration clause. A person may enforce a contract as third-party beneficiary if the contract indicates that he or she was either specifically intended by the contracting parties to benefit from the contract or is a member of the class the parties intended to benefit. Kohn cites Sweet Dreams Unlimited, Inc. v. Dial-A-Mattress Int'l, Ltd., 1 F.3d 639, 643 (7th Cir. 1993), for the proposition that "courts have routinely admonished pleading tactics aimed at attempting to avoid arbitration, but Sweet Dreams is not instructive." The court held only that a party could not avoid the effect of an arbitration clause simply by changing her legal theory if the subject matter of her claim fell within the scope of the clause. That is an objective question that has nothing to do with the parties' motivations. The court did not say either that a party's intent for taking particular action in the litigation is relevant in the context of a motion to compel or that a court may expand the scope of an arbitration agreement in light of that intent. Another problem with Kohn's argument is that it simply doesn't make sense. Kohn does not contend that it could qualify as a third-party co-defendant if Rizzo had not originally named Discover as a defendant. But a plaintiff could just as easily "attempt to avoid arbitration by choosing to sue only the third party in the first instance. The distinction Kohn is trying to make is arbitrary and has no support in the law. Rizzo asserts other grounds for denying Kohn's motion, but it is unnecessary to consider those. Because Kohn does not have a right to invoke the arbitration clause in the cardmember member, the court will deny Kohn's motion to compel arbitration. Defendant Kohn Law Firm S.C.'s motion to compel arbitration is denied. A full-text copy of the District Court's February 12, 2018 Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ydcsa77a from Leagle.com. Sasha Rizzo, On behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Joshua D. Christianson, Christianson & Freund, LLC, 1620 L Street, N.W., Suite 900, Washington, DC 20036, Thomas John Lyons, Jr., Consumer Justice Center, P.A. & Thomas John Lyons, Sr., Lyons Law Firm PA., 367 Commerce Ct Vadnais Heights, MN, 55127-8506 Kohn Law Firm S.C., Defendant, represented by Terry E. Johnson -- tjohnson@pjmlaw.com -- Peterson, Johnson & Murray, S.C. LEGACY SUPPLY: Court Grants Prelim OK of $625K Class Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of California issued an Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement Agreement in the case captioned RICARDO MARTIN, an individual; and NICK MORGAN, an individual; on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. LEGACY SUPPLY CHAIN SERVICES II, INC., an Indiana Corporation; PrimePath, LLC, a Florida Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv- 02471-WQH-BLM (S.D. Cal.). Plaintiffs Ricardo Martin and Nick Morgan (Plaintiffs), on behalf of themselves and the proposed Settlement Class, have filed an unopposed motion asking the Court to: (a) grant preliminary approval of the Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise and Class Settlement (Settlement Agreement) entered into by and between Plaintiffs and Defendants Legacy Supply Chain Services II, Inc. and PrimePath, LLC (Defendants). The Court grants the request for Preliminary Approval of the Class Action Settlement. Pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court grants the Parties' request for certification of the following Rule 23 Settlement Class for the sole and limited purpose of implementing the terms of the Settlement Agreement, subject to the Court's final approval: All persons, or each of them, currently or formerly employed by Defendants, or Defendants' predecessors, in the State of California as hourly, non-exempt employees during the time frame of October 3, 2012 through the date the Court grants preliminary approval of this Settlement Agreement. The Court preliminarily approves the Settlement and the Maximum Settlement Amount of $625,000.00, with the Net Settlement Amount being calculated by subtracting the following from the Maximum Settlement Amount: (1) Class Counsel's attorneys' fees (not to exceed 33.33% of the Maximum Settlement Amount or $206,250.00); (2) Class Counsel's Costs (not to exceed $10,000.00); (3) Class Representative Enhancement Payments to be paid to Representatives Ricardo Martin and Nick Morgan (not to exceed $5,000 per class representative); (4) $10,000.00 to be allocated to claimed PAGA penalties with 75% (or $7,500.00) to be paid to the California LWDA and with 25% (or $2,500.00) going into the Net Settlement Amount; and (5) the Claims Administration Costs to the Claims Administrator, Phoenix Settlement Administrators, Inc., not to exceed $20,000.00. The Net Settlement Amount remaining for paying Individual Settlement Payments to the Participating Class Members is anticipated to be approximately $371,250.00. The Court further preliminarily approves the formulas provided in the Settlement for calculating Individual Settlement Payments, and the Opt-Out Deadline of May 11, 2018. A full-text copy of the District Court's February 12, 2018 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybgnpcr5 from Leagle.com. Ricardo Martin, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated & Nick Morgan, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Christopher Alexander Olsen -- AOlsen@wagnerlawgroup.com -- Olsen Law Offices. Legacy Supply Chain Services II, Inc., an Indiana Corporation, Defendant, represented by Chad Daniel Bernard -- BernardC@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C. & John Paul Nordlund -- John.Nordlund@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C. PrimePath, LLC, a Florida Corporation, Defendant, represented by Chad Daniel Bernard -- BernardC@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C. LUMINESS DIRECT: Faces 1st "Ruthrauff" TCPA Suit ------------------------------------------------ CYNTHIA RUTHRAUFF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LUMINESS DIRECT, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00704-CAP (N.D. Ga., Feb. 16, 2018) is an action to stop the Defendant's practice of placing telemarketing text message calls to cellular telephones without procuring the necessary prior express written consent, and to stop Defendant's practice of sending unsolicited text messages to cellular telephones even after the cellphone owner opted-out of the receipt of additional messages. Luminess Direct, LLC is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer Auer Jordan, Esq. SHAMP SPEED JORDAN WOODWARD LLC 1718 Peachtree Street NW, Suite 660 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: 404-893-9400 E-mail: jordan@ssjwlaw.com - and - Steven L. Woodrow, Esq. Patrick H. Peluso, Esq. Taylor T. Smith, Esq. WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC 3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 300 Denver, CO 80210 Telephone: (720) 213-0675 Facsimile: (303) 927-0809 E-mail: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com tsmith@woodrowpeluso.com LUMINESS DIRECT: Faces 2nd "Ruthrauff" TCPA Suit ------------------------------------------------ CYNTHIA RUTHRAUFF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LUMINESS DIRECT, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00716-AT (N.D. Ga., Feb. 19, 2018) is an action to stop the Defendant's practice of placing telemarketing text message calls to cellular telephones without procuring the necessary prior express written consent, and to stop Defendant's practice of sending unsolicited text messages to cellular telephones even after the cellphone owner opted-out of the receipt of additional messages. Luminess Direct, LLC is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer Auer Jordan, Esq. SHAMP SPEED JORDAN WOODWARD LLC 1718 Peachtree Street NW, Suite 660 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: 404-893-9400 E-mail: jordan@ssjwlaw.com - and - Steven L. Woodrow, Esq. Patrick H. Peluso, Esq. Taylor T. Smith, Esq. WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC 3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 300 Denver, CO 80210 Telephone: (720) 213-0675 Facsimile: (303) 927-0809 E-mail: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com tsmith@woodrowpeluso.com METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION: Farina Sues over Cashless Toll ----------------------------------------------------------- JASON FARINA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY; TRIBOROUGH BRIDGE AND TUNNEL AUTHORITY, d/b/a MTA BRIDGES AND TUNNELS; TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS, INC; and CONDUENT, INC., Defendants, Case No. Case 1:18-cv-01433-NRB (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 16, 2018) is an action by the Plaintiff and similar class who have been charged $100 fees as a result of New York's cashless toll systems called EZ Pass and Tolls-By-Mail. The Plaintiff alleged in the complaint that Defendants who operate the EZ Pass and Tolls-By-Mail, have used the cashless toll system to line their own pockets at the expense of the drivers, primarily by collecting improper fees and penalties in addition to collecting tolls. The fees and penalties are multiples of the actual toll for the bridge, which means that drivers are being repeatedly charged more than $100 to cross a bridge or tunnel. Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Inc. provides subway, bus, and commuter railroad transportation services to customers with disabilities in the United States. Its subway and commuter rail stations provide accessibility for customers with visual, hearing, and mobility disabilities. The company also operates bridges and tunnels. Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Inc. was founded in 1965 and is based in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen J. Fearon, Jr., Esq. SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP 32 East 57th Street, 12th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 421-6492 Facsimile: (212) 421-6553 E-mail: Stephen@sfclasslaw.com MONAT GLOBAL: Sohovich Sues over Hair Loss After Use of Products ---------------------------------------------------------------- DANA SOHOVICH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MONAT GLOBAL CORP.; and ALCORA CORPORATION a/k/a ALCORA GROUP; Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv- 20624-MGC (S.D. Fla., Feb. 16, 2018) alleges that Defendants' sale of their hair care product Monat violated the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, and the Florida False Advertising Statute. According to the complaint, Plaintiff is one of the purchasers of Monat hair care products who paid inflated prices for products that were advertised to promote hair stability and growth, but instead provided no such benefit, and in fact caused significant hair loss to Plaintiff and others like her. Within six to eight weeks after using Monat's products, Plaintiff experienced severe hair thinning and hair loss. Plaintiff sought medical treatment and was told that she had lost approximately 50% of her hair, and that her hair loss was not being caused by any illness or identified medical condition, or by female pattern baldness. Monat Global sells consumer goods. The Company sells its products through a network of independent business owners. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Warden, Esq. Joseph E. White, Esq. Dianne M. Anderson, Esq. SAXENA WHITE P.A. 150 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 600 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 394-3399 Facsimile: (561) 394-3382 E-mail: jwhite@saxenawhite.com awarden@saxenwhite.com danderson@saxenawhite.com - and - Jessica Sleater, Esq. ANDERSEN SLEATER SIANNI LLC 1250 Broadway, 27 th Floor New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (646) 599-9848 E-mail: jessica@andersensleater.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Beam Suit Moved to N.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- David Beam, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Monsanto Company, Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-0098-VC (E.D. Mo., Jan. 23, 2018), was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, and assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-00988-VC (N.D. Cal., Feb. 15, 2018). The case is assigned to Judge Vince Chhabria. The "Beam" suit is a member case in the multi-district litigation proceeding, MDL No. 02741-VC. The Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages as a result of the use of, and exposure to, Roundup products which caused or was a substantial contributing factor in causing the Plaintiff to suffer from Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Monsanto Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides agricultural products for farmers worldwide. It operates in two segments, Seeds and Genomics, and Agricultural Productivity. The company markets its products through distributors, independent retailers and dealers, agricultural cooperatives, plant raisers, and agents, as well as directly to farmers. The company was formerly known as Monsanto Ag Company and changed its name to Monsanto Company in March 2000. Monsanto Company was founded in 2000 and is based in St. Louis, Missouri. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Coleman Suit Moved to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- BOBBY COLEMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00987-VC (E.D. Mo., Jan. 23, 2018) was removed to the U.S. District for the Northern District of California, and assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-00987-VC (N.D. Cal., Feb. 15, 2018). The case is assigned to Judge Vince Chhabria. The "Coleman" suit is a member case in the multi-district litigation proceeding, MDL No. 02741-VC. The Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages as a result of the use of, and exposure to, Roundup products which caused or was a substantial contributing factor in causing the Plaintiff to suffer from Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Monsanto Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides agricultural products for farmers worldwide. It operates in two segments, Seeds and Genomics, and Agricultural Productivity. The company markets its products through distributors, independent retailers and dealers, agricultural cooperatives, plant raisers, and agents, as well as directly to farmers. The company was formerly known as Monsanto Ag Company and changed its name to Monsanto Company in March 2000. Monsanto Company was founded in 2000 and is based in St. Louis, Missouri. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Crowe Suit Moved to N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- JOHN CROWE and ROSETTA CROWE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00986-VC (E.D. Mo., Jan. 22, 2018) was removed to the U.S. District for the Northern District of California, and assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-00986-VC (N.D. Cal., Feb. 15, 2018). The case is assigned to Judge Vince Chhabria. The "Coleman" suit is a member case in the multi-district litigation proceeding, MDL No. 02741-VC. The Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages as a result of the use of, and exposure to, Roundup products which caused or was a substantial contributing factor in causing the Plaintiff to suffer from Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Monsanto Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides agricultural products for farmers worldwide. It operates in two segments, Seeds and Genomics, and Agricultural Productivity. The company markets its products through distributors, independent retailers and dealers, agricultural cooperatives, plant raisers, and agents, as well as directly to farmers. The company was formerly known as Monsanto Ag Company and changed its name to Monsanto Company in March 2000. Monsanto Company was founded in 2000 and is based in St. Louis, Missouri. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Scott Suit Moved to N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- Keith W. Scott and Rebecca Scott, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00100 (E.D. Mo., Jan. 22, 2018) was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, and assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-00985-VC (N.D. Cal., Feb. 15, 2018). The case is assigned to Judge Vince Chhabria. The "Scott" suit is a member case in the multi-district litigation proceeding, MDL No. 02741-VC. The Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages as a result of the use of, and exposure to, Roundup products which caused or was a substantial contributing factor in causing the Plaintiff to suffer from Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Monsanto Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides agricultural products for farmers worldwide. It operates in two segments, Seeds and Genomics, and Agricultural Productivity. The company markets its products through distributors, independent retailers and dealers, agricultural cooperatives, plant raisers, and agents, as well as directly to farmers. The company was formerly known as Monsanto Ag Company and changed its name to Monsanto Company in March 2000. Monsanto Company was founded in 2000 and is based in St. Louis, Missouri. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Sullivan Suit Moved to N.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- Lawrence Sullivan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Defendant, Case No. 4:18- cv-00109 (E.D. Mo., Jan. 23, 2018) was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, and assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-00990-VC (N.D. Cal., Feb. 15, 2018). The case is assigned to Judge Vince Chhabria. The "Sullivan" suit is a member case in the multi-district litigation proceeding, MDL No. 02741-VC. The Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages as a result of the use of, and exposure to, Roundup products which caused or was a substantial contributing factor in causing the Plaintiff to suffer from Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Monsanto Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides agricultural products for farmers worldwide. It operates in two segments, Seeds and Genomics, and Agricultural Productivity. The company markets its products through distributors, independent retailers and dealers, agricultural cooperatives, plant raisers, and agents, as well as directly to farmers. The company was formerly known as Monsanto Ag Company and changed its name to Monsanto Company in March 2000. Monsanto Company was founded in 2000 and is based in St. Louis, Missouri. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Toyer Suit Moved to N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- Ronald Toyer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00108 (E.D. Mo., Jan. 23, 2018) was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, and assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-00989-VC (N.D. Cal., Feb. 15, 2018). The case is assigned to Judge Vince Chhabria. The "Toyer" suit is a member case in the multi-district litigation proceeding, MDL No. 02741-VC. The Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages as a result of the use of, and exposure to, Roundup products which caused or was a substantial contributing factor in causing the Plaintiff to suffer from Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Monsanto Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides agricultural products for farmers worldwide. It operates in two segments, Seeds and Genomics, and Agricultural Productivity. The company markets its products through distributors, independent retailers and dealers, agricultural cooperatives, plant raisers, and agents, as well as directly to farmers. The company was formerly known as Monsanto Ag Company and changed its name to Monsanto Company in March 2000. Monsanto Company was founded in 2000 and is based in St. Louis, Missouri. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: White Suit Moved to N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- Andre White and Lisa White, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00126 (E.D. Mo., Jan. 23, 2018) was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, and assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-00991-VC (N.D. Cal., Feb. 15, 2018). The case is assigned to Judge Vince Chhabria. The "White" suit is a member case in the multi-district litigation proceeding, MDL No. 02741-VC. The Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages as a result of the use of, and exposure to, Roundup products which caused or was a substantial contributing factor in causing the Plaintiff to suffer from Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Monsanto Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides agricultural products for farmers worldwide. It operates in two segments, Seeds and Genomics, and Agricultural Productivity. The company markets its products through distributors, independent retailers and dealers, agricultural cooperatives, plant raisers, and agents, as well as directly to farmers. The company was formerly known as Monsanto Ag Company and changed its name to Monsanto Company in March 2000. Monsanto Company was founded in 2000 and is based in St. Louis, Missouri. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: "Bedenbender" Suit Move to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ Dennis Bedenbender, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Monsanto Company, Defendant, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (Case No. 4:18-cv-00077) to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-01082-VC (N.D. Cal., Feb. 20, 2018). The case is assigned to Judge Vince Chhabria. The "Bedenbender" suit is a member case in the multi-district litigation proceeding, MDL No. 02741. Monsanto Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides agricultural products for farmers worldwide. The company markets its products through distributors, independent retailers and dealers, agricultural cooperatives, plant raisers, and agents, as well as directly to farmers. The company was formerly known as Monsanto Ag Company and changed its name to Monsanto Company in March 2000. Monsanto Company was founded in 2000 and is based in St. Louis, Missouri. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: seth@getbc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: "Dehard" Suit Moved to N.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- Freeman Dehart, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Monsanto Company, Defendant, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (Case No. 4:18-cv-00082) to the U.S. District for the Northern District of California and assigned Case No.3:18-cv- 01084-VC (N.D. Cal., Feb. 20, 2018). The case is assigned to Judge Vince Chhabria. The "Dehart" suit is a member case in the multi-district litigation proceeding, MDL No. 02741. Monsanto Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides agricultural products for farmers worldwide. The company markets its products through distributors, independent retailers and dealers, agricultural cooperatives, plant raisers, and agents, as well as directly to farmers. The company was formerly known as Monsanto Ag Company and changed its name to Monsanto Company in March 2000. Monsanto Company was founded in 2000 and is based in St. Louis, Missouri. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. One Metropolitan Square 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: "Hudson" Suit Moved to N.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- Thurman Hudson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Monsanto Company, Defendant, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (Case No. 4:18-cv-00168) to the U.S. District for the Northern District of California and assigned Case No.3:18-cv- 01090-VC (N.D. Cal., Feb. 20, 2018). The case is assigned to Judge Vince Chhabria. The "Hudson" suit is a member case in the multi-district litigation proceeding, MDL No. 02741. Monsanto Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides agricultural products for farmers worldwide. The company markets its products through distributors, independent retailers and dealers, agricultural cooperatives, plant raisers, and agents, as well as directly to farmers. The company was formerly known as Monsanto Ag Company and changed its name to Monsanto Company in March 2000. Monsanto Company was founded in 2000 and is based in St. Louis, Missouri. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: "Luckey" Suit Moved to N.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- David and Carol Luckey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Monsanto Company, Defendant, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (Case No. 4:18-cv-00133) to the U.S. District for the Northern District of California and assigned Case No.3:18-cv- 01086-VC-VC (N.D. Cal., Feb. 20, 2018). The case is assigned to Judge Vince Chhabria. The "Luckey" suit is a member case in the multi-district litigation proceeding, MDL No. 02741. Monsanto Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides agricultural products for farmers worldwide. The company markets its products through distributors, independent retailers and dealers, agricultural cooperatives, plant raisers, and agents, as well as directly to farmers. The company was formerly known as Monsanto Ag Company and changed its name to Monsanto Company in March 2000. Monsanto Company was founded in 2000 and is based in St. Louis, Missouri. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: "Ruffin" Suit Moved to N.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Ruffin and Holliday Ruffin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Monsanto Company, Defendant, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (Case No. 4:18-cv-00083) to the U.S. District for the Northern District of California and assigned Case No.3:18-cv-01085-VC (N.D. Cal., Feb. 20, 2018). The case is assigned to Judge Vince Chhabria. The "Ruffin" suit is a member case in the multi-district litigation proceeding, MDL No. 02741. Monsanto Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides agricultural products for farmers worldwide. The company markets its products through distributors, independent retailers and dealers, agricultural cooperatives, plant raisers, and agents, as well as directly to farmers. The company was formerly known as Monsanto Ag Company and changed its name to Monsanto Company in March 2000. Monsanto Company was founded in 2000 and is based in St. Louis, Missouri. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: "Schwartz" Suit Moved to N.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- Henry Schwartz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Monsanto Company, Defendant, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (Case No. 4:18-cv-00081) to the U.S. District for the Northern District of California and assigned Case No.3:18-cv- 01083-VC (N.D. Cal., Feb. 20, 2018). The case is assigned to Judge Vince Chhabria. The "Schwartz" suit is a member case in the multi-district litigation proceeding, MDL No. 02741. Monsanto Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides agricultural products for farmers worldwide. The company markets its products through distributors, independent retailers and dealers, agricultural cooperatives, plant raisers, and agents, as well as directly to farmers. The company was formerly known as Monsanto Ag Company and changed its name to Monsanto Company in March 2000. Monsanto Company was founded in 2000 and is based in St. Louis, Missouri. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: "Williams" Suit Moved to N.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- Cecil and Alice Williams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Monsanto Company, Defendant, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (Case No. 4:18-cv-00136) to the U.S. District for the Northern District of California and assigned Case No.3:18-cv-01087-VC (N.D. Cal., Feb. 20, 2018). The case is assigned to Judge Vince Chhabria. The "Williams" suit is a member case in the multi-district litigation proceeding, MDL No. 02741. Monsanto Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides agricultural products for farmers worldwide. The company markets its products through distributors, independent retailers and dealers, agricultural cooperatives, plant raisers, and agents, as well as directly to farmers. The company was formerly known as Monsanto Ag Company and changed its name to Monsanto Company in March 2000. Monsanto Company was founded in 2000 and is based in St. Louis, Missouri. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: "Wolfe" Suit Moved to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- Richard and Phyllis Wolfe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Monsanto Company, Defendant, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (Case No. 4:18-cv-00137) to the U.S. District for the Northern District of California and assigned Case No.3:18-cv-01088-VC (N.D. Cal., Feb. 20, 2018). The case is assigned to Judge Vince Chhabria. The "Wolfe" suit is a member case in the multi-district litigation proceeding, MDL No. 02741. Monsanto Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides agricultural products for farmers worldwide. The company markets its products through distributors, independent retailers and dealers, agricultural cooperatives, plant raisers, and agents, as well as directly to farmers. The company was formerly known as Monsanto Ag Company and changed its name to Monsanto Company in March 2000. Monsanto Company was founded in 2000 and is based in St. Louis, Missouri. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Sharp Sues over Sale of Roundup Products ---------------------------------------------------------- Harry C. Sharp, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Monsanto Company, Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00287-HEA (E.D. Mo., Feb. 20, 2018) is an action against the Defendant for personal injuries sustained by Plaintiff's exposure to Roundup products containing the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine. As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, Plaintiff developed Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Monsanto Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides agricultural products for farmers worldwide. The company markets its products through distributors, independent retailers and dealers, agricultural cooperatives, plant raisers, and agents, as well as directly to farmers. The company was formerly known as Monsanto Ag Company and changed its name to Monsanto Company in March 2000. Monsanto Company was founded in 2000 and is based in St. Louis, Missouri. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kirk J. Goza, Esq. GOZA & HONNOLD LLC 11181 Overbrook Road, Suite 200 Leawood, KS 66211 Telephone: (913) 451-3433 Facsimile: (913) 839-0567 E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com N.A.R. INC: Page Alleges Wrongful Conduct over Debt Collection --------------------------------------------------------------- DWAYNE PAGE, individually on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. N.A.R., INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-KSH-CLW (D.N.J., Feb. 15, 2018) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The case is assigned to Judge Katharine S. Hayden, and referred to Magistrate Judge Cathy L. Waldor. N.A.R., Inc. operates as a professional debt collection agency in the United States. It provides debt collection and recovery services for retail, commercial, healthcare, and consumer accounts. The company is headquartered in West Valley City, Utah. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan Leyland Gentile, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF GUS MICHAEL FARINELLA PC 110 Jericho Turnpike-Suite 100 Floral Park, NY 11001 Telephone: (201) 873-7675 E-mail: rlg@lawgmf.com NEWPORT BEACH: Ubaldi Alleges Wrongful Debt Collection ------------------------------------------------------ ANDREA UBALDI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEWPORT BEACH LAW GROUP, APLC; BEN POURCHO; TRINITY FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC.; JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-02304-KSH-CLW (D.N.J., Feb. 18, 2018) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The case is assigned to Judge Katharine S. Hayden, and referred to Magistrate Judge Cathy L. Waldor. Newport Beach Law Group -- http://www.newportbeachlawgroup.com/ -- is a law firm comprised of experienced and proven trial attorneys specializing in real estate and foreclosure laws that work in conjunction with local counsel in all 50 states to effectively obtain money from debtors, who have defaulted on their real-estate financial obligations, on behalf of various lenders. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph K. Jones, Esq. JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC 375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100 Fairfield, NJ 07004 Telephone: (973) 227-5900 Facsimile: (973) 244-0019 E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com NISSAN EXTENDED: Arkliss Sues over 0% Financing Scheme ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against NISSAN EXTENDED SERVICES NORTH AMERICA, INC. The case is captioned as FABIAN ARKLISS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NISSAN EXTENDED SERVICES NORTH AMERICA, INC.; and DIFEO NISSAN PARTNERSHIP d/b/a HUDSON NISSAN Defendants, Case No. BER-L-001227-18 (D.N.J., Bergen Cty., Feb. 15, 2018). According to the complaint of the Plaintiff, the representation to him made by the Defendants that the $1,500 Vehicle Service Contract was subject to 0% financing was false. The $1,500 Vehicle Service Contract was subject to the 23.99% annual interest rate same as the Retail Installment Contract with the Defendants. He purchased a used Nissan Altima at Hudson Nissan, in Jersey City, New Jersey. He purchased the vehicle on credit and executed the Retail Installment Contract with Difeo Nissan which was assigned to Westlake Financial Service. He also purchased a Vehicle Service Agreement for $1,500 on credit from Difeo Nissan. He was told that the Vehicle Service Agreement is subject to 0% financing. Nissan Extended Services North America, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with principal place of business located at One Nissan Way, Franklin, TN 37067-6367. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel Posner, Esq. POSNER LAW PLLC 270 Madison Ave., Suite 1203 New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (646) 546-5022 E-mail: gabe@PosnerLawPLLC.com - and - Ari H. Marcus, Esq. MARCUS LAW, LLC 1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101 Ocean, NJ 07712 Telephone: (732) 695-3282 Facsimile: (732) 298-6256 E-mail: ari@marcuszelman.com NORM REEVES: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Khan" Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------ Adil Khan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Norm Reeves, Inc.; Conant Automotive Resources, LLC, and Does 1 through 20, Defendants, Case No. BC 694507 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 20, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods. Plaintiff Khan worked for the Defendants at the Norm Reeves Honda Superstore in Cerritos, California, as a finance associate. Reeves, Inc., through its subsidiary, engages in the development, manufacture, and distribution of weave, coat, fabricate, and convert engineered fabrics. Reeves, Inc. was incorporated in 1993 and is based in Norwalk, Connecticut. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Simon Kwak, Esq. AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC 9811 Irvine Center, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 379-6250 Facsimile: (949) 379-6251 NORTHSTAR MEMORIAL: Removes "Uschold" Suit to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of William Uschold, and Tyrone Dangerfield, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Northstar Memorial Group; Northstar Memorial Group, doing business as Chapel of the Chimes; NSMG Shared Services, LLC, doing business as Northstar Memorial Group, Defendants, has filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from Superior Court of the State of California, Alameda County (Case No. HG18889297) to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-01039-JSC (N.D. Cal., Feb. 16, 2018). The case is assigned to Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley. NorthStar Memorial Group, LLC provides funeral, cremation, and memorialization services for families in the United States. The company was founded in 2004 and is based in Houston, Texas with locations in California, Florida, Illinois, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Washington. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Na'il Benjamin, Esq. BENJAMIN LAW GROUP, P.C. 1290 B Street, Suite 314 Hayward, CA 94541 Telephone: (510) 897-9967 Facsimile: (510) 439-2632 E-mail: nbenjamin@benjaminlawgroup.com - and - Allyssa Briana Villanueva, Esq. BENJAMIN LAW GROUP, P.C. 1290 B Street, Suite 314 Hayward, CA 94541 Telephone: (510) 897-9967 Facsimile: (510) 439-2632 E-mail: allyssa@benjaminlawgroup.com The Defendants are represented by: JoAnna L. Brooks, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 1255 Treat Boulevard, Suite 600 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 Telephone: (925) 932-2468 Facsimile: (925) 946-9809 E-mail: jbrooks@littler.com - and - Michael William Nelson, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 1255 Treat Boulevard, Suite 600 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 Telephone: (925) 932-2468 Facsimile: (925) 946-9809 E-mail: mwnelson@littler.com OPENROAD MANAGEMENT: "Collins-Laster" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gina Collins-Laster, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Openroad Management, Inc. and James Franklin Askew, Case No. 1:18-cv-00120 (W.D. Tex., February 7, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Gina Collins-Laster was a Certified Nursing Assistant who began working for Defendants in 2012 and is still currently employed by Defendants. Defendant Openroad Management, Inc., which does business as Griswold Home Care, is a home health agency providing medical services and support to patients who are homebound. Defendant James Franklin Askew is responsible for running the day-to-day operations of Openroad Management, Inc. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas B. Welmaker, Esq. DUNHAM & JONES, P.C. 1800 Guadalupe Street Austin, TX 78701 Tel: (512) 777-7777 Fax: (512) 340-4051 E-mail: doug@dunhamlaw.com PACKERS SANITATION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Sanchez Jr." Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Carlos Sanchez Jr., individually an on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Packers Sanitation Services, Ltd., LLC and Does 1 through 50, Defendants, Case No. 18CV323571 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., Feb. 20, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay all overtime wages owed, itemized wage statements, and failure to pay wages in a timely manner upon separation of employment. Mr. Sanchez Jr. was employed by the Defendants as sanitizer from February 9, 2017 to March 14, 2017. Packers Sanitation Services, Inc. provides contract sanitation services for food processing plants in the United States and Canada. Packers Sanitation Services, Inc. was founded in 1970 and is based in Kieler, Wisconsin. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry W. Lee, Esq. DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C. 515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 488-6555 Facsimile: (213) 488-6554 PATHWAY LEASING: "Fails" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations ----------------------------------------------------- Lonnie Fails and Richard Sell, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Pathway Leasing LLC, Matthew Harris and Cargill Meat Logistics Solutions, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv- 00308 (D. Colo., February 7, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Lonnie Fails is a resident of the State of Colorado and is, or was formerly, employed by Defendants as an "over-the-road" trucker. Plaintiff Richard Sell is a resident of the State of Iowa and is, or was formerly, employed by Defendants as an "over-the-road" trucker. Defendant Pathway Leasing LLC is a limited liability company duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Colorado, with its principal place of business located in Littleton, Colorado. Defendant Cargill Meat Logistics Solutions, Inc. is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Kansas, with its principal place of business located in Wichita, Kansas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John R. Crone, Esq. ANDRUS WAGSTAFF PC 7171 West Alaska Drive Lakewood, CO 80226 Tel: (303) 376-6360 E-mail: John.Crone@andruswagstaff.com PHOENIX LIFE: Court Declines to Dismiss "Halpern" Suit ------------------------------------------------------ The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, issued a Memorandum and Order denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned JAMES T. HALPERN and HOLLY STEIN, as Trustee for the Halpern Insurance Trust dated June 7, 1994, Plaintiffs, v. PHOENIX LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:17 CV 2879 (JMB)(E.D. Mo.). Plaintiff purchased from defendant Phoenix Life Insurance Company a policy of whole life insurance with a face value of $850,000.00. On October 27, 2016, defendant mailed plaintiffs a notice that the policy had lapsed for failure to pay the premium. Plaintiffs allege that they did not receive timely notice of the amount of premium they owed. Plaintiffs further allege that they repeatedly informed defendant of their new mailing address but that defendant failed to update its records. When they received the Notice of Lapse, plaintiffs immediately contacted defendant and were advised to pay the premium and apply for reinstatement. Plaintiffs mailed defendant $10,785.02 and an application for reinstatement. Defendant returned the premium payment and rejected the reinstatement application based on Mr. Halpern's medical history. Plaintiffs filed suit in state court, asserting claims for declaratory judgment and breach of contract. Defendant timely removed the matter to the District Court, invoking diversity of citizenship jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1332. To survive a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.' The mere fact that claims for declaratory judgment and breach of contract are closely related even where the declaratory judgment claim encompasses' the breach of contract claim does not require dismissing the declaratory judgment claim. Because plaintiffs will be allowed to amend their complaint, the Court declines to address defendant's argument at this time. Plaintiffs have requested leave to file an amended complaint, which the Court will grant. The Court will set this matter for a Rule 16 Scheduling Conference, at which time deadlines for filing an amended complaint and answer will be established. Accordingly, Defendant's motion to dismiss is denied. A full-text copy of the District Court's February 12, 2018 Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7w95ptc from Leagle.com. James T. Halpern & Holly Stein, as Trustee for the Halpern Insurance Trust, Plaintiffs, represented by Trenton K. Bond -- tkb@sauerwein.com -- SAUERWEIN SIMON, P.C. & Grant J. Mabie -- gjm@sauerwein.com -- SAUERWEIN SIMON, P.C. Phoenix Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Cynthia M. Juedemann -- cjuedemann@armstrongteasdale.com -- ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP, Patrick J. Kenny -- pkenny@armstrongteasdale.com -- ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP & Westley William Medlin, EDISON AND MCDOWELL, LLP, 333 South Wabash Avenue. 25th Floor. Chicago, IL 60604. QUALITY RESOURCES: Court Certifies "Toney" TCPA Class ----------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in the case captioned SARAH TONEY, Plaintiff, v. QUALITY RESOURCES, INC., et al., Defendants, No. 13 C 42 (N.D. Ill.). Plaintiff Sarah Toney moves for class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 in her action alleging that Quality Resources, Inc., and its sole owner, Cheryl Mercuris, (Defendants) violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Toney purchased slippers online from Infomercials, Inc., d/b/a Stompeez. The online order form on Stompeez's website required a Stompeez costumer to submit his or her phone number for questions about the order. Toney completed the online form and submitted her phone number. Quality developed a script to market Budget Savers that it adhered to on its telemarketing calls. Quality would first verify a Stompeez costumer's online purchase, then market Budget Savers, and then market a second product if the customer accepted Quality's offer for Budget Savers. Quality placed thousands of automated calls, and its telemarketing operation resulted in at least 500 complaints from 2008 to 2013, which Quality tracked internally. Quality produced its outgoing call data to Toney, which Toney provided to her expert, Jeffery Hansen. From this data, Hansen opines that Quality called 35,191 unique cell phone numbers. Toney offers, as a class list, a list of 35,191 unique cell phone numbers that Quality called. Toney seeks certification of the following class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3): All persons who are or were the subscribers of the telephone numbers on the Class List, and to whom, from January 3, 2009 through the date of preliminary approval,5 Quality Resources, Inc., made a call or calls through its Vicidial calling system on their cellular telephones promoting Sempris goods, and where the cell phone number was obtained as a result of a transaction at the website www.stompeez.com The following persons are excluded from the Class: Quality, any parent, subsidiary, or affiliate of Quality, Ms. Mercuris and the officers, directors, agents, servants or employees of Quality as of the entry of the Preliminary Approval Order, Class Counsel, and any judge presiding over the Action. To prevail on a motion for class certification, a plaintiff must demonstrate first, pursuant to Rule 23(a), that: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable (numerosity); (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class (commonality); (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class (typicality); and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class (adequacy of representation). Defendants argue that the proposed class cannot be ascertained, and that Toney fails to satisfy Rule 23's requirements. The admissibility of expert testimony is governed by Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the Supreme Court's decision in Daubert. C. W. ex rel. Wood v. Textron, Inc., 807 F.3d 827, 834 (7th Cir. 2015). In performing its gatekeeper role under Rule 702 and Daubert, the district court must engage in a three-step analysis before admitting expert testimony. The district court must evaluate: (1) the proffered expert's qualifications; (2) the reliability of the expert's methodology; and (3) the relevance of the expert's testimony. Steps one and three are not at issue. Hansen's Qualifications Hansen is a consultant in the private sector who advises companies using automated dialers, and has served as an expert witness or consultant in more than 100 TCPA class action lawsuits. In this capacity, he has assembled, configured, maintained, and operated automated dialers. He has himself set up and maintained automated dialers capable of generating over 1 million calls per hour, and has trained others on how to use and maintain such systems. Hansen also has experience in the use of outgoing call lists in the telemarketing industry and how to use cell block identifier and ported number lists8 to identify phone numbers that are associated with a cell phone. The Court concludes that, based on his vast experience with automated dialers and in identifying cell phone numbers, Hansen is qualified to testify as an expert on the unique cell phone numbers Quality called in its telemarketing campaign. Hansen's Methodology To be reliable, the expert's opinion must be reasoned and founded on data, and must also utilize the methods of the relevant discipline. An expert's testimony is not unreliable simply because it is founded on his experience rather than on data. Hansen relies on a method of identifying cell phone numbers that he represents is accepted within the telemarketing industry. Defendant's rebuttal expert, Ken Sponslor, who is also a telemarketing industry consultant, opines that Hansen's results are incorrect. Sponslor, however, does not dispute that the use of cell block identifier and ported number lists are accepted within the industry to distinguish cell phone numbers from landline numbers. Accordingly, the Court finds that Hansen's methodology satisfies Rule 702 and Daubert because it is founded on Quality's outgoing call data, cell block identifier lists, and ported number lists, and because Hansen utilizes a method accepted within the telemarketing industry. Assistance to the Trier of Fact Toney alleges that Defendants violated the TCPA by placing calls through an ATDS to Toney's and proposed class members' cell phones without their consent. Thus, to prevail on her claim, she will have to establish that Defendants placed a call using any automated telephone dialing system autodialer to any telephone number assigned to a cellular telephone service. A jury or other factfinder is not capable of discerning on their own whether a particular telephone number that Quality called is assigned to a cell phone. The Court, therefore, concludes that Hansen's testimony will assist the trier of fact in determining facts at issue. Accordingly, Hansen's expert opinion is admissible under Rule 702 and Daubert. Whether the Proposed Class is Ascertainable Turning now to whether Toney's proposed class is ascertainable, Defendants argue that Toney fails to demonstrate that her proposed class is sufficiently definite to identify class members through objective criteria. The Court does not find this argument persuasive. Defendants also maintain that the class is not ascertainable because Toney fails to establish that the proposed class members have Article III standing. While it is true a class should not be certified if it is apparent that it contains a great many persons who have suffered no injury at the hands of the defendant, Defendants fail to submit evidence showing that the proposed class members were not harmed by Defendants' conduct. Loss of time and privacy responding to unsolicited communications are concrete injuries that confer Article III standing, and the record shows that the proposed class members lost time and privacy as a result of Quality's telemarketing campaign. Toney's proposed class, then, does not fail for being too indefinite or difficult to ascertain. Rule 23(a) Requirements Numerosity Defendants do not argue that Toney fails to establish numerosity, which requires her to show that the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. Toney has shown that the class would include thousands of persons. Toney, therefore, satisfies Rule 23(a)(1)'s numerosity requirement. Commonality Commonality requires that there are questions of law or fact common to the class. Quality's and Mercuris' conduct therefore raise common questions, the truth or falsity of which would resolve the claims in this case in one stroke. For example, did Quality call cell phone numbers using an ATDS to market Sempris products (Count II)? Did Mercuris fraudulently transfer Quality's assets to herself (Count III)? Can Quality's corporate veil be pierced in order to hold Mercuris personally liable for Quality's conduct (Count IV)? Can Plaintiffs hold Quality responsible for paying Sempris' attorney's fees and funding the Sempris Settlement (Count V)? Accordingly, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has satisfied Rule 23(a)(2)'s commonality requirement. Typicality Typicality requires that the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class. A claim is typical if it arises from the same event or practice or course of conduct that gives rise to the claims of other class members and the plaintiff's claims are based on the same legal theory As noted above, Toney has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that she shares claims that are typical to each proposed class member because she received a call from Quality to her cell phone marketing a Sempris product, like the other proposed class members. Thus, Toney's claims are typical of the class members' claims given that her claim has the same essential characteristics as the class at large. Adequacy of Representation Adequacy of representation requires that the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Upon review of Toney's attorneys' declarations and their performance in the case thus far, the Court is satisfied that Toney's counsel is competent and has enough resources to prosecute this action. Toney's counsel also has significant experience with class action and TCPA litigation as well as knowledge of the applicable law. The Court also finds that, because of the factual similarities between Toney's and the proposed class members' claims described above, Toney's and the proposed class members' interests are sufficiently aligned and free of internal conflicts so that they do not pose any problems related to adequacy of representation. Accordingly, the Court concludes that Toney has established adequacy of representation. Rule 23(b)(3) Requirements Predominance The predominance inquiry tests whether proposed classes are sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation. The Court finds that Toney has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that common questions predominate in this case because, in the Court's analysis on commonality, all members of the proposed class suffered the same injury and were generally subjected to the same telemarketing campaign by the same Defendant using the same automated dialer. Whether A Class Action is Superior to Other Methods of Adjudication Rule 23(b)(3) permits class certification if a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy. Considerations relevant to this inquiry are: (A) the class members' interests in individually controlling the prosecution or defense of separate actions; (B) the extent and nature of any litigation concerning the controversy already begun by or against class members; (C) the desirability or undesirability of concentrating the litigation of the claims in the particular forum; and (D) the likely difficulties in managing a class action. Taking into account these considerations, the Court concludes that they weigh in favor of class certification. There is no impediment related to the class members' interests in individually controlling the prosecution or defense of separate actions or any litigation or controversy already begun by or against class members, as the record is lacking in evidence that another class member seeks to individually control a separate action or even that another class member has a separate action pending. Toney's motion for class certification is granted. The class is defined as follows: All persons who are or were the subscribers of the telephone numbers on the Class List, and to whom, from January 3, 2009, through August 16, 2016, Quality Resources, Inc., made a call or calls through its Vicidial calling system to their cellular telephones promoting Sempris goods, and where the cell phone number was obtained as a result of their transaction at the website www.stompeez.com The following persons are excluded from the Class: Quality, any parent, subsidiary, or affiliate of Quality, Mercuris and the officers, directors, agents, servants or employees of Quality as of August 16, 2016, Class Counsel, and any judge presiding over the action. A full-text copy of the District Court's February 12, 2018 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yb7y3mfs from Leagle.com. Sarah Toney, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander Holmes Burke, Burke Law Offices, LLC, 155 N Michigan Ave, Chicago, Illinois, United States, Anthony Paronich -- anthony@broderick-law.com -- Broderick & Paronich, P.C., pro hac vice, Daniel J. Marovitch, Burke Law Offices, LLC, 155 N Michigan Ave, Chicago, Illinois, United States, Edward A. Broderick -- ted@broderick-law.com -- Broderick Law, P.C., pro hac vice & Matthew Mccue, Law Office Of Matthew Mccue, 1 South Ave, Natick, MA 01760, USA, pro hac vice. Molly Roake & Jessica McCool, Plaintiffs, represented by Alexander Holmes Burke, Burke Law Offices, LLC. Quality Resources, Inc., Defendant, represented by Ashley Crettol Insalaco -- ainsalaco@tdrlawfirm.com -- Tabet Divito & Rothstein Llc, Brent M. Ryan -- bryan@tdrlawfirm.com -- Tabet Divito & Rothstein LLC, Derek Robert Young, Kaplan Young & Moll Parron PLLC, pro hac vice, Justin Brett Kaplan, Kaplan Young & Moll Parron PLLC, 600 Brickell Ave Ste 1715. Miami, FL, 33131-3076, pro hac vice, Richard W. Epstein -- richard.epstein@gmlaw.com -- Greenspoon Marder, P.A. & Timothy A. Hudson -- thudson@tdrlawfirm.com -- Tabet DiVito Rothstein. Cheryl Mercuris, Defendant, represented by Derek Robert Young doyung@kymplaw.com -, Kaplan Young & Moll Parron PLLC, pro hac vice & Justin Brett Kaplan -- jkaplan@kymplaw.com -- Kaplan Young & Moll Parron PLLC, pro hac vice. RBC CAPITAL: Faces "Pfeifer" Suit in Florida Palm Beach County -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against RBC Capital Markets LLC. The case is captioned as Jennifer Pfeifer and Stacy Mihalik, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. RBC Capital Markets LLC, Defendant, Case No. 502018CA002095XXXXMB (Fla. Cir., Palm Beach Cty., Feb. 19, 2018). RBC Capital Markets LLC offers corporate and investment banking services to corporations, governments, and institutions. The company was founded in 1909 and is based in New York, New York with additional offices in Australia, Asia, Carribean, Europe, Canada, and United States. RBC Capital Markets LLC operates as a subsidiary of RBC USA Holdco Corporation. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 1515 S. Federal Highway Suite 404 Boca Raton, FL 33432 RITE CHECK: Fails to Pay Wages, "Guerrero" Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------ Manuel Guerrero, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Rite Check Cashing, Inc. and Joseph Coleman, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01538-GHW (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 20, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, damages, interest, attorney's fees, liquidated and other damages. Mr. Guerrero was employed by the Defendant as Night Manager. Rite Check Cashing provides banking services. The Bank offers personal banking, wealth management, loans, savings accounts, leasing, retirement plans, investment management, and insurance services. Rite Check Cashing serves customers in the State of New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: George T. Peters, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF GEORGE T. PETERS, PLLC 2510 Valentine Avenue, 3rd Floor Bronx, NY 10458 Telephone: (347) 751-0157 ROBERT BOSCH: Bid for Production of Docs for European Suit Denied ----------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, issued an Opinion and Order denying Plaintiffs' Application for Production of Documents for European Litigation in the case captioned financialright GmbH, Katharina Prinzessin zu Hohenlohe, Hartmut Baumer, and Eithne Higgins, Applicants, v. Robert Bosch LLC, Respondent, Case No. 2:17-mc- 51337 (E.D. Mich.). Applicants assert that the District Court should order Respondent to produce documents for use in the European Litigation. The Applicants in this case, financialright GmbH (financialright), Katharina Prinzessin zu Hohenlohe, Harmut Baumer and Eithne Higgins ask this court to exercise its discretionary authority to assist in the production of evidence for use in a foreign tribunal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1782. Applicants claim that they are current or potential litigants seeking relief in German and Irish courts in connection with Volkswagen AG and Bosch GmbH's . . . well-known 'clean-diesel' fraud. The German Litigation The Test Case This lawsuit alleged that Volkswagen AG installed a defeat device in its European vehicles in violation of European regulation. The test case was filed on behalf of financialright representing the interests of a single assignee, based upon the unique theory that under the European Union (E.U.) Law, the Certificate of Conformity VW issued to the car owner was incorrect as a result of the emissions manipulation and was therefore invalid. The lawsuit raised a number of claims based on tort and breach of contract. These claims were rejected, along with the plaintiff's request to produce certain specified documents, finding that the production of the respective documents is not relevant for the decision in this litigation. The Applicants' Litigation The application represents that, Applicant Katharina Prinzessin zu Hohenlohe intends to file a lawsuit in the coming months against Volkswagen AG, and possibly Robert Bosch GmbH, in the District Court of Braunschweig in Germany. The application further represents that, Financialright intends to bundle claims from European Volkswagen owners to pursue similar legal actions in Europe against Volkswagen and, possibly, Bosch GmbH. The Irish Litigation The application explains that, Applicant Eithne Higgins filed a lawsuit against Volkswagen AG and Volkswagen Group of Ireland Ltd. in the District Court of Castlebar in Ireland. Bosch has endeavored to distinguish this lawsuit from the Volkswagen- related emissions scandal in the United States by pointing out that Ms. Higgins's lawsuit, as originally filed, was about CO2 emissions, not the NOx emissions that have been at issue in the Volkswagen MDL. However, the Court is not persuaded by this distinction, for two reasons. First, Ms. Higgins's claim was subsequently amended (on June 7, 2016) to include NOx. According to Ms. Higgins's retained expert, the Volkswagen defendants consented to the application, as it was the Volkswagen defendants that raised the issue of NOx affecting their EA 189 engines, including that of Mrs. Higgins. Second, the Court is not convinced that a technology designed to thwart emissions readings for NOx could not be used for the same or a closely related purpose with respect to CO2. Legal Framework: A Two Step Inquiry Statutory Factors/Requirements The present application is governed by 28 U.S.C. 1782(a), which reads as follows, inter alia: The district court of the district in which a person resides or is found may order him to give his testimony or statement or to produce a document or other thing for use in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal, including criminal investigations conducted before formal accusation. The order may be made pursuant to a letter rogatory issued, or request made, by a foreign or international tribunal or upon the application of any interested person and may direct that the testimony or statement be given, or the document or other thing be produced, before a person appointed by the court. Discretionary Factors The parties agree, as they must, that the leading and controlling authority is supplied by the Supreme Court's decision in Intel, where Justice Ginsburg, writing for the majority, identified factors that bear consideration in ruling on a Section 1782(a) request. Intel Corp., 542 U.S. at 264. These factors are consistently introduced by discretionary language, such as may take into consideration, could consider, and may be rejected or trimmed. As applied to the present application for discovery, the factors that "bear consideration" are: (1) Whether Bosch is a participant in the foreign proceedings; (2) the nature of the foreign tribunals, including (a) the character of the proceedings underway in the European Litigation and (b) the receptivity of the foreign government or tribunal to judicial assistance from United States federal courts; (3) whether the Section 1782(a) request conceals an attempt to circumvent foreign proof-gathering restrictions or other policies of a foreign country or of the United States; and, (4) whether the requests are unduly intrusive, and, if so, whether they ought to be rejected or trimmed. The Statutory Factors/Requirements Have not Been Met. As a threshold matter, the Court must determine whether this application meets the statutory requirements in order for the requested relief to be authorized. At oral argument, Bosch further argued, albeit passively, that the Court should consider the Application as of the date it was filed, before the newly filed (bundled) German Litigation was pending, and not based upon subsequent events. Upon questioning from the bench, however, Bosch conceded that, if the Court were to ignore the current status of litigation in Germany (and presumably ignore the fact that Applicant Baumer has had a suit pending in Berlin since March 2017), nothing would preclude the German Applicants from simply filing an altered application, relying upon the newly filed German Litigation in support. However, notwithstanding either the actual pendency of the two country European Litigation or the objective evidence of Applicants' intention to pursue proceedings in Germany, the Court is not convinced that the requested documentation is for use in either German or Irish proceedings. This is so because of what has happened when German and Irish courts have actually considered Applicants' claims. Consistent with this Court's reluctance to ignore the most recent European Litigation history, it is also reluctant to ignore the German and Irish courts' prior negative rulings in these lawsuits. This Court is mindful of the fact that the for use requirement could be satisfied even if the discovery in question is not necessary for Applicants to succeed in their foreign proceeding. But the Court is also mindful that if history is any guide to the future, the documents in question will not be usable and, therefore, not for use in these foreign proceedings. The Court takes cognizance of the fact that Ms. Higgins's lawsuit has already been successfully appealed on jurisdictional grounds in Ireland, where it has now been remanded to re-explore that very issue, and that, in Germany, the test case against Volkswagen was rejected on the merits. As Bosch points out, this latter rejection casts serious doubt that any of the requested discovery could be 'for use' in German proceedings. Applicants have similarly failed to convince this Court that the Bosch discovery is for use in the Irish Litigation. As Ms. Higgins's Irish attorney explains in his declaration, the Court granted leave to bring Judicial Review proceedings and in so doing, also granted a stay on the further hearing of any proceedings in the District Court pending the outcome of the plenary Judicial Review hearing. That stay was granted on September 15, 2016, just over a year before the present Application was filed. The Court thus agrees with Respondent that there's no basis on which it can conclude that there is a proceeding that will go forward in which it would be useful to grant this Application. Or, put another way, there is no proceeding in reasonable prospect in which discovery might serve a purpose or might be used, so as to satisfy the threshold requirements of Section 1782. Alternatively, the Intel Discretionary Factors Weigh in Respondent's Favor. Having concluded that the Applicants failed to meet the statutory requirements, the Court's inquiry ends and the discretionary factors under Intel need not be analyzed. Nevertheless, the Court will analyze those factors here, as it alternatively finds that the Application should likewise be rejected on this basis. Bosch argues that all of the discretionary factors favor denial of the application, refusing to concede that any of them might tip in Applicants' favor. While the Court disagrees, finding that the various factors tip in both directions, it does agree that on balance they weigh in favor of Bosch. Whether Bosch is a participant in foreign proceedings Here, Applicants state in their brief that Bosch LLC is not and will not be a defendant in any of the Applicants' actions; they have filed or will file only against the German and Irish Volkswagen or Bosch entities, and then their counsel confirmed at oral argument that neither Bosch U.S. nor Bosch Europe is named as a party in the European Litigation and that he doesn't believe that any Bosch-related entity with the name Bosch in it is a party either. As a nonparticipant in the foreign proceedings, evidence from it may therefore be unobtainable in the absence of Section 1782(a) aid. Receptivity of the foreign government or tribunals to judicial assistance from United States courts Irrespective of authoritative proof, this Court cannot ignore the fact that the German court restricts discovery, has already signaled its unwillingness to receive certain documentary evidence (although neither party has enlightened this Court as to exactly what that documentary evidence might be), and has indicated that its law does not enable a party to demand documents for the purpose of obtaining information independent of a conclusive pleading. Nor can it ignore the apparent skepticism of the German Government toward U.S. pre-trial discovery. It is also quite likely that producing the requested discovery will "involve substantial cost. This Court does not wish to be irresponsible, as the Babcock court suggests, in the face of certain indicators that the German tribunal may not welcome its help; yet, neither party has painted an entirely clear picture as to receptivity in Germany. As to Irish receptivity, Mr. O'Dwyer's Declaration states that, The District Courts of Ireland are receptive to the use of evidence obtained pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1782 in Irish courts, and that he is not aware of any policy of the government of Ireland that would preclude Section 1782 assistance. Still, even with this general statement as to the receptivity of the Irish courts, it seems unlikely in the present posture of Ms. Higgins's case with an ongoing jurisdictional dispute and a damage cap at EUR15,000 that the Irish court would welcome the broad American style discovery being proposed here. This factor is a draw, at best, with regard to the Irish Litigation and favors Bosch, at least slightly, with regard to the German Litigation. Circumvention of foreign proof-gathering restrictions or other policies of a foreign country or of the United States Contrary to a line of reasoning suggested by Bosch, this Court does not have concerns that this Application is being used to circumvent proof-gathering restrictions of the United States. Bosch points out that one of the broad categories of documents requested in the proposed subpoena includes all Documents and Communications that you produced to the plaintiffs in the MDL and that it is well known and undisputed that these documents are subject to a protective order in the Northern District of California. Bosch further points out that Applicant Hohenlohe's attempt to obtain these documents through a Section 1782 application in that district was rejected by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline S. Corley and District Judge Charles R. Breyer; however, as admitted by Bosch, Ms. Hohenlohe's and others' applications were not rejected on the basis of the discretionary factors, but, instead, solely upon the fact that Bosch and the other respondents did not reside and were not 'found' in the Northern District of California as required by Section 1782. Applicants correctly pointed out at the hearing that this protective order only restricts the parties to the MDL from using or disclosing Bosch's document production outside of that litigation; it does not restrict Bosch from producing or being compelled to produce its own records. Applicants also filed an ex parte Section 1782 application for VOA's and Bosch's documents in the District of New Jersey, as noted above, apparently based upon the location of Volkswagen's North American headquarters. This was initially granted, but the request for Bosch's documents was later abandoned when it became clear that Bosch had a valid jurisdictional objection and that the Eastern District of Michigan was the more appropriate place to pursue this relief. In light of this procedural history, Bosch's characterization of Applicants having participated in a total of four applications for discovery pursuant to Section 1782 across the United States, is factually accurate yet an unfair slant. These prior applications have not been repeatedly rejected by our sister courts in other federal districts other than for reasons of personal jurisdiction. It is unclear why Ms. Hohenlohe did not file her first application here, but, now that the present Application has come to the right place, it is for this Court to say whether the relief should be permitted. For these reasons, and notwithstanding its relative comfort about Applicants' previous efforts in United States District Courts, this Court shares Bosch's concern about the circumvention of foreign proof-gathering restrictions and finds that this discretionary factor favors denial of the Application. Intrusiveness of the requests Finally, the Supreme Court instructs that unduly intrusive or burdensome requests may be rejected or trimmed. In determining whether such requests are intrusive or burdensome, the statute itself instructs that, to the extent that the order does not prescribe otherwise, the testimony or statement shall be taken, and the document or other thing produced, in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Even without the request for MDL documents, the bulk of the 25 document requests at issue, 24 of which are not identified as documents produced in the MDL, also do not appear to be narrowly tailored as to scope or content. This is particularly so in light of the fact that Bosch is not a party and, according to Applicants, will not be a defendant in any of the Applicants' actions. While the Court does see the odd request which is specific to a particular document with a particular date and some which specify an approximate month or year, many of these requests are prefaced by words such as including or including but not limited to, indicating that they should be read more broadly. Other requests are "prefaced by the word all, seeking things such as organizational charts, test results, computer and source codes, instructions and directions, communications, presentations, minutes, notes and documents for a ten-year relevant time period" running from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2015. The Court finds that these requests are overly broad and would be unduly burdensome to Bosch, particularly in light of its non- party role and the requests' lengthy temporal component. The fourth Intel factor weighs against granting the Application. The Application is denied. A full-text copy of the District Court's February 12, 2018 Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9zfdgpn from Leagle.com. financialright GmbH, Mr. Hartmut Baumer, Eithne Higgins & Katharina Prinzessin zu Hohenlohe, Petitioners, represented by Daniel T. Paluga, Young & Associates, 27725 Stansbury Boulevard, Suite 125, Farmington Hills, MI, 8334, Michael David Hausfeld -- mhausfeld@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld LLP, Sarah Rebecca LaFreniere -- slafreniere@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld LLP & Jaye Quadrozzi, Young & Associates, 27725 Stansbury Boulevard, Suite 125, Farmington Hills, MI, 8334 Robert Bosch LLC, Respondent, represented by Carmine D. Boccuzzi, Jr. -- cboccuzzi@cgsh.com -- Cleary, Gottlieb,, Matthew D. Slater -- mslater@cgsh.com -- Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, Michael G. Brady -- mslater@cgsh.com -- Warner, Norcross, & William R. Jansen -- wjansen@wnj.com -- Warner, Norcross. ROBINHOOD CRYPTO: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Tecson" Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Vivian Tecson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Robinhood Crypto, LLC; Robinhood Financial LLC; and Robinhood Markets, Inc., and Does 1 through 10, Defendants, Case No. 18CV323584 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cnty., Feb. 20, 2018) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of sending unsolicited text messages without prior express written consent, invading the Plaintiff's right to privacy in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Robinhood Financial, LLC provides stock trading services to buy and sell stocks. It offers stock brokerage services to invest in publicly-traded companies and exchange-traded funds listed on U.S. exchanges. The company was founded in 2013 and is headquartered in Palo Alto, California. Robinhood Financial, LLC operates as a subsidiary of Robinhood Markets, Inc. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Zelenski, Esq. JAURIGUE LAW GROUP 300 West Glenoaks Boulevard, Suite 300 Glendale, CA 91202 Telephone: (818) 630-7280 Facsimile: (888) 879-1697 E-mail: david@jlglawyers.com SALSAS AND BEER: Ordered to Produce Designee for Deposition ----------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. James C. Dever, III, entered an order in the lawsuit captioned MOISES VELASQUEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. SALSAS AND BEER RESTAURANT, INC., SALSA AND BEER, INC., NOE PATINO, PATRICIA PATINO, DIONISIO PATINO, and ISMAEL PATINO, Case No. 5:16-cv-00655-D (E.D.N.C.), granting the Plaintiff's motion to compel Defendants Salsas and Beer Restaurant, Inc., Salsa and Beer, Inc., Noe Patino, Patricia Patino, Dionisio Patino, and Ismael Patino to: (1) produce Salsa and Beer, Inc.'s Rule 30(b)(6) designee for a deposition; (2) respond to Plaintiff's interrogatory number 13 and request for production number 17, relating to the production of gross sales and annual dollar volumes; (3) produce Defendant Noe Patino's discovery responses; and (4) produce Defendant Patricia Patino's verification concerning her discovery responses. Judge Dever denies without prejudice the Plaintiff's motion to determine that Defendants Salsas and Beer Restaurant, Inc. and Salsa and Beer, Inc., constitute a single enterprise under 29 U.S.C. Section 203(r)(1), and the Plaintiff's motion to certify class. Judge Dever grants the Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to file a motion for class certification and the Plaintiff's motion for equitable tolling. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=qnl39BDu SANTA BARBARA, CA: Murray Seeks to Certify ADA Class and Subclass ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled CLAY MURRAY, DAVID FRANCO, SHAREEN WINKLE, MARIA TRACY, ERICK BROWN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA, and SANTA BARBARA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, Case No. 2:17-cv-08805-GW- JPR (C.D. Cal.), move the Court for an order certifying a Plaintiff Class of: "all people who are now, or in the future will be, incarcerated in the Santa Barbara County Jail system"; and a Plaintiff Subclass (the "Disabilities Subclass") of: "all people who are now, or in the future will be, incarcerated in the Santa Barbara County Jail system and who are qualified individuals with disabilities, as that term is defined in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. Section 12102, the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 705(9)(B), and California Government Code Section 12926(j) and (m)." The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to: 1. certify Plaintiffs Clay Murray, Shareen Winkle and Maria Tracy as representatives of the Plaintiff Class and Disabilities Subclass; 2. appoint their counsel of record as Class Counsel for the Plaintiff Class and Disabilities Subclass; and 3. direct the parties to confer and submit a proposed notice to the Plaintiff Class and Disabilities Subclass, and the method of distribution of that notice, within 30 days of the Order certifying the Plaintiff Class and Disabilities Subclass. The Court will commence a hearing on April 12, 2018, at 8:30 a.m., to consider the Motion. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=B9nGayOK The Plaintiffs are represented by: Aaron J. Fischer, Esq. DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA 1330 Broadway, Suite 500 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 267-1200 Facsimile: (510) 267-1201 E-mail: aaron.fischer@disabilityrightsca.org - and - Julia E. Romano, Esq. Jennifer T. Stewart, Esq. Stacy L. Foster, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 633 W Fifth Street, Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 900781 Telephone: (213) 443-4355 Facsimile: (213) 443-4310 E-mail: jromano@kslaw.com jstewart@kslaw.com sfoster@kslaw.com - and - Richard Diaz, Esq. DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA 350 South Bixel Street, Suite 290 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 213-8000 Facsimile: (213) 213-8001 E-mail: richard.diaz@disabilityrightsca.org - and - Don Specter, Esq. Corene Kendrick, Esq. PRISON LAW OFFICE 1917 Fifth Street Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (510) 280-2621 Facsimile: (510) 280-2704 E-mail: dspecter@prisonlaw.com ckendrick@prisonlaw.com - and - Donald F. Zimmer, Jr., Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 101 Second Street, Suite 2300 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 318-1220 Facsimile: (415) 318-1300 E-mail: fzimmer@kslaw.com - and - Joshua C. Toll, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 737-8616 Facsimile: (202) 626-3727 E-mail: jtoll@kslaw.com SANTO COYOTE: "Batista" Suit Seeks Damages under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------- Lianet B. Batista and Lucy Galvez, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Santo Coyote, Inc., and Martin Jimenez, Case No. 8:18-cv-00322 (M.D. Fla., February 8, 2018), seeks damages under Fair Labor Standards Act for failure to pay minimum wage, and overtime wages. Plaintiff Lianet B. Batista began working for Defendants as a server in May 2015 until November 2017. Plaintiff Lucy Galvez began working for Defendants as a server in March 2015 and worked in this capacity until December 2017. Defendant Santo Coyote, Inc. operates a restaurant in Brandon, in Hillsborough County, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christopher J. Saba, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A. 1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Tel: (813) 224-0431 Fax: (813) 229-8712 E-mail: csaba@wfclaw.com SAVOY BANCORP: Faces "Delacruz" Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Savoy Bancorp, Inc. The case is captioned as Emanuel Delacruz, and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Savoy Bancorp, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01388-ER (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 15, 2018). The case is assigned to Judge Edgardo Ramos, and referred to Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker. Savoy Bank offers personal and commercial banking services. The bank was founded in 2008 and is based in New York, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (917) 796-7437 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: danalgottlieb@aol.com SCHUMACKER ELECTRICAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wage, "Kelley" Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Kelley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Schumacker Electrical and Robert Schumacker, Defendants, Case No. 18CV-1251 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 19, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages and overtime wages to Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees for all time worked in excess of 40 hours in individual work weeks. Schumacher Electric Corporation Schumacher manufactures and supplies battery chargers, jump starters, power converters, battery testers, accessories, and OEM custom products. It serves automotive, marine, power sport, agriculture, and industrial markets. The company sells its products retailers. Schumacher Electric Corporation Schumacher was founded in 1947 and is based in Mount Prospect, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John C. Ireland, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JOHN C. IRELAND 636 Spruce Street South Elgin, IL 60177 Telephone: (630) 464-9675 Facsimile: (630) 206-0889 E-mail: attorneyireland@gmail.com SHAKE SCHACK: Faces "Bostick" Suit over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Kirstyn Bostick, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Shake Shack Enterprises, LLC; and Does 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No. BC694785 (Cal. Super., Los Cnty.) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code. Ms. Bostick was employed by the Defendants as an hourly-paid or non-exempt employees within the State of California, including the County of Los Angeles. Shake Shack Enterprises, LLC is in the Fast-food Restaurant Chain business. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edwin Aiwazian, Esq. LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE , PC 410 West Arden, Suite 203 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 265-1020 Facsimile: (818) 265-1021 SOUTH PASADENA CARE: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Schwade" Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- PATRICIA SCHWADE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOUTH PASADENA CARE CENTER, LLC; SOUTH PASADENA CARE CENTER; BRIUS MANAGEMENT CO; BRIUS, LLC; ELLIOT ZEMEL; YEHUDA SCHMUKLER; SCHLOMO RECHNITZ; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, BC694824 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 16, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods. Ms. Schwade is a resident of the State of California and a former employee of the Defendants. South Pasadena Care Center, LLC, is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the State of California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Matem, Esq. Joshua D. Boxer, Esq. Roy K. Suh, Esq. MATERN LAW GROUP, PC 1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Telephone: (310) 531-1900 Facsimile: (310) 531-1901 ST. LOUIS RAMS: "McAllister" Suit to State Court ------------------------------------------------ The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, issued a Memorandum and Order remanding the case captioned RONALD McALLISTER, Plaintiff, v. THE ST. LOUIS RAMS, LLC, Defendants, Nos. 4:16-CV-172 SNLJ, 4:16-CV- 262, 4:16-CV-297, 4:16-CV-189 (E.D. Mo.), to Circuit Court of St. Louis, Missouri. Plaintiff James Pudlowski filed his first complaint in state court, and the defendants removed the case to the District Court citing diversity jurisdiction generally1 and, in the alternative, minimal diversity" under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). Plaintiffs argued that, in light of the Court's conclusion that the CAFA jurisdictional elements had been established, the Court should have applied the local controversy exception to the facts of the case. Under the local controversy exception, a district court must decline to exercise jurisdiction over a class action (1) in which more than two-thirds of the class members in the aggregate are citizens of the state in which the action was originally filed, (2) at least one significant defendant is a citizen of the state in which the class action was originally filed, (3) the principal injuries were incurred in the state in which the action was filed, and (4) no other class action alleging similar facts was filed in the three years prior to the commencement of the current class action. 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(4)(A). Plaintiffs, as the party invoking the local controversy exception, have the burden to prove the exception by a preponderance of the evidence. Plaintiffs retained Dr. Charles Cowan as their expert in statistics and survey design and implementation. He took a random sample of potential class members and ascertained their citizenship or domicile that is, where the person (1) resides, and (2) intends to remain. Defendants do not take issue with Dr. Cowan's credentials. They do, however, submit an expert report from Dr. Stephen Cacciola that disputes much of Dr. Cowan's conclusion, but without offering a competing calculation of Missouri citizens versus Missouri residents. Dr. Cowan later responded and refuted the defendants' criticisms. Ultimately, even accepting defendants' criticisms, Dr. Cowan's opinion results in finding a Missouri citizenship rate significantly larger than two-thirds at a 95% confidence level. Defendants do not suggest that Dr. Cowan is not qualified as an expert in these matters, nor is there any apparent basis for defendants to do so. Dr. Cowan's opinion easily supports that more than two-thirds of plaintiffs' class comprises Missouri citizens. Plaintiffs' burden of proof is by a preponderance or more than 50% of the evidence. The Court finds that plaintiffs' approach was disciplined and reliable so as to meet this burden. The matter will be remanded to the Circuit Court for the City of St. Louis, Missouri. The defendants' motion to dismiss is denied as moot. A full-text copy of the District Court's February 12, 2018 Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yd37lvmm from Leagle.com. Ronald McAllister, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony S. Bruning -- tony@bruninglegal.com -- THE BRUNING LAW FIRM, LLC, Anthony S. Bruning, Jr. -- aj@bruninglegal.com -- THE BRUNING LAW FIRM, LLC, Richard S. Cornfeld -- rcornfeld@cornfeldlegal.com -- LAW OFFICE RICHARD S. CORNFELD, Ryan L. Bruning -- ryan@bruninglegal.com -- THE BRUNING LAW FIRM, LLC, Edward Morris Roth, THE BRUNING LAW FIRM, LLC, 555 Washington Ave, St. Louis, MO, 63#600A 101, Kevin Paul Green -- kevin@ghalaw.com -- GOLDENBERG HELLER, PC, Mark C. Goldenberg -- mark@ghalaw.com -- GOLDENBERG HELLER, PC & Thomas P. Rosenfeld -- tom@ghalaw.com -- GOLDENBERG HELLER, PC. The St. Louis Rams, LLC, A Delaware General Partnership, Defendant, represented by Amy Elizabeth Sestric, DENTONS US LLP, Anders C. Wick, DENTONS US LLP, pro hac vice, Elizabeth T. Ferrick, DENTONS US LLP, Roger K. Heidenreich, DENTONS US LLP & Stephen H. Rovak, DENTONS US LLP, 211 North Broadway, Saint Louis, MO 63102-0000 SURETEMPS LLC: Catherine Seeks Certification of Hoppers Class ------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned TERRY CATHERINE AND JAMIL LEE v. SURETEMPS, LLC; FULL FORCE STAFFING, LLC; AND METRO SERVICE GROUP, INC., Case No. 2:17-cv-07561-SM-JVM (E.D. La.), ask the Court to enter an order conditionally certifying this class of similarly situated individuals -- the "FLSA Collective Class": All persons employed by Defendants as hoppers since March 2015 who were paid on flat daily rate basis but were not paid at a rate equal to or higher than the federal minimum wage rate and/or who were not paid at an overtime rate of one and one-half times their hourly rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 per week in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 201, et seq. ("FLSA"). In their Collective Action Complaint, the Plaintiffs asserted claims on behalf of a collective class for overtime and/or minimum wages wrongfully not paid to them by the Defendants. The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to authorize notice to allow potential members of the FLSA Collective Class to opt in to preserve their rights. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=1dHfRdoy The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jody Forester Jackson, Esq. Mary Bubbett Jackson, Esq. JACKSON+JACKSON 201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 2500 New Orleans, LA 70170 Telephone: (504) 599-5953 Facsimile: (888) 988-6499 E-mail: jjackson@jackson-law.net mjackson@jackson-law.net SWISSPORT SA: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, "Jackson" Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- John Jackson, an individual, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Swissport, SA, LLC; Swissport USA, Inc., and Does 1 through 50, Defendants, Case No. BC694782 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 20, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods. Mr. Jackson was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt employee within the State of California. Swissport USA, Inc. provides ground handling, passenger, baggage and cargo handling, and aircraft loading and unloading services for airlines. The company was formerly known as Dynair Services Inc. As a result of the acquisition Dynair Services Inc. by Swissport North America, Inc., Dynair Services Inc.'s name was changed. The company was founded in 1967 and is based in Dulles, Virginia. It has an airside warehouse at Jomo Kenyatta International Airport in Nairobi, Kenya. Swissport USA, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Swissport North America, Inc. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Matern, Esq. Tagore O. Subramaniam, Esq. Julia Z. Wells, Esq. MATERN LAW GROUP, PC 1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Telephone: (310) 531-1900 (310) 531-1901 E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com tagore@maternlawgroup.com jwells@maternlawgroup.com SYSTEMS & SERVICES: "Chavez" Suit Seeks Damages Under TCPA ---------------------------------------------------------- Adrian Chavez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Systems & Services Technologies, Inc., Case No. 3:18-cv-00292 (S.D. Calif., February 7, 2018), seeks damages and injunctive relief pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Plaintiff Adrian Chavez is a resident of the County of San Diego, in the State of California. Defendant Systems & Services Technologies, Inc. is a consumer loan servicer, committed to being the third-party servicer of choice for originators and purchasers of consumer assets. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Mona Amini, Esq. Clark R. Conforti, Esq. Veronica Cruz, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Tel: (800) 400-6808 Fax: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com mona@kazlg.com clark@kazlg.com veronica@kazlg.com TAKEDA AMERICA: Court Allows Indirect Purchasers to Amend Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Complaint in the case captioned IN RE ACTOS END-PAYOR ANTITRUST LITIGATION, No. 13-CV-9244 (RA) (S.D.N.Y.), in light of a Second Circuit's decision. At issue in this case is whether Defendants Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, Takeda America Holdings, Inc., Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc., and Takeda Development Center Americas, Inc., are liable to Plaintiffs, the indirect purchasers of Takeda's diabetes medication called ACTOS, for unlawfully inflating that drug's prices in violation of state antitrust, consumer protection, and unjust enrichment laws. Plaintiffs are indirect purchasers of ACTOS who sued Takeda and several generic manufacturers under state antitrust laws. They claimed, among other things, that Takeda had unlawfully reaped monopoly profits by delaying the generics' entry into the market. The District Court dismissed the complaint on the basis that Plaintiffs had failed to adequately allege that Takeda's actions caused Plaintiffs' antitrust injury. Plaintiffs appealed, arguing that they had adequately alleged that Takeda's purportedly false representations about its '584 and '404 patents delayed the entry of generic competitors to the ACTOS market, thereby facilitating Takeda's alleged monopoly over the relevant market and causing Plaintiffs' claimed injuries. The Second Circuit affirmed the District Court's rejection of Plaintiffs' first causation theory, holding that Plaintiffs had failed to plausibly allege that the generics had filed their Paragraph IV certifications with knowledge of Takeda's 1999 and 2002 patent descriptions. The Second Circuit vacated the District Court's decision in part, however, as to Plaintiffs' theory regarding Teva, remanding the case to the limited extent that Plaintiffs "plausibly alleged that Takeda delayed Teva's market entry." LEGAL STANDARDS Although courts should freely give leave to amend when justice so requires, they need not grant leave to amend if the amendments would be futile or cause undue delay, among other things. This Court also may not permit amendments that would violate the law of the case doctrine which requires a trial court to follow an appellate court's previous ruling on an issue in the same case. Proposed Amendments Based on Takeda's 1999 and 2002 Patent Descriptions The Second Circuit explicitly rejected a similarly flawed theory on Plaintiffs' appeal. Plaintiffs had argued then that the generics could have learned of Takeda's alleged misrepresentations by consulting a supplemental filing that Takeda had made to its New Drug Application, which Plaintiffs claimed the FDA made available on its website. The Second Circuit rejected this argument on the ground that the generics could not plausibly have learned of the allegedly false patent descriptions by consulting a supplemental Takeda filing on the FDA's website because the supplemental filing did not have accurate information about both the '584 and '404 patents and thus was not a dependable source of patent information for generic applicants. Similarly, the FDA's failure to comply with its own policy of advising generics of incorrect certifications was not a dependable source of patent information for the generics, because the FDA applied that policy inconsistently even within the context of this case. Thus, it is not plausible that the generics would have relied on the FDA's silence as proof of Takeda's alleged misrepresentations or even as confirmation that they had filed the proper certifications. Plaintiffs are therefore denied leave to amend to the extent that they seek to add causation theories based on Takeda's allegedly false patent descriptions in 1999 and 2002. Proposed Amendments Based on Takeda's Public 2010 Patent Description and the FDA's 2010 ruling Plaintiffs alternatively rely on the FDA's March 2010 ruling as a basis for their causation theory with regard to the non-Teva generics. The Court concludes that these proposed amendments are within the Second Circuit's mandate on remand. The spirit of the mandate, as evidenced by the Circuit's reasoning and its direction that the Court hold further proceedings consistent with its decision, is broad enough to encompass amendments that include more than one way in which the FDA's 2010 ruling harmed Plaintiffs. And Plaintiffs' proposed amendments to the extent they allege that Takeda's misrepresentations caused the FDA's ruling and that the FDA's ruling in turn caused a delay in the generics' entry are consistent with the Circuit's ruling. The proposed amendments also appear plausible as to the non-Teva generics for the same reasons the Circuit identified as to Teva. Although the non-Teva generics were not parties to the citizen petition, the FDA's ruling was a matter of public record which the generics would plausibly have been following with interest given the ruling's potential impact on their own lawsuits and entries into the market. Moreover, if the FDA's ruling had come out the other way and permitted Teva to proceed as it had planned to do, that outcome plausibly would have led the generics to enter the market sooner, as alleged in the proposed amended complaint. At this stage, Defendants have not contended otherwise. Plaintiffs' proposed amendments are therefore within the scope of Second Circuit's mandate on remand to the extent that they allege that the FDA's ruling caused a delay in the generics' market entry. Amendment under Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Although this case has been pending for just over four years, it has only progressed to the motion-to-dismiss stage. And the types of prejudice to which Takeda points primarily that the proposed amendments will require additional briefing, delay, and expense are not, on balance, unduly prejudicial. The proposed amendments are closely enough related to Plaintiffs' prior theories that Takeda is not unfairly disadvantaged by having to respond to them at this point in the litigation. Moreover, the same Defendants must respond to a functionally identical argument in the related direct-purchaser action also pending before this Court. Thus, in the interests of justice and in the absence of undue prejudice or delay, Plaintiffs may expand their causation allegations in the limited fashion. Plaintiffs are granted leave to amend their complaint to the extent that the amendments are unopposed or allege causation based on the FDA's March 2010 ruling. A full-text copy of the District Court's February 12, 2018 Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y827gajp from Leagle.com. United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1776 & Participating Employers Health and Welfare Fund, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth G. Arthur, Hilliard & Shadowen LLP, 919 Congress Ave. Suite 1325. Austin, TX 78701. 512-993-3072. Karen M. Leser-Grenon -- kleser@sfmslaw.com -- Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC, Kolin C. Tang -- ktang@sfmslaw.com -- Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC, Laurie Rubinow -- lrubinow@sfmslaw.com -- Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC, Matthew Weiner, Hilliard & Shadowen LLP, 919 Congress Ave. Suite 1325. Austin, TX 78701. 512-993-3072. Natalie Finkelman Bennett -nfinkelman@sfmslaw.com - - Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP, pro hac vice & Steve D. Shadowen, Hilliard & Shadowen LLP, 919 Congress Ave. Suite 1325. Austin, TX 78701. 512-993-3072. Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178 Health & Welfare Trust Fund, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Philip Murray -- bmurray@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Gregory Bradley Linkh -- glinkh@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, Lee Albert -- glinkh@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP & Steve D. Shadowen -- Steve@hilliardshadoweniaw.com -- Hilliard & Shadowen LLP. 199 SEIU-National Benefit Fund, Plaintiff, represented by Dan Drachler -- ddrachler@zsz.com -- Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP, Steve D. Shadowen, Hilliard & Shadowen LLP & Karen M. Leser- Grenon, Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC. Fraternal Order of Police, Fort Lauderdale Lodge 31, Insurance Trust Fund, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Jayne Arnold Goldstein, Pomerantz LLP, Adam G. Kurtz, Pomerantz LLP, Steve D. Shadowen, Hilliard & Shadowen LLP & Karen M. Leser-Grenon, Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC. Crosby Tugs, LLC, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Kara A. Elgersma, Wexler Wallace LLP, pro hac vice, Karen M. Leser- Grenon, Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC, Kenneth A. Wexler, Wexler Toriseva Wallace LLP, pro hac vice, Kolin C. Tang, Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC, Matthew Weiner, Hilliard & Shadowen LLP, pro hac vice, Elizabeth G. Arthur, Hilliard & Shadowen LLP, Justin N. Boley, Wexler Wallace LLP, Richard L. Coffman, The Coffman Law Firm & Steve D. Shadowen, Hilliard & Shadowen LLP. International Union of Operating Engineers Local 132 Health and Welfare Fund, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Christina H.C. Sharp, Girard Gibbs LLP, Daniel Charles Girard, Girard Gibbs LLP, pro hac vice, Domenico George Minerva, Morgan & Morgan, P.C., John Anthony Kehoe, Girard Gibbs LLP, Scott M Grzenczyk, Girard Gibbs LLP, pro hac vice, Peter George Safirstein, Morgan & Morgan, P.C., Steve D. Shadowen, Hilliard & Shadowen LLP & Karen M. Leser-Grenon, Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC. A.F. of L. -- A.G.C. Building Trades Welfare Plan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Andrea B. Bierstein, Hanly Conroy Bierstein Sheridan Fisher & Hayes, LLP, Brian James Robbins, Robbins Arroyo, LLP, Derek Y. Brandt, McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP, pro hac vice, John Andrew Ioannou, Motley Rice LLC, Kevin A. Seely, Robbins Arroyo LLP, Michael Morris Buchman, Motley Rice LLC, Mitchell Mark Breit, Milberg Tadler Phillips Grossman LLP & Steve D. Shadowen, Hilliard & Shadowen LLP. Painters District Council No. 30 Health and Welfare Fund, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Lori Ann Fanning, Miller Law LLC, pro hac vice, Marvin Alan Miller, Miller Law, LLC, Steve D. Shadowen, Hilliard & Shadowen LLP & Karen M. Leser-Grenon, Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC. NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Brian O. O'Mara, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, David W. Mitchell, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Samuel Howard Rudman, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Steve D. Shadowen, Hilliard & Shadowen LLP & Karen M. Leser- Grenon, Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC. City of Providence, Rhode Island, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Alex Rafael Straus, Motley Rice LLC, Andrea B. Bierstein, Hanly Conroy Bierstein Sheridan Fisher & Hayes, LLP, Derek Y. Brandt, McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP, pro hac vice, Gregory E. Del Gaizo, Robbins Umeda, LLP, John Andrew Ioannou, Motley Rice LLC, Kevin A. Seely, Robbins Arroyo LLP, Michael Morris Buchman, Motley Rice LLC, Mitchell Mark Breit, Milberg Tadler Phillips Grossman LLP, Steve D. Shadowen, Hilliard & Shadowen LLP & Karen M. Leser-Grenon, Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC. Minnesota and North Dakota Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers Health Fund, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Gary B. Friedman, Friedman Law Group, Steve D. Shadowen, Hilliard & Shadowen LLP & Karen M. Leser-Grenon, Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC. Greater Metropolitan Hotel Employers-Employees Health and Welfare Fund, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Gary B. Friedman, Friedman Law Group & Steve D. Shadowen, Hilliard & Shadowen LLP. Local 17 Hospitality Benefit Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr., Reinhardt, Wendorf & Blanchfield, Gary B. Friedman, Friedman Law Group, Scott H. Levy, Friedman Law Group, Tracey Kitzman, Friedman Law Group & Steve D. Shadowen, Hilliard & Shadowen LLP. New England Electrical Workers Benefit Fund, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Frank Rocco Schirripa, Hach Rose Schirripa & Cheverie LLP, John Douglas Richards, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll P.L.L.C., Sharon Kunjumon Robertson, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll P.L.L.C., Donna M. Evans, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Steve D. Shadowen, Hilliard & Shadowen LLP & Karen M. Leser-Grenon, Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC. Man-U Service Contract Trust Fund, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Stewart L. Cohen, Cohen, Placitella & Roth, Steve D. Shadowen, Hilliard & Shadowen LLP & Karen M. Leser-Grenon, Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC. Teamsters Union Local 115 Health & Welfare Fund, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Stewart L. Cohen, Cohen, Placitella & Roth & Steve D. Shadowen, Hilliard & Shadowen LLP. Takeda America Holdings, Inc., Takeda Pharmaceuticals, U.S.A., Inc. & Takeda Development Center Americas, Inc., Defendants, represented by Jeffrey Ira Weinberger, Munger, Tolles & Olson, Adam R. Lawton, Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, pro hac vice, Gregory L. Skidmore, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, John O'Quinn, Kirkland & Ellis LLP & Rohit K. Singla, Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP. Mylan, Inc. & Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Defendants, represented by Jessica Leigh Margolis, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, Seth C. Silber, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, pro hac vice, Craig Eldon Bolton, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati PC, Gregory L. Skidmore, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Jeffrey C. Bank, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, John O'Quinn, Kirkland & Ellis LLP & Kellie Marie Kemp, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, pro hac vice. Actavis plc, formerly known as & Watson Laboratories, Inc., Defendants, represented by Steven Craig Sunshine, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Gregory L. Skidmore, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, John O'Quinn, Kirkland & Ellis LLP & Karen Hoffman Lent, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP. Ranbaxy, Inc. & Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Defendants, represented by Stacey Anne Mahoney, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Thane D. Scott, Morgan & Finnegan, LLP, pro hac vice & Gregory L. Skidmore, Kirkland & Ellis LLP. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Gregory L. Skidmore, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Jay Philip Lefkowitz, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, John O'Quinn, Kirkland & Ellis LLP & Ross Lee Weiner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Devin Allan Debacker, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, pro hac vice, Gregory L. Skidmore, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, pro hac vice, Jay Philip Lefkowitz, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, John O'Quinn, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Katherine R. Katz, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, pro hac vice & Ross Lee Weiner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP. Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, Defendant, represented by Rohit K. Singla, Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP. Ranbaxy Inc., Defendant, represented by Stacey Anne Mahoney, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP & Thane D. Scott, Morgan & Finnegan, LLP, pro hac vice. ALL PLAINTIFFS, All Plaintiffs, pro se. TRAVELERS INDEMNITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Hoyt" Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Hoyt, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Travelers Indemnity Company, and Does 1 through 50, Defendants, Case No. BC 695351 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cnty., Feb. 20, 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. Mr. Hoyt was employed by the Defendants in California from June 2015 to August 2017, as an outside property claim adjuster. The Travelers Indemnity Company operates as a property and casualty insurance company that provides a range of personal and business insurance products. The company was founded in 1864 and is based in Hartford, Connecticut. The Travelers Indemnity Company operates as a subsidiary of Travelers Insurance Group Holdings Inc. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq. BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858) 551-1223 Facsimile: (858) 551-1232 TREEHOUSE FOODS: Court Denies Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF MISSISSIPPI, Plaintiff, v. TREEHOUSE FOODS, INC. ET AL., Defendants, No. 16 C 10632 (N.D. Ill.). TreeHouse purchased the Private Brands business from ConAgra Foods, Inc., for approximately $2.7 billion. Plaintiffs contend that following these acquisitions, TreeHouse continued to fraudulently reassure the market that the acquisitions were successful. TreeHouse disclosed that third quarter earnings would be substantially below expectations. On that same day, TreeHouse also announced the resignation of the Company's President, Christopher Silva. Company shares fell roughly 20%. Plaintiffs contend that as a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the subsequent decline in the market value of the Company's stock, Plaintiffs suffered significant loss and damages. Plaintiffs bring this putative class action lawsuit against Defendants for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Act). In ruling on a motion to dismiss brought pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the court must draw all reasonable inferences that favor the plaintiff, construe the allegations of the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and accept as true all well-pleaded facts and allegations in the complaint. Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff's 10b-5 claim because Plaintiff has not alleged any material misstatement, Plaintiff failed to allege that any statements were false at the time they were made, Plaintiff failed to allege a strong inference of scienter, Plaintiff failed to adequately allege loss causation and Plaintiff has failed to plead that the individual defendants made certain alleged misstatements. Material Misstatement Puffery Defendants argue that numerous alleged misstatements are inactionable because they are statements of corporate optimism, or puffery. Statements that are vague aspirations or unspecific puffery are not considered material statements. TreeHouse made repeated representations that their management was handling business in a successful fashion. When such representations are taken in context, a sophisticated investor could believe that such comments were made in reference to actual current handling of actual risks and challenges and it is possible that a reasonable investor could believe there was a factual basis for such statements. Plaintiffs have presented enough support to show that Defendants' alleged misstatements and omissions were important to investors and that a reasonable investor could have believed there was a factual basis for such statements. Therefore, Plaintiffs have met the first pleading requirement of a material misstatement or omission. PSLRA Safe Harbor Defendants argue that numerous alleged misstatements are forward- looking and protected by the PSLRA's safe harbor. The PSLRA safe harbor provides that a defendant cannot be held liable for forward-looking statements that are (i) accompanied by meaningful cautionary statements, (ii) immaterial, or (iii) made without actual knowledge. The PSLRA defines a forward-looking statement as (i) a statement containing a projection of revenues or other financial items; (ii) a statement of the plans and objectives of management for future operations; (iii) a statement of future economic performance or; (iv) any statement of the assumptions underlying or relating to any of the previous three categories. A forward-looking statement must be identified as such, and accompanied by meaningful cautionary statements identifying important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the statement. A company providing projections cannot simply include a generic list of factors that might affect future performance, but instead, must list the principal or important sources of variances from projections. Here, the Defendants did not disclose any specific concerns, but instead offered generic statements. The alleged misstatements do not fall within the PSLRA's safe harbor. Failure to Allege That Statements Were False At Time They Were Made Defendants argue that Plaintiff fails to allege that any statements were false at the time they were made. Under the PSLRA, a complaint must specify each statement alleged to have been misleading and the reason or reasons why the statement is misleading. The facts presented in plaintiff's complain are sufficient to support a reasonable belief as to the misleading nature of the statements or omissions. Scienter Defendants argue that even if plaintiff had alleged actionable misstatement, the complaint should still be dismissed because Plaintiff failed to meet its burden to allege facts giving rise to a strong inference of scienter. For actions brought under Rule 10b-5, a plaintiff "must prove that the defendant acted with scienter, 'a mental state embracing intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud.' The inference that the defendant acted with scienter need not be irrefutable, but it must be more than merely reasonable or permissible it must be cogent and compelling, thus strong in light of other explanations. When making this determination, the court must review all allegations holistically. The complaint sufficiently alleges facts showing that defendant knew the statements were false or misleading. Loss Causation Defendants contend that Plaintiff has failed to adequately allege loss causation. For securities fraud actions brought under Rule 10b-5, plaintiffs must plead adequately transaction causation as well as loss causation. Plaintiffs contend that the third quarter 2016 operating results revealed the truth about the inability to successfully integrate Flagstone and Private Brands and that if Defendants had revealed the truth earlier, TreeHouse stock would not have traded at such inflated levels. This is adequate under Rule8(a), as well as any heightened pleading standard, to allege loss causation. Failure to Plead That Individual Defendants Made Certain Alleged Misstatements Defendants argue that Plaintiff has failed to plead that the individual defendants made certain alleged misstatements. To plead Rule 10b-5 liability as to an individual, a plaintiff must show that the particular defendants actually made the untrue statements of material fact at issue. 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10B- 5(b). Therefore, corporate insiders are not liable under Rule 10b-5 unless they make the alleged misstatements under the Janus standard. Plaintiff has adequately shown that the individual defendants made certain alleged misstatements. Defendants' motion to dismiss is denied. A full-text copy of the District Court's February 12, 2018 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9edpvj8 from Leagle.com. Annemarie Tarara, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth Camper Lyons -- elyons@lksu.com -- Lawrence, Kamin, Saunders, & Uhlenhop, Llc, John Scott Monical-jmonical@LKSU.com -- Lawrence, Kamin, Saunders & Uhlenhop, Mitchell Benjamin Goldberg, Lawrence, Kamin, Saunders & Uhlenhop & Peter E. Cooper, Lawrence, Kamin, Saunders & Uhlenhop, 300 S Wacker Dr Ste 500. Chicago, IL 60608. Ivan Barenbaum, Plaintiff, represented by John Scott Monical, Lawrence, Kamin, Saunders & Uhlenhop. Treehouse Foods, Inc., Sam K Reed, Dennis F. Riordan & Christopher D. Sliva, Defendants, represented by Dan K. Webb -- dwebb@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn LLP, Alexandra Jane Schaller -- aschaller@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn LLP, James P. Smith, III -- jpsmith@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn LLP, pro hac vice, Matthew Robert Carter -- mcarter@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn LLP & Tyler Gene Johannes -- tjohannes@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn LLP. Dave Duff, Movant, represented by Andrew Charles Murphy- acm@ditommasolaw.com -- DiTommaso Lubin, P.C., Patrick Doyle Austermuehle paustermuehle@ditommasolaw.com -- DiTommaso Lubin, P.C., Peter Scott Lubin, DiTommaso Lubin Austermuehle & Vincent Louis DiTommaso, DiTommaso Lubin, P.C., 17W 220 22nd Street, Suite 410. Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181. City of North Miami Beach Police Officers' and Firefighters' Retirement Plan & City of North Miami Beach General Employees' Retirement Plan, Movants, represented by Danielle S. Myers -- danim@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd Llp & Frank Anthony Richter -- frichter@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd. TURNER OIL: Wins Prelim. Approval of $500K Deal in "Stanley" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. James L. Graham granted the Joint Motion and Memorandum of Law for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement in the lawsuit entitled JONATHAN STANLEY, et al. v. TURNER OIL & GAS PROPERTIES, INC., Case No. 2:16-cv-00386-JLG-EPD (S.D. Ohio). Turner has agreed to an amount capped at $500,000 to compensate settlement class members and class counsel. Once Turner is able to calculate its actual payout to class members, class counsel will apply for an award of attorneys' fees and costs out of the actual payout amount. The Settlement Agreement outlines a 30% attorneys' fee for class counsel. But the Settlement Agreement recognizes that the compensation for each class member could change if the Court determines that class counsel deserve less than this. The distribution to class members will be on a pro rata basis calculated by reference to the number of days worked in excess of 40 in a workweek during the covered period. Each day will be valued by the settlement class member's daily rate. The class proposed in the Settlement Agreement is preliminarily certified for settlement purposes. The parties have agreed that this class meets the requirements for certification under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: all individuals, who provided contract Landman abstract title and related services to Turner between May 20, 2014, and March 27, 2016. Judge Graham appoints the law firm of Marshall & Forman, LLC, to serve as class counsel for settlement purposes and the named Plaintiffs to serve as class representatives. Judge Graham directs the claims administrator to send notice of the proposed settlement to class members in the manner and form set forth in the Settlement Agreement. The Plaintiffs are to file a petition for an award of attorneys' fees and costs by April 23, 2018. A final fairness hearing is set for June 5, 2018, at 10:30 a.m. The Court refers the class action fairness hearing to Magistrate Judge Deavers to conduct the hearing and issue a report and recommendation. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=r9fWjCag ULTA BEAUTY: Removes "Devries" Suit to N.D. Illinois ---------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of Meghan Devries, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Ulta Beauty, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01219 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 16, 2018) filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois (Case No. 2018-CH-01723) to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-01219 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 16, 2018). Ulta Beauty, Inc. operates as a beauty retailer in the United States. The company was formerly known as Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. and changed its name to Ulta Beauty, Inc. in January 2017. Ulta Beauty, Inc. was founded in 1990 and is based in Bolingbrook, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq. Sharon A. Harris, Esq. Matthew C. De Re, Esq. Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq. Maebetty Kirby, Esq. ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C. 77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 440-0020 Facsimile: (312) 440-4180 E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com sharon@attorneyzim.com matt@attorneyzim.com nick@attorneyzim.com maebetty@attorneyzim.com The Defendant is represented by: Craig C. Martin, Esq. Matt D. Basil, Esq. Paul B. Rietema, Esq. JENNER & BLOCK LLP 353 N. Clark Street Chicago, IL 60654-33456 Telephone: (312) 222-9350 (312) 527-0484 E-mail: cmartin@jenner.com mbasil@jenner.com prietema@jenner.com UNITED PARCEL: Removes "Vawter" Suit to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of Brandon Vawter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. United Parcel Service, Inc., Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from Los Angeles Superior Court (Case No. BC686104) to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California and assigned Case No. 2:18-cv- 01318-RGK-E (C.D. Cal., Feb. 16, 2018). The case is assigned to Judge R. Gary Klausner, and is referred to Magistrate Judge Charles F. Eick. United Parcel Service, Inc., a package delivery company, provides transportation, logistics, and financial services in the United States and internationally. United Parcel Service, Inc. was founded in 1907 and is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Mahoney, Esq. Treana Louise Allen, Esq. MAHONEY LAW GROUP APC 249 East Ocean Boulevard Suite 814 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 590-5550 Facsimile: (562) 590-8400 E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net tallen@mahoney-law.net The Defendants are represented by: Claire A Hoffmann, Esq. GRUBE BROWN AND GEIDT LLP 601 Montgomery Street Suite 1150 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 603-5000 Facsimile: (415) 840-7210 E-mail: clairehoffmann@gbgllp.com - and - E. Jeffrey Grube, Esq. GRUBE BROWN AND GEIDT LLP 601 Montgomery Street Suite 1150 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 603-5001 Facsimile: (415) 840-7210 E-mail: jeffgrube@gbgllp.com - and - Elizabeth Alexandra Brown, Esq. GRUBE BROWN AND GEIDT LLP 601 Montgomery Street, Suite 1150 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 603-5000 Facsimile: (415) 840-7210 E-mail: lisabrown@gbgllp.com - and - Amanda Bolliger Crespo, Esq. GRUBE BROWN &GEIDT LLP 633 West 5th Street, Suite 3330 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 358-2810 Facsimile: (213) 995-6382 E-mail: amandacrespo@gbgllp.com UNITED STATES: Ramirez Moves to Certify Class of Immigrant Teens ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled WILMER GARCIA RAMIREZ, SULMA HERNANDEZ ALFARO, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT (ICE); THOMAS HOMAN, Acting Director of ICE; DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; KIRSTJEN NIELSEN, Secretary of Homeland Security, Case No. 1:18-cv-00508-RC (D.D.C.), ask the Court to certify a class defined as: All former unaccompanied alien children who are detained or will be detained by ICE after being transferred by ORR because they have turned 18 years of age and as to whom ICE did not consider placement in the least restrictive setting available, including alternative to detention programs, as required by 8 U.S.C. Section 1232(c)(2)(B). The Plaintiffs contend that they are immigrant teenagers, who were summarily locked up by Defendant U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in adult detention facilities, without any consideration of less restrictive alternatives -- such as release to a sponsor or placement in a group home -- when they turned 18. They also ask the Court to appoint them as class representatives and to appoint their counsel as class counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=u3o5XVXI The Plaintiffs are represented by: Tia T. Trout Perez, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 655 Fifteenth St., NW Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 879-5000 Facsimile: (202) 879-5200 E-mail: tia.trout-perez@kirkland.com - and - Stephen R. Patton, Esq. Anne K.H. Reser, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 300 North LaSalle Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 862-2000 Facsimile: (312) 862-2200 E-mail: stephen.patton@kirkland.com anne.reser@kirkland.com - and - Katherine Melloy Goettel, Esq. NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER 208 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1300 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 660-1335 Facsimile: (312) 660-1505 E-mail: kgoettel@heartlandalliance.org The Defendants are represented by: William Peachey, Esq. Colin Kisor, Esq. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, CIVIL DIVISION OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 Telephone: (202) 353-4419 Facsimile: (202) 305-7000 E-mail: William.Peachey@usdoj.gov Colin.kisor@usdoj.gov - and - Daniel Van Horn, Esq. Wynne Kelly, Esq. U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 555 4th Street, NW Washington, DC 20530 Telephone: (202) 252-7566 E-mail: Daniel.VanHorn@usdoj.gov Wynne.Kelly@usdoj.gov WAL-MART STORES: Goins Moves for Class Certification Under TCPA --------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled Amber Goins, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., d/b/a Walmart and Palmer Recovery Attorneys, PLLC, f/k/a Palmer, Reifler & Associates, Case No. 6:17-cv-00654-GAP-KRS (M.D. Fla.), asks the Court to certify this class under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act: All persons and entities throughout the United States (1) to whom Palmer Recovery Attorneys, PLLC, on behalf of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., placed, or caused to be placed, more than one call, (2) directed to a number assigned to a cellular telephone service, but not assigned to the intended recipient of Palmer Recovery Attorneys, PLLC's calls, (3) via vendor TCN Incorporated, (4) from April 6, 2013 through the date of class certification. Ms. Goins also asks the Court to appoint her as the class representative and to appoint appoint Greenwald Davidson Radbil PLLC as class counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=CM6koHGl The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael L. Greenwald, Esq. James L. Davidson, Esq. Jesse S. Johnson, Esq. GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC 5550 Glades Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 826-5477 Facsimile: (561) 961-5684 E-mail: mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com - and - Aaron D. Radbil, Esq. GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC 106 East Sixth Street, Suite 913 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 322-3912 Facsimile: (561) 961-5684 E-mail: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com WALTERS & MASON: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Teixeira" Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------ TENDAI TEIXEIRA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WALTERS & MASON RETAIL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00717-RK (E.D. Pa., Feb. 16, 2018) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay the minimum wage rate for all hours worked and the required overtime premium rate for all hours worked over 40 per week, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. Ms. Teixeira was employed by the Defendant on December 4, 2017 to January 13, 2018, as an assistant store manager at the Defendant's King of Prussia, Pennsylvania store. Walters & Mason Retail Inc., doing business as Altar'd State, owns and operates fashion boutiques. The company offers apparel including tops, sweaters, jackets and coats, shorts, and skirts. Walters & Mason Retail Inc. was founded in 2009 and is based in Knoxville, Tennessee. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Winebrake, Esq. R. Andrew Santillo, Esq. Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC 715 Twining Road, Suite 211 Dresher, PA 19025 Telephone: (215) 884-2491 WEBCOLLEX LLC: Conde Alleges Wrongful Debt Collection Conduct ------------------------------------------------------------- Fernando Conde, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Webcollex, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:18- cv-14060-KAM (S.D. Fla., Feb. 16, 2018), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Webcollex, LLC is a Virginia Limited Liability Company doing business as CKS Financial and is engaged in the business of collecting consumer debts, which operates from offices.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by Leo W. Desmond, Esq. DESMOND LAW FIRM, P.C. 5070 Highway A1A, Suite D Vero Beach, FL 32963 Telephone: (772) 231-9600 Facsimile: (772) 231-0300 E-mail: lwd@desmondlawfirm.com WEINGARTEN REALTY: "Muschong" Suit Moved to Orlando Dist. Court --------------------------------------------------------------- Ron Muschong and Milita Dolan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Weingarten Realty Investors, Defendant, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Ft. Myers Division (Case Number 2:18-cv-107), to the U.S. District for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, and assigned Case No. 6:18-cv-258-ORL-37TBS (M.D. Fla., Feb. 16, 2018). The case is assigned to District Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr., and referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Smith. According to the complaint, Plaintiffs have visited Defendant's facilities and were denied full and equal access due to the Defendant's inaccessible parking lots and paths of travel. Weingarten Realty Investors (NYSE: WRI) -- http://www.weingarten.com/-- is a shopping center owner, manager and developer. At September 30, 2017, the Company owned or operated under long-term leases, either directly or through its interest in real estate joint ventures or partnerships, a total of 210 properties which are located in 18 states spanning the country from coast to coast. These properties represent approximately 42.4 million square feet of which our interests in these properties aggregated approximately 27.2 million square feet of leasable area.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 - and - Chris A. Barker, Esq. BARKER& COOK 501 E Kennedy Blvd, Suite 1040 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 489-1001 Facsimile: (813) 489-1008 E-mail: chris@barkercook.com WEST COAST: Court OKs $1MM "Rincon" PAGA Action Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of California issued an order granting Joint Motion for Settlement in the case captioned SERAFIN RINCON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. WEST COAST TOMATO GROWERS, LLC, et al., Defendants. ELISA VALERIO ESPINOZA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. WEST COAST TOMATO GROWERS, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 13-CV-2473-JLS (KSC), Related Case No. 14-CV-2984-JLS (KSC) (S.D. Cal.). Plaintiffs alleged they did not receive compensation for time worked off-the-clock while employed by Defendants, and raised various other allegations related to Plaintiffs' expenses, meal periods, and working conditions. Plaintiffs also alleged they improperly were required to bring their own tools and equipment, were not permitted legally-required meal periods, and worked in unsafe working conditions. The Hanlon factors, which are used to evaluate class action settlements, include (1) the strength of plaintiffs' case; (2) the risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of further litigation; (3) the risk of maintaining class action status throughout the trial; (4) the amount offered in settlement; (5) the extent of discovery completed; (6) the expertise and views of counsel; (7) the presence of government participation; and (8) the reaction of class members to the proposed settlement. Under the terms of the settlement, Defendants will pay Plaintiffs a total amount of $1,000,000. The settlement resolves, in both actions, Plaintiffs' claims and the claims under The Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) Plaintiffs have alleged for themselves and on behalf of the PAGA Members who participate in the settlement Of the fund, Plaintiffs will receive varying degrees of money, totaling $255,000, in settlement of their individual claims. $30,000 of the fund will be used to pay Settlement Administration Costs and $20,000 will be attributed to civil penalties. Plaintiffs' Counsel request up to $150,000 in fees and costs, as approved by the Court. Of this amount for Counsel, $50,000 "would be distributed only in the event that there are funds left in the PAGA Members fund after all Participating PAGA Members have been fully paid 100% of the PAGA Penalties and Wage Penalties according to the formulas set forth in the Settlement Stipulation. The remainder of the settlement ($615,000) will be allocated to settle the PAGA claims. The Court will apply the Hanlon factors to determine whether the settlement is fair and reasonable in light of PAGA's policy goals. Plaintiffs state that although they believe in the strength of their case, they do face difficulties in proving claims that would rely on Plaintiffs' testimony. Plaintiffs face difficulty in proving they and the other workers were similarly aggrieved for purposes of the PAGA. The Parties have acknowledged the inherent strengths (and potential weaknesses) in the two cases and have reached a settlement that will afford all potential PAGA members recovery. This factor weighs in favor of finding the settlement fair and reasonable. Plaintiffs assert they and Potential PAGA Members face the risk of being bound by an adverse judgment that awards no penalties on the many claimed violations, particularly should other field workers, packers, and sorters, be found not to be aggrieved employees. Therefore, there is a risk of success for both sides, and both sides would face complex issues going forward should this case proceed. This factor weighs in favor of finding the settlement fair and reasonable. Defendants are offering $1,000,000 in settlement, and $615,000 of this is the PAGA allocation. This large recovery is significant for the Participating PAGA Members.4 Also as part of the settlement, Defendant West Coast will institute workplace practices to ensure it is complying with California wage and hour laws. This factor weighs in favor of finding the settlement fair and reasonable. The Parties state they engaged in extensive investigation, discovery and motion practice that spanned several years before settling the two cases. The Parties traded written discovery responses, engaged in over three dozen depositions, spoke to expert witnesses, and filed various motions and oppositions. Because the Parties have engaged in extensive discovery and worked on this case for several years, this factor weighs in favor of finding the settlement fair and reasonable. Plaintiffs' counsel Ms. Bonilla declares she and her co-counsel have extensive experience in employment litigation. Ms. Bonilla declares in her experience, she has observed the significantly diminished likelihood that these low-wage workers overcome barriers and power-imbalances to bring independent lawsuits and claims. Given these opinions, this factor weighs in favor of finding the settlement fair and reasonable. Plaintiffs mailed at least one letter to the LWDA, the DOSH, and Defendants giving notice of their intent to pursue a PAGA action. Plaintiffs did not receive a letter from the LWDA in response. Thus, the LWDA has not chosen to be a part of this lawsuit. PAGA provides for reasonable attorney's fees and costs. The PAGA does not provide a specific standard for evaluating attorney's fees in connection with a settlement of PAGA claims. Counsel requests $100,000 in fees and costs, with a maximum amount of $150,000. The Court finds the requested fees to be reasonable and appropriate, and AWARDS the amount requested. The Court allows Counsel to recover: costs in the amount of $39,485.99 and a guaranteed amount of $60,504.01 with an additional fees amount of up to $50,000 that will only be distributed by the settlement administrator to Plaintiffs' counsel only in the event that there are funds left in the PAGA Members fund after all Participating PAGA Members have been fully paid 100% of the PAGA Penalties and Wages Penalties according to the formulas in the Settlement Stipulation. The Court grants Plaintiffs' Motions for Settlement Approval and Plaintiffs' Counsel's request for attorney's fees. A full-text copy of the District Court's February 12, 2018 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yc8zt5js from Leagle.com. Elisa Valerio Espinoza, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer C. Bonilla -- jbonilla@crla.org -- California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc., Prairie A. Bly -- pbly@crla.org -- California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc., Cynthia L. Rice, California Rural Legal Assistance & Michael Meuter, California Rural Legal Assistance, 631 Howard Street, Suite 300. San Francisco, CA 94105 Guillermina Bermudez, Felix Gomez Diaz, Maria Martinez, Lorenzo Lopez Pastrana, Arturo Salgado Manzano & Cipriano Capistran, Plaintiffs, represented by Jennifer C. Bonilla, California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc., Prairie A. Bly, California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc. & Cynthia L. Rice, California Rural Legal Assistance. West Coast Tomato Growers, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, Defendant, represented by Julie A. Vogelzang -- julie@schorvogelzang.com -- Schor Vogelzang LLP, Lisa Marie Hird Chung -- lisa@schonvogelzang.com -- Schor Vogelzang LLP & Renee S. Schor -- renee@schonvogelzang.com -- Schor Vogelzang LLP. WYNDHAM WORLDWIDE: Court Dismisses "Embree" ------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, issued an Order granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned TOMMY J. EMBREE, Plaintiff, v. WYNDHAM WORLDWIDE CORPORATION, WYNDHAM VACATION RESORTS, INC., WYNDHAM VACATION OWNERSHIP, INC., FAIRSHARE VACATION OWNERS ASSOCIATION, RCI LLC, TERRI DOST, PETER HERNANDEZ and ROB HEBELER, Defendants, Case No. 6:16-cv-928-Orl-40GJK (M.D. Fla.). Wyndham operates a global conglomerate of hotels and timeshares. Plaintiff generally alleges that Defendants engaged in self- dealing, ignored conflicts of interests, and otherwise used their position of trust to enrich themselves at the expense of the putative class. Specifically, the Amended Complaint presses six Counts: (1) violations of the Arkansas Trust Code against all Defendants; (2) breach of fiduciary duty against FVOA, WVR, and the Individual Defendants; (3) negligence against FVOA, WVR, and the Individual Defendants; (4) breach of implied duty of good faith and fair dealing against FVOA and WVR; (5) unjust enrichment against Worldwide, WVR, WVO, and RCI; and (6) civil conspiracy against Worldwide, WVR, WVO, RCI, and the Individual Defendants. As with her initial complaint, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is a shotgun pleading, and repleader is necessary. Faced with a shotgun pleading, district courts possess the inherent authority to order repleader sua sponte. In Weiland v. Palm Beach Cty. Sheriff's Office, 792 F.3d 1313 (11th Cir. 2015), the Eleventh Circuit outlined four types of shotgun complaints: -- The most common type by a long shot is a complaint containing multiple counts where each count adopts the allegations of all preceding counts, causing each successive count to carry all that came before and the last count to be a combination of the entire complaint. -- The next most common type is a complaint replete with conclusory, vague, and immaterial facts not obviously connected to any particular cause of action. -- The third type of shotgun pleading is one that commits the sin of not separating into a different count each cause of action or claim for relief. -- Fourth, and finally, there is the relatively rare sin of asserting multiple claims against multiple defendants without specifying which of the defendants are responsible for which acts or omissions, or which of the defendants the claim is brought against. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint falls within the third category of shotgun pleadings identified by the Eleventh Circuit in Weiland. For instance, Count I indiscriminately asserts claims for violation of two alternative Arkansas Code sections against seven defendants arising from four separate courses of conduct. The complaint is a typical shotgun pleading, in that some of the of the counts present more than one discrete claim for relief. The Complaint fails to separate into counts the various claims asserted, depriving Defendants of adequate notice of the claims asserted and the grounds supporting each claim. In re-pleading, Plaintiff shall separate each claim to relief based on a discrete theory and/or series of facts into different Counts. Defendants' Motions to Dismiss are granted. A full-text copy of the District Court's February 12, 2018 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y79fwc2a from Leagle.com. Tommy J. Embree, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Bradford D. Barron, The Barron Law Firm, PLLC, 117 N Missouri Claremore, OK 74017-6831, pro hac vice, James Matthew Stephens -- mstephens@mmlaw.net -- McCallum, Methvin & Terrell, PA, James M. Terrell -- jterrell@mmlaw.net -- McCallum, Methvin & Terrell, PA, pro hac vice, John Allen Yanchunis, Sr. -- jyanchunis@forthepeople.com -- Morgan & Morgan, Tampa P.A., Patrick A. Barthle, Morgan & Morgan, Tampa P.A., 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor. Tampa, Florida 33602, Richard Franklin Hatfield -- dhatfield@hatfield-law.com -- Richard F. Hatfield P.A., pro hac vice, Robert G. Methvin, Jr. -- rgm@mmlaw.com -- McCallum, Methvin & Terrell, PA, Timothy Michael Morgan, Morgan & Morgan, PA & Andrew Parker Felix, Morgan & Morgan, PA, 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor. Tampa, Florida 33602. Wyndham Worldwide Corporation, Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc., Wyndham Vacation Ownership, Inc., Fairshare Vacation Owners Association, RCI LLC, Terri Dost, Peter Hernandez & Rob Hebeler, Defendants, represented by Chris S. Coutroulis -- ccoutroulis@carltonfields.com -- Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, PA, David Matthew Allen -- mallen@carltonfields.com -- Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, PA & Johanna W. Clark -- jclark@carltonfields.com -- Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, PA. XPO LOGISTICS: Pregent Moves for Certification of CS Reps Class --------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned ALEXIS PREGENT, JENNIFER MASSAT, MEGAN KUCHENBECKER and JESSICA CLARK, Individually, and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. XPO LOGISTICS, INC., a Foreign Corporation, Case No. 1:17-cv-00993 (N.D. Ill.), move the Court for an order certifying a class consisting of: all individuals who were employed by the Defendant in the company's Illinois offices, as Customer Service Reps at any time during the relevant statute of limitations period who were not paid for all of the overtime hours they worked. The action is brought for alleged unpaid compensation, monetary damages, declaratory and injunctive relief and other equitable and ancillary relief under the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=RRbRZXuQ The Plaintiffs are represented by: Terrence Buehler, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF TERRENCE BUEHLER 20 North Clark Street, Suite 800 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 371-4385 E-mail: tbuehler@tbuehlerlaw.com - and - Peter S. Lubin, Esq. Vincent L. DiTommaso, Esq. DITOMMASO-LUBIN P.C. 17W220 22nd St., Suite 410 Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181 Telephone: (630) 333-0000 E-mail: psl@ditommasolaw.com vdt@ditommasolaw.com * Securities Class Action Settlement Dollars Decline in 2017 ------------------------------------------------------------ Total settlement dollars from securities class actions fell dramatically in 2017, even as the number of settlements remained steady. According to a new report by Cornerstone Research, Securities Class Action Settlements - 2017 Review and Analysis, the total value of securities class action settlements approved by courts in 2017 was $1.5 billion -- the second-lowest amount since 22008 -- and a substantial drop from $6.1 billion in 2016. The total of 81 securities fraud class action settlements approved in 2017 represented a slight decline from 85 settlements in 2016. The average settlement value, however, decreased 75 percent from $72.0 million in 2016 to $18.2 million in 2017. For the first time in more than five years, no settlement exceeded $250 million. "More than half of 2017 settlements were for $5 million or less. We also saw a significant decline in mid-range to large settlements," said Laura E. Simmons, a coauthor of the report and a Cornerstone Research senior advisor. "A combination of lower estimates of the proxy for plaintiff-style damages and smaller issuer defendant firms contributed to this decrease." The decline in case size is also consistent with other trends. Historically, smaller cases tend to settle faster than larger cases. In 2017, more than 23 percent of cases settled within two years of the date they were filed, compared to less than 16 percent between 2008 and 2016. "These data suggest that plaintiff counsel have recently been going after smaller fry claims where the issuers are not as large and there is less at stake. The mega-cases involving large firms appear to be in the rearview mirror for the moment," observed Professor Joseph A. Grundfest of Stanford Law School, a former commissioner of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Key Trends * Mega settlements decline: A decrease in the number of mega settlements (settlements of $100 million or more) also contributed to the dramatic drop in total settlement dollars. In 2017, there were only four mega settlements, comprising just 43 percent of total settlement dollars. In contrast, during 2008- 22016, 70 percent of total settlement dollars were attributable to mega settlements. * Small settlements jump to record levels: Both the number and proportion of settlements less than or equal to $5 million rose to the highest level in the last 10 years. In 2017, 15 cases settled for $2 million or less (historically referred to as "nuisance suits"). * "Simplified tiered damages" decrease: This proxy for potential shareholder losses is an important factor in predicting settlement amounts. In 2017, the decline in median settlement amount was primarily driven by a reduction in "simplified tiered damages." "Simplified tiered damages" is based on the dollar value of a defendant's stock price movements on the specific dates detailed in the plan of allocation in the settlement notice. * Size of defendant firms shrinks: In 2017, the median value of issuer defendant total assets was $547 million, 37 percent lower than for cases settled during 2008-2016. * Accounting allegations continue downward trend: The proportion of settled cases alleging GAAP violations in 2017 was 53 percent, continuing a three-year decline from a high of 67 percent in 2014. Of cases with accounting allegations settling in the preceding nine years, 23 percent involved named auditor codefendants. In 2017, this dropped to 13 percent. * Institutional investors as lead plaintiffs fall to low levels: The proportion of settlements with a public pension plan as lead plaintiff declined to the lowest level in 10 years. This decline in part reflects the smaller cases involved. However, even in larger cases, public pension plans were less frequently involved in 2017 than in prior years. * Derivative actions reach record levels: The percentage of settled cases involving an accompanying derivative action was one of the highest in the last 10 years, driven by a surge in derivative cases corresponding to relatively small settlements. Of cases settling for $5 million or less in 2017, 51 percent were accompanied by derivative actions, compared to 37 percent for the prior nine years. * Corresponding SEC actions remain consistent: Approximately 20 percent of cases settled in 2017 involved an accompanying SEC action, comparable to 18 percent in 2016. About the Securities Class Action Settlements Report Securities Class Action Settlements-2017 Review and Analysis examines cases alleging fraudulent inflation in the price of a corporation's common stock. The sample includes only cases alleging Rule 10b-5, Section 11, and/or Section 12(a)(2) claims brought by purchasers of a corporation's common stock. This report's sample includes 1,697 securities class actions filed after passage of the Reform Act (1995) and settled from 1996 through 2017. These settlements are identified based on a review of case activity collected by Securities Class Action Services LLC (SCAS). For purposes of this report, the designated settlement year corresponds to the year in which the hearing to approve the settlement was held. About Cornerstone Research Cornerstone Research provides economic and financial consulting and expert testimony in all phases of complex litigation and regulatory proceedings. The firm works with an extensive network of prominent faculty and industry practitioners to identify the best-qualified expert for each assignment. Cornerstone Research has earned a reputation for consistent high quality and effectiveness by delivering rigorous, state-of-the-art analysis for over 25 years. The firm has 700 staff and offices in Boston, Chicago, London, Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco, Silicon Valley, and Washington. ********* 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 * * *