/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/180402.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, April 2, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 66 Headlines ABM PARKING: 9th Cir. Dismisses FACTA Lawsuit ACROSS THE NATION: Marous Sues Over Illegal Text Messages AKORN INC: Faces Shareholder Class Action ALL COUNTY : German Sues Over Missed Breaks, Unpaid Overtime ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES: Faces "Vandehey" Suit in E.D. Wisconsin ALLERGAN INC: Ahold USA Anti-trust Suit Transferred to E.D. N.Y. ALLERGAN INC: Allied Anti-trust Suit Transferred to E.D. N.Y. ALLERGAN INC: Police Fund Anti-Trust Suit Transferred to NY ALLERGAN INC: KPH Anti-Trust Suit Transferred to E.D. N.Y. ALLERGAN INC: Plumbers Fund Anti-Trust Suit Transferred to NY ALLERGAN INC: Rochester Anti-trust Suit Transferred to E.D. N.Y. ALPHACRAFT CONSTRUCTION: Workers Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages AMER SPORTS: Faces "Olsen" Suit in E.D. New York ANSCHUTZ ENTERTAINMENT: Ozzy Osbourne Files Antitrust Suit ANTHONY'S LUNCH: Faces "Melchor" Suit in E.D. New York APPLE FEDERAL: Illegally Charged "Jean-Baptiste" Overdraft Fees ARANA STONE: Denied Overtime Premium, "Lanza" Suit Says AUDI OF AMERICA: Faces "McBride" Suit in S.D. Florida BALENCIAGA AMERICA: Faces "Fischler" Suit in S.D. New York BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Class Action over Funds Transfer Charges BANK OF THE INTERNET: Judge Tentatively Dismisses Class Action BIGLARI HOLDINGS: "Hipps" Suit Removed to S.D. Ind. BIRD ELECTRIC: "Guajardo" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages BODY SCULPT: "Thompson" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay BRENT WALTERS: "Blanton" Labor Suit Transferred to E.D. Tex. BREW DR: Sued in Illinois for Overstating Probiotic Bacteria C. TECH COLLECTIONS: Faces "Brown" Suit in E.D. New York CACH LLC: "Krahn" Action Disputes Collection Letter CALIFORNIA: Judge Delays Approval of $16.6MM Phone Tax Settlement CALLIDUS SOFTWARE: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action CARSON SMITHFIELD: Faces "Meyers" Suit in E.D. New York CARSON SMITHFIELD: Faces "Melton" Suit in E.D. New York CASEY'S GENERAL STORES: "McColley" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages CHOICE HOTELS: Sued for Allegedly Manipulating Search Results COMERICA BANK: Gordon Files Class Action Suit in Calif. COSTCO WHOLESALE: La Vigne Appeals Dismissal of Suit to 2nd Cir. CORNERSTONE RESIDENTIAL: "Malossi" Suit Seeks to Recoup Unpaid OT COTY INC: "Taylor" Product Liability Suit Transferred to Alabama CSC HOLDINGS: "Zemel" Suit Sues Over SMS Ads Despite Opt-out CVS HEALTH: Faces Suit Over Unauthorized HIV Data Disclosure CVS HEALTH: Faces Suit for Discriminatory Business Practices CYAN INC: Loses Bid to Quash California Securities Class Action DAIKIN NA: 300 Alabamans Fight Water Contamination Settlement DELOITTE TOUCHE: Lawyers File Class Action Over Unpaid Benefits DELTA AIRLINES: Tries to Beat Back Bag Fee Collusion Claim DENKA PERFORMANCE: Chloroprene Suit Denied Class Action Status DIGNITY HEALTH: Must Face Class Action Over Pension Plan DIRECTV LLC: Faces FCRA Class Action in California DST SYSTEMS: Pratt Suit Seeks to Block Sale to SS&C Technologies DYNAMIC LEDGER: Class Action Over Initial Coin Offering Ongoing EDWARD D. JONES: Faces Class Action Over Training Costs ENAGIC USA: Makaron Asks Ct. to Compel 800Link to File Response EXPERIAN INFO: Walsh Files Suit Over Erroneous Tax Lien Reports EXPRESSIVE LIGHTING: Denied Overtime Pay, "Williams" Suit Says EXXON MOBIL: Faces "Guimary" Suit in C.D. California FINANCIAL BUSINESS: Johnson Sues Over Student Loan Collection FITNESS 19: Maggard Sues Over Double Gym Fees Charges FORT MYERS, FL: Faces "Miller" Suit in M.D. Florida FP HOLDINGS: Guests Sue Over Illegal Taxes for Internet Use FRANKLIN INSTITUTE: Faces "Lee" Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania FUNKO INC: Time to Answer to Securities Violation Claims Extended GENERAL MILLS: "Hilsley" Mislabeling Suit Removed to S.D. Cal. GENERAL MOTORS: Settles Arizona Ignition Switch Case for $6.29MM GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Faces "Thorne" Suit in S.D. New York GLYNN COUNTY, GA: House Bill 1012 Put on the Back Burner GOOGLE INC: YouTube Slays Zombie Video Makers' Ad Revenue Suit GOOGLE LLC: Plaintiffs to Refile Dismissed Nexus 6P Claims GOOGLE INC: Settles Privacy Class Action Over Street View Cars GRADY'S PIZZA: Faces "Foster" Suit in E.D. Arkansas GREENSPOON MARDER: Court Denies Dismissal of "Lapan" FDCPA Suit HENRY SCHEIN: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action HERSHEY COMPANY: Court Dismisses Class Action Over Candy Box HH GULFSTREAM: Faces CDS Gulfstream Suit in S.D. Florida HOME DEPOT: Faces "Sullivan" Suit in S.D. New York HUNTLEIGH USA: Court Grants Final Approval of $1.5MM Settlement INTERACTIVECORP: Sued for Deleting Transgender Users' Profiles INFORMATION RESOURCES: Bid to Transfer "Bakhtiar" Denied JOBMATCH LLC: Marous Sues Over Illegal Text Messages JONES & ASSOCIATES: Order Denying Class Cert in "Vuyancih" Upheld JP MORGAN: Faces "McShannock" Suit in N.D. California KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Court Consolidates "Sebastian," "Haris" KINDRED HEALTHCARE: "Carter" Claims Shortchanged on Merger Deal KOBE STEEL: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Data Falsification KOCH FOODS: Broiler Growers File Anti-trust Suit in N. Carolina LEMONADE INSURANCE: Faces "Thorne" Suit in S.D. New York LOUISIANA: Prisoners File Suit Over Inhumane Jail Conditions MDL 2420: Indirect Purchasers Lose Class Certification Bid MDL 2591: Settles Farmers' GMO Corn Suit for $1.5 Billion MDL 2804: Hartford City Agrees to Join Opioid Crisis Class Action MERCHANTS CREDIT: "Nicholson" Disputes Collection Letter MINNESOTA: Averts Class Action Over Handling of Abandoned Money MISSISSIPPI: Hopkins Files Suit v. State Secretary MOKBAR II: "Kaewjino" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT, Spread-of-Hours Pay NATIONAL DISTRIBUTION: Perez-Reyes Appeals Ruling to 9th Circuit NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Faces "Ratunil" Suit in N.D. Fla. NEW YORK: Class Action Against MTA Seeks Safety Reforms NEW YORK PIZZA: "Hyskaj" Suit Seeks to Recoup Unpaid Wages NEWBOLD SERVICES: "Guinn" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages NEWTON COUNY, GA: Class Action Mulled Over NABORS Landfill Fee OHIO: Workers File Class Action Over Payroll System Glitch ONE MILE HOUSE: De Los Santos Sues Over Unpaid Overtime OUR NEIGHBORHOOD: Faces "Toribio" Suit in E.D. New York OVERTON RUSSELL: Faces "Luci" Suit in N.D. New York PENNSYLVANIA HIGHER: Clancy Sues Over Bad Credit Report PETER ROFE: Faces Sexual Harassment Class Action PETROLEO BRASILEIRO: June 4 Securities Settlement Hearing Set PHILLIPS & COHEN: Bernal Disputes IRS Note on Collection Letter PHILLIPS & COHEN: Bernal Disputes IRS Note on Collection Letter PLEASANTON FITNESS: Lecomte Sues Over Illegally Debited Gym Fees PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Faces "Thorne" Suit in S.D. New York PROFESSIONAL PLACEMENT: Court Grants Final OK of "Safranski" Deal PROFESSIONAL RECOVERY: Cal. App. Affirms Dismissal of "Lee" PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Faces "Thorne" Suit in S.D. New York PURDUE PHARMA: Faces American Resources Suit in S.D. Alabama RENO, NV: Lemon Valley Flooding Class Action Can Proceed S & A RETAIL: Faces "Olsen" Suit in S.D. New York SAGAL FILBERT: "Jackson" Disputes Validity of Collection Letter SAN REMOS GROUP: Does Not Properly Pay Wages, "Guzman" Suit Says SANTANDER BANK: Must Face Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages SONIC AUTOMOTIVE: Denial of Class Cert in "Bornstein" Affirmed SOUTH FLORIDA TILE: "Maradiaga" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Settlement Obtains Preliminary Court Approval ST. LOUIS, MO: ArchCity Defenders to Challenge "Wanteds" System STANDARD & POOR'S: SCDO Class Action in Australia Commences TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Defective Prius Windshields TRANS UNION: Judge Inks $8MM Settlement in Credit Reports Case TRANS1 INC: 4th Cir. Partly Reverses Dismissal of Securities Suit TRAVELERS INDEMNITY: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Averts Antitrust Suit Over Surge-Pricing Model UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Wins Motion to Stay Heller Class Action UBER TECHNOLOGIES: "Vergara" Suit Brought Before 7th Cir. ULTA BEAUTY: Brower Piven Files Securities Class Action UNITED AIRLINES: Wins Case Over 'Lifetime' Benefits UNITED HEALTHCARE: Faces "Thorne" Suit n S.D. New York UNITED STATES: Faces Class Action Over Trump's 3rd Travel Ban UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO: Faces Pay Discrimination Class Action VALLEY NATIONAL: Faces "Thorne" Suit in S.D. New York WINES' TIL SOLD: AGs Wants Court to Reject Class Settlement WISCONSIN: Faces Class Action Over DNA Database Fee WYNDHAM VACATION: "Pierce" Suit Brought Before 6th Cir. XCEL HEALTHCARE: "Norris" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages XENIA HOTELS: Faces "Knowles" Suit in Massachusetts YAHOO INC: Settles Securities Class Action for $80 Million YOUTUBE: Judge Dismisses Class Action Over Adpocalypse Debacle ********* ABM PARKING: 9th Cir. Dismisses FACTA Lawsuit --------------------------------------------- Joshua G. Hamilton, Esq. -- joshua.hamilton@lw.com -- Michael Alan Hale, Esq. -- michael.hale@lw.com -- and James N. Rotstein, Esq. -- james.rotstein@lw.com -- of Latham & Watkins LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote that the Ninth Circuit follows the Second and Seventh Circuits in dismissing consumer class actions in which named plaintiff alleges no injury other than statutory damages. Key Points: - In Bassett v. ABM Parking Services, Inc., the Ninth Circuit applies Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins in holding that a named plaintiff must allege a sufficiently concrete injury. - While Bassett addresses a claim brought under FACTA, the decision may have broader implications because plaintiffs claiming bare procedural violations of other consumer protection statutes, without more, will have similar difficulty establishing standing to sue. - Companies should not view Bassett as amnesty for violating statutes that provide for statutory damages such as FACTA, and must remain vigilant in ensuring compliance with statutes. - Bassett will likely present an obstacle to plaintiffs seeking class certification because whether or not a particular putative class member suffered a concrete Article III injury will result in highly individualized inquiries. Introduction On February 21, 2018, the Ninth Circuit issued its decision in Bassett, addressing whether the disclosure of a customer's credit card expiration date on a receipt constitutes a sufficiently concrete injury to confer standing to sue. The Ninth Circuit, consistent with the Second and Seventh Circuits' rulings, held that printing a customer's credit card expiration date on a receipt, without any other allegation of injury, does not constitute an injury-in-fact for standing purposes. The Ninth Circuit relied on Spokeo, in which the US Supreme Court held that a plaintiff must establish that an injury-in-fact is concrete and particularized. However, the Ninth Circuit's decision has limited reach, because it likely does not apply to circumstances in which a customer no longer possesses a receipt, which may create a material risk of harm. At this time, the Supreme Court is unlikely to review Bassett given that all three circuits to address this identical claim have applied Spokeo in the same manner, and have reached the same result. The Bassett decision serves as a constitutional roadblock for plaintiffs' counsel seeking to sue companies for technical violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA). In a broader context, Bassett further solidifies that plaintiffs cannot recover based solely on statutory violations unless those violations are accompanied by actual harm or a material risk of harm sufficient to confer standing. Plaintiffs claiming bare procedural violations of other statutes, without more, will have difficulty establishing concrete injury requisite for standing if Bassett is applied more broadly. FACTA Background In 2003, Congress passed FACTA, which amended the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). FACTA provided that "no person that accepts credit cards or debit cards for the transaction of business shall print more than the last 5 digits of the card number or the expiration date upon any receipt provided to the cardholder at the point of the sale or transaction."3 The statute provides penalties for "willful noncompliance" and for "negligent noncompliance." "Any person who willfully fails to comply with [the FACTA requirement] with respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer" for actual damages of between US$100 and US$1,000 per violation, costs, reasonable attorney's fees, and, potentially, punitive damages. "Any person who is negligent in failing to comply with [the FACTA requirement] with respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer" for actual damages and attorney's fees. Following the passage of FACTA, enterprising plaintiffs' attorneys filed numerous lawsuits on behalf of consumers against merchants who printed receipts that included the expiration date of the credit or debit card. In 2008, Congress passed the Credit and Debit Card Receipt Clarification Act (the Clarification Act) in response to the onslaught of class action litigation and the business community's concerns. The Clarification Act provided that "any person who printed an expiration date on any receipt provided to a consumer cardholder at a point of sale or transaction between December 4, 2004, and June 3, 2008, but otherwise" did not print more than the last five digits of the card number, "shall not be in willful noncompliance" with FACTA. While the Clarification Act thus retroactively shielded companies from liability for revealing customers' credit card expiration dates on or before June 3, 2008, it did not grant any reprieve for companies' "willful noncompliance" after June 3, 2008. The Ninth Circuit's Decision in Bassett In Bassett, ABM Parking Services (ABM) committed a technical violation of FACTA by printing the expiration date of Bassett's credit card on his parking garage receipt. Bassett responded by filing a putative class action lawsuit claiming violations of FACTA, alleging that he was injured because the disclosure exposed him to an imminent risk of identity theft.9 Notably, Bassett "did not allege that a second receipt existed, that his receipt was lost or stolen, . . . that he was the victim of identity theft[,]" or that a third party viewed the receipt.10 The only "sufficiently concrete" injury Bassett could allege in order to establish Article III standing was the "risk of harm" that the printing of the expiration date created.11 The Ninth Circuit considered whether Bassett had alleged a sufficiently concrete injury to give him Article III standing, but agreed with the district court that Bassett's allegation of "only a statutory violation and a potential for exposure to actual injury" does not constitute "a concrete injury sufficient to give Bassett standing." In so holding, the Ninth Circuit relied upon the Supreme Court's decision on standing in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins.13 As an initial matter, in order to establish standing, a plaintiff "must have (1) suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant, and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision." As stated earlier in this Client Alert, Spokeo indicated that a plaintiff must show that the injury-in-fact is concrete and particularized. A concrete injury must be "de facto," which means that it "must actually exist." In examining a putative class action lawsuit alleging a different FCRA violation, the Supreme Court emphasized that the plaintiff "cannot satisfy the demands of Article III by alleging a bare procedural violation" since "[a] violation of one of the FCRA's procedural requirements may result in no harm." On remand, the Ninth Circuit clarified that some statutory violations alone do establish concrete harm, but only those statutory provisions established to protect "concrete interests" and that "actually harm, or present a material risk of harm to, such interests." In Bassett, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that it "is difficult to see how issuing a receipt to only the card owner and with only the expiration date" could constitute concrete harm. After examining historical practice and congressional judgment, the Ninth Circuit concluded that Bassett's allegation of a bare procedural violation of FACTA, without more, does not constitute a concrete injury. Bassett also argued that his alleged injury had a historical relationship to privacy-based torts, but the Ninth Circuit rejected such a relationship because ABM did not disclose Bassett's information to anyone other than Bassett. In examining congressional judgment, the Ninth Circuit reiterated that Spokeo "rejected [the] conclusion that a FCRA plaintiff need only invoke a FCRA violation and seek statutory damages to allege a concrete injury." An examination of the Clarification Act suggested that expiration date violations were not concrete injuries because the Act found that "a disclosed expiration date by itself poses minimal risk" of identity theft and the Act created a "temporary safe-harbor period." Like the Ninth Circuit, the Seventh and Second Circuits each followed Spokeo and dismissed identical class action suits for lack of standing because the plaintiffs did not suffer concrete and particularized harm. Implications of the Ninth Circuit's Decision and the Future of FACTA Lawsuits While the Ninth Circuit's decision in Bassett (and the decisions of the Second and Seventh Circuits) provide a procedural shield from liability against a plaintiff whose factual situation mirrors that in Bassett, the decision's reach is likely limited to situations in which an otherwise-compliant company prints an expiration date on a customer's receipt and no one other than the customer and his or her lawyers viewed the receipt. Indeed, the Ninth Circuit pointed out that "Bassett did not allege that another copy of the receipt existed, that his receipt was lost or stolen, that he was the victim of identity theft, or even that another person apart from his lawyers viewed the receipt. Nor did he allege that any risk of harm is real, "not conjectural or hypothetical," given that he could shred the offending receipt along with any remaining risk of disclosure."23 Under controlling law in the circuit, consumers who receive a receipt from a company containing the expiration date of their credit cards will not be able to sue under FACTA to establish standing. This will apply as long as the company does not print more than the last five digits of the card number, and the receipt was not issued or exposed to anyone other than the card owner since these consumers will not be able to establish a concrete injury-in-fact. For companies to control what happens to a receipt once it has been issued to a customer is difficult, if not impossible, so companies must remain vigilant in conducting reviews of issued receipts to ensure that they comply with FACTA. What may end up being a significant individual inquiry is what happened to the receipt after it was given to the customer. Ironically, if the customer still has the receipt and provides a copy as evidence for the lawsuit, then the receipt has likely never been shown to anyone else, and he or she would not have standing. On the flip side, if the receipt is lost, then the individual may not have proof of a violation. The decision will likely have a large impact on the legal landscape beyond FACTA and the FCRA, since plaintiffs will need to meet the same burden of establishing concrete injury-in-fact with respect to bare procedural violations of other consumer protection statutes in order to establish standing to sue. Bassett serves as additional authority supporting the proposition that plaintiffs cannot recover for injuries that are merely speculative and hypothetical in nature. Even if a company commits a statutory violation, a plaintiff will still need to establish actual harm or a material risk of harm in order to survive a motion to dismiss for lack of standing. In addition, the Ninth Circuit's decision will likely have an effect on class certification for procedural violations of statutes, since the decision will make it more difficult for plaintiffs to establish the commonality, typicality, and predominance required for certification, and to accurately identify an appropriately defined class.24 Individualized inquiries will likely predominate, since they are necessary to establish concrete injury by showing that either actual harm occurred or there was a material risk of harm. For the FACTA violation at issue in Bassett, these individualized inquiries would focus on what sort of disclosure of nonconforming receipts occurred for customers, since disclosure of the nonconforming receipt to someone other than the customer is necessary to establish actual harm or a material risk of harm. [GN] ACROSS THE NATION: Marous Sues Over Illegal Text Messages --------------------------------------------------------- Richard Marous, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Across the Nation, Promo, Model & Staffing, Ltd., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-80179, (S.D. Fla., February 15, 2018), seeks injunctive relief, statutory damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Defendant deals in event staffing, promotional models and experiential marketing across the United States. It sent recruitment texts to Marous' cellphone without express consent, notes the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, FL 33132 Tel: (305) 479-2299 Email: efilings@shamisgentile.com AKORN INC: Faces Shareholder Class Action ----------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that a class claims in a federal complaint that Akorn Inc.'s executives did not disclose that the pharmaceutical company's noncompliance with federal data integrity requirements would jeopardize its acquisition by a health care firm, causing share prices to drop 38 percent to $18.65. Counsel for Plaintiff: Matthew T. Heffner, Esq. Matthew T. Hurst, Esq. HEFFNER HURST 30 North LaSalle Street, Twelfth Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 346-3466 Fax: (312) 346-2829 Email: mheffner@heffnerhurst.com Email: mhurst@heffnerhurst.com -- and -- Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Ave, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Fax: (212) 202-3827 Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com Email: pkim@rosenlegal.com ALL COUNTY : German Sues Over Missed Breaks, Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Rodney L. German and Joshua R. Kroll, on their own behalf and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. All County Paving, Inc., M&M Asphalt Maintenance, Inc. and Jeffrey Cohen, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-80213 (S.D. Fla., February 21, 2018), seeks payment of all overtime hours, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees and costs of suit and such further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants are paving contractors providing asphalt paving services and products for parking lots, driveways, and road for commercial, residential and retail clients. Plaintiffs were non- exempt hourly employees performing various construction duties, working at Defendant's construction sites, retail stores and outlets, new construction, apartments, community residential developments, schools and universities, hospitals, and many other commercial properties. They routinely worked more than forty hours per week without being paid overtime. Defendants would allegedly alter time records to reflect fewer hours than what was actually worked by Plaintiffs and deducted an hour from their work day for lunch breaks regardless of whether Plaintiffs took a bona fide meal break and failed to compensate them for travel time to and from various job sites. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Maguene D. Cadet, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DIEUDONNE CADET, P.A. 2500 Quantum Lakes Drive, Suite 203 Boynton Beach, FL 33426 Telephone: (561) 853-2212 Facsimile: (561) 853-2213 Email: Maguene@DieudonneLaw.com ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES: Faces "Vandehey" Suit in E.D. Wisconsin ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allianceone Receivables Management, Inc. The case is styled as Jaquelyn A Vandehey, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Allianceone Receivables Management, Inc., John and Jane Does Numbers 1 Through 10, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv- 00481-WCG (E.D. Wis., March 27, 2018). AllianceOne Receivables Management, Inc. is a debt collection agency in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip D Stern, Esq. Stern Thomasson LLP 150 Morris Ave-2nd Fl Springfield, NJ 07081 Tel: (973) 379-7500 Fax: (973) 532-5868 Email: philip@sternthomasson.com - and - Andrew T Thomasson, Esq. Stern Thomasson LLP 150 Morris Ave-2nd Fl Springfield, NJ 07081 Tel: (973) 379-7500 Fax: (973) 532-5868 Email: andrew@sternthomasson.com ALLERGAN INC: Ahold USA Anti-trust Suit Transferred to E.D. N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Ahold USA, Inc., on behalf of itself and all those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Allergan, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00012 (E.D. Tex., January 16, 2018), was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on February 14, 2018 under Case No. 1:18-cv-00973. The Plaintiff accuses Allergan of monopolizing the sale of cyclosporine ophthalmic emulsion. Ahold bought Restasis, Allergan's brand of cyclosporine ophthalmic emulsion. Ahold USA, Inc. is an assignee of McKesson Corporation. Allergan, Inc. is the holder of approved New Drug Application for cyclosporine ophthalmic emulsion sold under the Restasis trademark. [BN] Ahold is represented by: Thomas M. Sobol, Esq. David S Nalven, Esq. Hannah W. Brennan, Esq. Kristen A. Johnson, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 55 Cambridge Pkwy., Suite 301 Cambridge, MA 02142 Tel: (617) 482-3700 Fax: (617) 482-3003 Email: tom@hbsslaw.com davidn@hbsslaw.com hannahb@hbsslaw.com kristenj@hbsslaw.com - and - Alfred Luke Smith, Esq. John Radice, Esq. RADICE LAW FIRM PC 34 Sunset Blvd. Long Beach, NJ 08008 Tel: (267) 570-3000 Fax: (609) 385-0745 Email: lsmith@radicelawfirm.com jradice@radicelawfirm.com - and - Elizabeth L DeRieux, Esq. Sidney Calvin Capshaw, III CAPSHAW DERIEUX LLP 114 E Commerce Avenue Gladewater, TX 75647 Tel: (903) 233-4816 Fax: (903) 236-8787 Email: ederieux@capshawlaw.com ccapshaw@capshawlaw.com Allergan, Inc. is represented by: Jack Wesley Hill, Esq. WARD, SMITH & HILL, PLLC 1507 Bill Owens Parkway Longview, TX 75604 Tel: (903) 757-6400 Fax: (903) 757-2323 Email: wh@wsfirm.com ALLERGAN INC: Allied Anti-trust Suit Transferred to E.D. N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Allied Services Division Welfare Fund, on behalf of itself and all those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Allergan, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-00775 (E.D. Tex., December 15, 2017), was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on February 14, 2018 under Case No. 18-cv-00971. Allied Services Division Welfare Fund, is a health and welfare benefit fund involved in the business of providing health benefits for covered members. It accuses Allergan of maintaining a monopoly over the sale of cyclosporine ophthalmic emulsion. Allied bought Restasis, Allergan's brand of cyclosporine ophthalmic emulsion. Ahold USA, Inc. is an assignee of McKesson Corporation. Allergan, Inc. is the holder of approved New Drug Application for cyclosporine ophthalmic emulsion sold under the Restasis trademark. [BN] Allied Services is represented by: Lanson Leon Bordelon, Esq. THE DUGAN LAW FIRM, APLC One Canal Place 365 Canal Street, Suite 1000 New Orleans, LA 70130 Tel: (504) 648-0180 Fax: (504) 648-0181 Email: lbordelon@dugan-lawfirm.com Allergan, Inc. is represented by: Jack Wesley Hill, Esq. WARD, SMITH & HILL, PLLC 1507 Bill Owens Parkway Longview, TX 75604 Tel: (903) 757-6400 Fax: (903) 757-2323 Email: wh@wsfirm.com ALLERGAN INC: Police Fund Anti-Trust Suit Transferred to NY ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Fraternal Order of Police, Miami Lodge 20, Insurance Trust Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Allergan, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-00755, (E.D. Tex., November 27, 2017), was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on February 14, 2018 under Case No. 1:18-cv-00969. Plaintiff seeks damages, injunctive relief, and all other relief available under federal antitrust laws, state antitrust laws, and state consumer protection laws. The action accuses Defendants of conspiring to fix, maintain, and/or stabilize the prices of prescription cyclosporine emulsion. Plaintiff indirectly purchased, paid, and/or provided reimbursement for these products made by one or more Defendants at supracompetitive prices. Allergan is a $23B diversified global pharmaceutical company into global generics, dermatology and aesthetics, CNS, eye care, urology, gastro-intestinal, cystic fibrosis, cardiovascular and infectious diseases. It is based in Dublin, Ireland, with U.S. Administrative Headquarters in Parsippany, New Jersey, USA. Fraternal Order of Police, Miami Lodge 20, Insurance Trust Fund is a governmental plan established and funded through contributions from the City of Miami and the plan's members, who are current and retired sworn officers from the City of Miami Police Department and their dependents. FOP Miami was established pursuant to a duly executed Trust Agreement for the purpose of providing medical, surgical and hospital care or benefits, including prescription drug benefits, to its members. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Steve Shadowen, Esq. D. Sean Nation, Esq. Matthew C. Weiner, Esq. Frazer Thomas, Esq. HILLIARD & SHADOWEN LLP 2407 S. Congress Ave, Suite E 122 Austin, TX 78704 Telephone: (855) 344-3298 Email: steve@hilliardshadowenlaw.com sean@hilliardshadowenlaw.com matt@hilliardshadowenlaw.com fraz@hilliardshadowenlaw.com - and - Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Esq. Jayne Goldstein, Esq. SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP 35 East State Street Media, PA 19063 Telephone: (610) 891-9880 Facsimile: (610) 891-9883 Email: nfinkelman@sfmslaw.com jgoldstein@sfmslaw.com Allergan, Inc. is represented by: Michael Sean Royall, Esq. Jason Cimma McKenney, Esq. GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP - DALLAS 2100 McKinney Ave., Suite 1100 Dallas, TX 75201 Tel: (214) 698-3256 Fax: (214) 571-2900 Email: SRoyall@gibsondunn.com jmckenney@gibsondunn.com - and - Jack Wesley Hill, Esq. WARD, SMITH & HILL, PLLC 1507 Bill Owens Parkway Longview, TX 75604 Tel: (903) 757-6400 Fax: (903) 757-2323 Email: wh@wsfirm.com - and - Richard Hale Cunningham, Esq. GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 1801 California Street, Suite 4200 Denver, CO 80202 Tel: (303) 298-5752 Fax: (303) 313-2833 Email: rhcunningham@gibsondunn.com ALLERGAN INC: KPH Anti-Trust Suit Transferred to E.D. N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned KPH Healthcare Services, Inc., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Allergan, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-00755, (E.D. Tex., January 17, 2018), was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on February 14, 2018 under Case No. 1:18-cv- 00974. Plaintiff seeks damages, injunctive relief, and all other relief available under federal antitrust laws, state antitrust laws, and state consumer protection laws. The action accuse Defendants of conspiring to fix, maintain, and/or stabilize the prices of prescription cyclosporine emulsion. Plaintiff indirectly purchased, paid, and/or provided reimbursement for these products made by one or more Defendants at supracompetitive prices. Allergan is a $23B diversified global pharmaceutical company into global generics, dermatology and aesthetics, CNS, eye care, urology, gastro-intestinal, cystic fibrosis, cardiovascular and infectious diseases. It is based in Dublin, Ireland and U.S. Administrative Headquarters in Parsippany, New Jersey, USA. KPH operates retail and online pharmacies in the Northeast under the name Kinney Drugs, Inc. KPH is the assignee of McKesson Corporation, who directly purchased Restasis. [BN] Plaintiff is represented pro se. ALLERGAN INC: Plumbers Fund Anti-Trust Suit Transferred to NY ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178 Health & Welfare Trust Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Allergan, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:18- CV-00011, (E.D. Tex., January 15, 2018), was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on February 14, 2018 under Case No. 1:18-cv-00972. Plaintiff seeks damages, injunctive relief, and all other relief available under federal antitrust laws, state antitrust laws, and state consumer protection laws. The action accuse Defendants of conspiring to fix, maintain, and/or stabilize the prices of prescription cyclosporine emulsion. Plaintiff indirectly purchased, paid, and/or provided reimbursement for these products made by one or more Defendants at supracompetitive prices. Allergan is a $23B diversified global pharmaceutical company into global generics, dermatology and aesthetics, CNS, eye care, urology, gastro-intestinal, cystic fibrosis, cardiovascular and infectious diseases. It is based in Dublin, Ireland and U.S. Administrative Headquarters in Parsippany, New Jersey, USA. Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178 Health & Welfare Trust Fund is a local union that provides health care and other benefits to its members who reside in Missouri as well as other locations throughout the United States, through its not-for-profit trust fund. Local 178 has purchased and/or provided reimbursement for some or all of the purchase price of Restasis, other than for re- sale, at supracompetitive prices. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory B. Linkh, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 122 East 42nd Street, Suite 2920 New York, NY 10168 Tel: (212) 682-5340 Fax: (212) 884-0988 Email: glinkh@glancylaw.com - and - Lee Albert, Esq. MAGER & GOLDSTEIN LLP One Liberty Place, 21st Floor 1650 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: (215) 640-3280 Fax: (215) 640-3281 - and - Robert Christopher Bunt, Esq. PARKER, BUNT & AINSWORTH, P.C. 100 East Ferguson, Ste. 1114 Tyler, TX 75702 Tel: (903) 531-3535 Fax: (903) 533-9687 Email: rcbunt@pbatyler.com ALLERGAN INC: Rochester Anti-trust Suit Transferred to E.D. N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Allergan, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-00766, (E.D. Tex., December 11, 2017), was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on February 14, 2018 under Case No. 1:18-cv-00970. Plaintiff seeks to recover threefold damages, interest, costs of suit and reasonable attorneys' fees resulting from Allergan's anticompetitive foreclosure of cyclosporine sales in violation of the Sherman Act. Restasis or cyclosporine ophthalmic emulsion is a prescription treatment for dry-eye disease. Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc. is a stock corporation duly formed and existing under the New York Cooperative Corporations Law with a principal place of business located at 50 Jet View Drive, Rochester, New York 14624. Plaintiff purchased Restasis directly from Defendant. Allergan is a $23B diversified global pharmaceutical company into global generics, dermatology and aesthetics, CNS, eye care, urology, gastro-intestinal, cystic fibrosis, cardiovascular and infectious diseases. It is based in Dublin, Ireland and U.S. Administrative Headquarters in Parsippany, New Jersey. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel J. Walker, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 2001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006 Tel: (202) 559-9745 Fax: (215) 875-5707 Email: dwalker@bm.net - and - David F. Sorensen, Esq. Zachary Kaplan, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-2793 Tel: (215) 875-3000 Email: dsorensen@bm.net zcaplan@bm.net - and - Barry Taus, Esq. Archana Tamoshunas, Esq. Miles Greaves, Esq. TAUS, CEBULASH & LANDAU, LLP 80 Maiden Lane, Suite 1204 New York, NY 10038 Tel: (646) 873-7654 Fax: (212) 931-0703 Email: btaus@tcllaw.com atamoshunas@tcllaw.com mgreaves@tcllaw.com - and - Joseph T. Lukens, Esq. HANGLEY ARONCHICK SEGAL & PUDLIN One Logan Square 18th and Cherry Streets Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: (215) 568-6200 Allergan, Inc. is represented by: Michael Sean Royall, Esq. Jason Cimma McKenney, Esq. GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP - DALLAS 2100 McKinney Ave., Suite 1100 Dallas, TX 75201 Tel: (214) 698-3256 Fax: (214) 571-2900 Email: SRoyall@gibsondunn.com jmckenney@gibsondunn.com - and - Jack Wesley Hill, Esq. WARD, SMITH & HILL, PLLC 1507 Bill Owens Parkway Longview, TX 75604 Tel: (903) 757-6400 Fax: (903) 757-2323 Email: wh@wsfirm.com - and - Richard Hale Cunningham, Esq. GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 1801 California Street, Suite 4200 Denver, CO 80202 Tel: (303) 298-5752 Fax: (303) 313-2833 Email: rhcunningham@gibsondunn.com ALPHACRAFT CONSTRUCTION: Workers Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mario Llivichuzhca, Ildifoncio Mayancela, Luis Mayancela and Luis Rodrigo Angamarca, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. Alphacraft Construction Inc. and Michalakis Theodorou (a/k/a Michael Theodorou, Mike Theodorou), Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-01017 (E.D. N.Y., February 15, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, minimum wages, unlawful deductions, and other wages owed pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. Defendants is a Queens-based construction contractor and unified residential general contracting business. Plaintiffs are construction workers who claim that they were denied wage notifications, uninterrupted meal periods and spread-of-hours pay. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Marc A. Rapaport, Esq. Meredith R. Miller, Esq. RAPAPORT LAW FIRM, PLLC One Penn Plaza, Suite 2430 New York, NY 10119 Telephone: (212) 382-1600 Email: mrapaport@rapaportlaw.com AMER SPORTS: Faces "Olsen" Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Amer Sports Winter & Outdoor Company. The case is styled as Thomas J Olsen, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Amer Sports Winter & Outdoor Company doing business as: ArcTeryx, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01813 (E.D. N.Y., March 26, 2018). Amer Sports is a sporting goods company with internationally recognized brands including Salomon, Wilson, Atomic, Arc'teryx, Mavic, Suunto and Precor.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq. Lipsky Lowe LLP 630 Third Avenue Fifth Floor New York, NY 10017 Tel: (212) 392-4772 Fax: (212) 444-1030 Email: doug@lipskylowe.com ANSCHUTZ ENTERTAINMENT: Ozzy Osbourne Files Antitrust Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that Rocker Ozzy Osbourne claims in a federal class action filed on March 20 that concert promoter AEG's requirement that acts play both the Staples Center in LA and London's O2 arena violates competition and antitrust laws. The case is JOHN MICHAEL "OZZY" OSBOURNE, an individual, on his own behalf and for all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ANSCHUTZ ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, INC., a Colorado corporation, AEG PRESENTS LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, L.A. ARENA COMPANY, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, ANSCO ARENA LTD., a U.K. limited company, and JOHN DOE 1 THROUGH 10, whose true names are unknown, inclusive, Defendants, CASE NO. 2:18-cv- 02310 (C.D. Calif.). Attorneys for Ozzy Osbourne: Daniel M. Wall, Esq. Timothy L. O'Mara, Esq. Andrew M. Gass, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111-6538 Telephone: +1.415.391.0600 Facsimile: +1.415.395.8095 Email: dan.wall@lw.com tim.o'mara@lw.com andrew.gass@lw.com ANTHONY'S LUNCH: Faces "Melchor" Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Anthony's Lunch Room LLC. The case is styled as Sergio Melchor and Clara Lorena Garnica Perez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Anthony's Lunch Room LLC doing business as: Kissena Grill and Ralph Mannarino, Defendants, Case No. 1:18- cv-01847 (E.D. N.Y., March 27, 2018). The Defendant operates in the restaurant business.[BN] The Plaintiffs appear PRO SE. APPLE FEDERAL: Illegally Charged "Jean-Baptiste" Overdraft Fees --------------------------------------------------------------- Chalet Jean-Baptiste, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Apple Federal Credit Union, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00188 (E.D. Va., February 20, 2018), seeks monetary damages, restitution and declaratory relief arising from the illegal assessment and collection of Overdraft Fees on accounts that were never actually overdrawn, in breach of contract and in violation of the Electronic Fund Transfers Act. Apple FCU is a credit union in Virginia where Plaintiff has two checking accounts. Plaintiff was assessed overdraft Fees in the amount of $29 each despite the fact that her account always had sufficient funds to cover the transactions, says the complaint. [BN] Plaintiffs are represented by: Kristi C. Kelly, Esq. Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq. Casey S. Nash, Esq. KELLY & CRANDALL, PLC 3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202 Fairfax, VA 22030 Tel: (703) 424-7572 Fax: (703) 591-0167 Email: kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com aguzzo@kellyandcrandall.com casey@kellyandcrandall.com - and - Jeffrey Kaliel, Esq. Sophia Gold, Esq. KALIEL PLLC 1875 Connecticut Ave. NW 10th Floor Washington, DC 20009 Tel: (202) 350-4783 Email: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com sgold@kalielpllc.com ARANA STONE: Denied Overtime Premium, "Lanza" Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------- Arnol Lanza, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Arana Stone, LLC, Cristian J. Arana- Medina and Marvin G. Banegas-Medina, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv- 00066, (E.D. N.C., February 20, 2018), seeks unpaid overtime compensation, in addition to liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, prejudgment interest and other damages permitted by the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act. Plaintiffs worked as hourly-paid stonemasons, fabricating and installing granite counter-tops, mantles and tables. They typically worked approximately 87 hours per week without overtime for hours in excess of 40 per week. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Gilda A. Hernandez, Esq. Michael B. Cohen, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A. HERNANDEZ, PLLC 1020 Southhill Drive, Ste. 130 Cary, NC 27513 Phone: (919) 741-8693 Fax: (919) 869-1853 Email: ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com mcohen@gildahernandezlaw.com AUDI OF AMERICA: Faces "McBride" Suit in S.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Audi of America, LLC. The case is styled as Michael McBride, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Audi of America, LLC, Audi Aktiengesellschaft and Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-21152-FAM (S.D. Fla., March 27, 2018). Audi of America, LLC owns and operates Audi brand car dealerships in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. BALENCIAGA AMERICA: Faces "Fischler" Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Balenciaga America Inc. The case is styled as Brian Fischler, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Balenciaga America Inc., Defendant, Case No. 7:18-cv-02633-VB (S.D. N.Y., March 26, 2018). Balenciaga America Incorporated was founded in 1988. The company's line of business includes the wholesale distribution of women's, children's, and infants' clothing and accessories. The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq. Lipsky Lowe LLP 630 Third Avenue New York, NY 10017-6705 Tel: (212) 392-4772 Fax: (212) 444-1030 Email: chris@lipskylowe.com BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Class Action over Funds Transfer Charges --------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a federal class action claims Bank of America illegally charges $30 each time a customer tries to stop an electronic funds transfer to a predatory lender. Attorneys for Plaintiff James Foreman and the Putative Class: Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. Sophia G. Gold, Esq. KALIEL PLLC 1875 Connecticut Ave., NW, 10th Floor Washington, D.C. 20009 Tel: (202) 350-4783 Email: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com sgold@kalielpllc.com BANK OF THE INTERNET: Judge Tentatively Dismisses Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that a federal judge on March 15 tentatively dismissed with prejudice a securities fraud action against the Bank of the Internet, finding the shareholders hadn't shown public statements made by bank executives caused their losses. The case is IN RE BofI HOLDING, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No.: 3:15-cv-02324-GPCKSC (S.D. Calif.). BIGLARI HOLDINGS: "Hipps" Suit Removed to S.D. Ind. ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Joseph Hipps, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Biglari Holdings, Inc., Sardar Biglari, Philip L. Cooley, Kenneth R. Cooper, James P. Mastrian, Ruth J. Person, NBHSA Inc., and BH Merger Company, Defendants, Case No. 29C01-1802-CT-001154, (Ind. Cir., February 7, 2018), was removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana on February 16, 2018 under Case No. 18-cv-00475. Plaintiff filed a direct claim against Sardar Biglari in his capacity as controlling shareholder of Biglari Holdings for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment. On December 21, 2017, Biglari Holdings adopted a proposal to reorganize and recapitalize the company in service of various goals including a "focus on long-term value creation and the pursuit of a conglomeration strategy." Plaintiff seeks to permanently enjoin a corporate reorganization and recapitalization unanimously recommended by the Biglari Board; and claims costs, disbursements, attorneys' fees, experts' fees and other relief. [BN] Plaintiffs are represented by: Brad A. Catlin, Esq. PRICE WAICUKAUSKI JOVEN & CATLIN, LLC 301 Massachusetts Avenue Indianapolis, IN 46204 Phone: (317) 633-8787 Fax: (317) 633-8797 Email: bcatlin@price-law.com - and - Eric L. Zagar, Esq. J. Daniel Albert, Esq. Justin O. Reliford, Esq. Christopher M. Windover, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Tel: (610) 822-2209/0276/0494 (484) 270-1494 (484) 270-1444 Fax: (267) 948-2512 (610) 667-7056 (610) 667-7056 Email: ezagar@ktmc.com dalbert@ktmc.com jreliford@ktmc.com cwindover@ktmc.com - and - Jeremy Friedman, Esq. Spencer Oster, Esq. David Tejtel, Esq. FRIEDMAN OSTER & TEJTEL PLLC 240 East 79th Street, Suite A New York, NY 10075 Tel: (305) 444-8226 - and - Peter B. Andrews, Esq. Craig J. Springer, Esq. ANDREWS & SPRINGER LLC 3801 Kennett Pike Building C, Suite 305 Wilmington, DE 19807 Tel: (302) 504-4957 Fax: (302) 397-2681 Email: pandrews@andrewsspringer.com cspringer@andrewsspringer.com Defendants are represented by: Scott S. Morrisson, Esq. William J. Barkimer, Esq. 12800 N. Meridian Street, Suite 300 Carmel, IN 46032 Telephone: (317) 238-6201 Facsimile: (317) 636-1507 Email: smorrisson@kdlegal.com wbarkimer@kdlegal.com - and - Christopher J. Clark, Esq. Blair Connelly, Esq. 885 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022-4834 Telephone: (212) 906-1200 Facsimile: (212) 751-4864 Email: blair.connelly@lw.com christopher.clark@lw.com - and - J. Christian Word, Esq. Michael E. Bern, Esq. 555 Eleventh Street, N.W., Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20004-1304 Telephone: (202) 637-2200 Facsimile: (202) 637-2201 Email: christian.word@lw.com michael.bern@lw.com BIRD ELECTRIC: "Guajardo" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jason Guajardo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Bird Electric Enterprises, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00025 (W.D. Tex., February 15, 2018), seeks unpaid back wages due, liquidated damages equal in amount to the unpaid compensation, taxable costs and allowable expenses of this action, attorneys' fees, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, declaratory and injunctive relief and such other and further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Bird is an electrical company that designs, constructs, maintains and restores electric power infrastructure for the complete electric supply chain. It provides electrical services across the Permian Basin, including in Midland County. Guajardo worked as an electrician for Defendant for two stints of employment. Electricians typically work six days per week, eight to twelve hours per day and worked more than forty hours per week. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel A. Verrett, Esq. MORELAND LAW FIRM, P.C. The Commissioners House at Heritage Square 2901 Bee Cave Road, Box L Austin, TX 78746 Tel: (512) 782-0567 Fax: (512) 782-0605 Email: daniel@morelandlaw.com - and - Edmond S. Moreland, Jr. MORELAND LAW FIRM, P.C. 700 West Summit Drive Wimberley, TX 78676 Tel: (512) 782-0567 Fax: (512) 782-0605 Email: edmond@morelandlaw.com BODY SCULPT: "Thompson" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------------ Maria Carolina Thompson and Kimberly Capuano, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Body Sculpt International, LLC, TriNet HR Corporation, TriNet HR III, Inc., Aesthetics Physicians, P.C., Michael J. Garrison and Does 1-18, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CV18-1001, (E.D. N.Y., February 15, 2018), seeks unpaid wages owed and liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and such other and further relief in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act. Body Sculpt is contracted by Aesthetics Physicians to provide management and support services necessary and appropriate for the provision of medical services including elective, cosmetic, surgical and non-surgical procedures. Plaintiffs worked as patient care consultants, regularly working more than 40 hours per week without overtime pay, says the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Robert E. DeRose, Esq. Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP 250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 221-4221 Fax: (614) 744-2300 Email: rderose@barkanmeizlish.com rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com - and - James A. DeRoche, Esq. Jeffrey D. Johnson, Esq. GARSON JOHNSON LLC 1600 Midland Building 101 West Prospect Avenue Cleveland, OH 44115 Tel: 216.696.9330 Email: jderoche@garson.com jjohnson@garson.com BRENT WALTERS: "Blanton" Labor Suit Transferred to E.D. Tex. ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned Samantha Blanton and Ruth Peck, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Brent Walters and Clayburn Corporation d/b/a The Walters Agency, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-02860, (S.D. Tex., September 25, 2017), was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on February 14, 2018 under Case No. 1:18-cv-00073. Clayburn is an insurance agency where Plaintiffs worked as salespersons. Defendants allegedly did not pay them overtime when they worked over 40 hours in a week as required under the Fair Labor Standards Act. [BN] Plaintiffs are represented by: Nitin Sud, Esq. SUD LAW P.C. 4545 Mount Vernon Street Houston, TX 77006 Tel: (832) 623-6420 Fax: (832) 304-2552 Email: nsud@sudemploymentlaw.com Defendants are represented by: William R. Stukenberg, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS LLP 1415 Louisiana St., Ste. 3325 Houston, TX 77002 Tel: (713) 650-0404 Fax: (713) 650-0405 Email: william.stukenberg@jacksonlewis.com - and - Wyatt David Snider, Esq. SNIDER LAW FIRM, PLLC 3535 Calder, Suite 300 Beaumont, TX 77706 Tel: (409) 924-9595 Fax: (409) 924-0808 Email: wyatt@sniderlawfirm.com BREW DR: Sued in Illinois for Overstating Probiotic Bacteria ------------------------------------------------------------ Rachel Graf, writing for Law360, reports that a kombucha maker was hit with a proposed class action on March 7 in Illinois state court accusing the company of making its fermented teas with "far less" than the billions of beneficial probiotic bacteria it advertises are in each bottle. Vladislav Bazer alleges Brew Dr. Kombucha LLC advertises that each bottle of its kombucha drinks has billions of probiotic bacteria, which can help regulate bodily processes. Testing, however, has demonstrated that the products actually have as little as 50,000 colony forming units. [GN] C. TECH COLLECTIONS: Faces "Brown" Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against C. Tech Collections, Inc. The case is styled as Abraham Brown, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v. C. Tech Collections, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01834 (E.D. N.Y., March 26, 2018). C. Tech Collections, Inc. is a collection agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq. Adam J. Fishbein, P.C. 735 Central Avenue Woodmere, NY 11598 Tel: (516) 668-6945 Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com CACH LLC: "Krahn" Action Disputes Collection Letter --------------------------------------------------- Emery Krahn, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Cach, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00063 (E.D. Wash., February 20, 2018), seeks damages, declaratory and injunctive relief under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Cach, LLC, is a collection agency who attempted to collect a debt from Krahn by serving him with an unfiled Spokane County Superior Court summons and complaint. However, Defendant did not verify the account with an original creditor and the original creditor account number on the verification response was not the same as the account number listed on the summons, says the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Kirk D. Miller, Esq. KIRK D. MILLER, P.S. 421 W. Riverside Avenue, Suite 660 Spokane, WA 99201 Tel: (509)413-1494 Fax: (509)413-1724 CALIFORNIA: Judge Delays Approval of $16.6MM Phone Tax Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- Melissa Daniels, writing for Law360, reports that a California judge on March 6 held off approving the city of Long Beach's $16.6 million settlement of class action claims it wrongfully applied a 5 percent tax to tax-exempt telephone services, saying that although she had no concerns with the amount, she wanted to see some details tweaked. Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Maren E. Nelson said that there were several details in the settlement proposal of the 12-year- old class action that she wanted to see hammered out before granting preliminary approval. [GN] CALLIDUS SOFTWARE: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. on March 7 disclosed that it has filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of holders of Callidus Software Inc. ("Callidus") (NASDAQ: CALD) common stock in connection with the proposed acquisition of Callidus by SAP America, Inc. and its affiliate ("SAP") announced on January 29, 2018 (the "Complaint"). The Complaint, which alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Callidus, its Board of Directors (the "Board"), and SAP, is captioned Franchi v. Callidus Software Inc., Case No. 3:18-cv-01443 (N.D. Cal.). If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Seth D. Rigrodsky or Gina M. Serra at Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220, Wilmington, DE 19801, by telephone at (888) 969-4242, by e-mail at info@rl-legal.com, or at http://rigrodskylong.com/contact-us/. On January 29, 2018, Callidus entered into an agreement and plan of merger (the "Merger Agreement") with SAP. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, shareholders of Callidus will receive $36.00 in cash for each share of Callidus they own (the "Proposed Transaction"). Among other things, the Complaint alleges that, in an attempt to secure shareholder support for the Proposed Transaction, defendants issued materially incomplete disclosures in a Definitive Proxy Statement (the "Proxy Statement") filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. The Complaint alleges that the Proxy Statement omits material information with respect to, among other things, Callidus' financial projections, the analyses performed by Callidus' financial advisor, and potential conflicts of interest. The Complaint seeks injunctive and equitable relief and damages on behalf of holders of Callidus common stock. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 7, 2018. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Any member of the proposed class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. With offices in Wilmington, Delaware, Garden City, New York, and San Francisco, California, Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. -- http://www.rigrodskylong.com-- has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of investors and achieved substantial corporate governance reforms in numerous cases nationwide, including federal securities fraud actions, shareholder class actions, and shareholder derivative actions. [GN] CARSON SMITHFIELD: Faces "Meyers" Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Carson Smithfield, LLC. The case is styled as Edward S. Meyers, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Carson Smithfield, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-01865 (E.D. N.Y., March 27, 2018). Carson Smithfield, LLC is a debt collections agency.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. CARSON SMITHFIELD: Faces "Melton" Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Carson Smithfield, LLC. The case is styled as Eric S. Melton, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Carson Smithfield, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-01862 (E.D. N.Y., March 27, 2018). Carson Smithfield, LLC is a debt collections agency.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. CASEY'S GENERAL STORES: "McColley" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Joy McColley, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Casey's General Stores, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00072 (N.D. Ind., February 16, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid wages, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Casey's General Store, Inc. is an Iowa corporation and a convenience store chain that operates approximately 2000 stores in the United States. Plaintiff worked for Casey's as exempt- classified Store Manager at their Griffith, Indiana location. McColley typically worked 50-60 hours per week. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Scott D. Gilchrist, Esq. Richard E. Shevitz, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 Fax: (317) 636-2593 Email: rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com sgilchrist@cohenandmalad.com - and - Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. Camar Jones, Esq. Logan A. Pardell, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 1515 S. Federal Highway, Suite 404 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 447-8888 Email: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com - and - Michael J. Palitz, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 830 3rd Avenue, 5th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (800) 616-4000 Email: mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com - and - Marc S. Hepworth, Esq. Charles Gershbaum, Esq. David A. Roth, Esq. Rebecca S. Predovan, Esq. HEPWORTH, GERSHBAUM & ROTH, PLLC 192 Lexington Avenue, Suite 802 New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 545~1199 Facsimile: (212) 532-3801 E-mail: mhepworth@hgrlawyers.com cgershbaum@hgrlawyers.com droth@hgrlawyers.com rpredovan@hgrlawyers.com CHOICE HOTELS: Sued for Allegedly Manipulating Search Results ------------------------------------------------------------- Matt Reynolds, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a class of guests claims six hotel chains entered into an illegal and anticompetitive agreement to eliminate competing hotels from search engine results and freeze out online travel agencies like Priceline and Expedia. On March 19, lead plaintiff Karen Tichy of Clarksville, Virginia, sued six hotel companies, asking a federal judge in Chicago to put a stop to a practice that she alleges restrains competition and hurts consumers. Ms. Tichy estimates that the scheme to eliminate competitors from search results damages millions of hotel shoppers and costs them billions of dollars each year. She is represented by lead attorney Steve Berman of Hagens Berman in Seattle. The hotel chains include Choice Hotels, Hilton, Hyatt, InterContinental, Marriott and Wyndham. They own and control some of the most recognizable hotel and motel brands in the country, including Comfort Inn, Hampton Inn, DoubleTree, Park Hyatt, Holiday Inn and Travelodge. Ms. Tichy says that she booked hotel rooms on Google several times in the last three years and noticed that when she looked for Marriott hotels, her search would return results that eliminated competing brands. Eventually, she began to book rooms through the Marriott website and claims she paid more for hotel rooms because more competitive pricing was not made available to her. The class-action lawsuit alleges the hotels reached an agreement in 2015 not to compete with each other for consumers shopping for hotel rooms online, creating an illegal scheme that prevents online travel agencies such as Priceline and Expedia from bidding on their branded keywords. A search using the keyword "Hilton," for example, would not return results for Hyatt and vice versa, according to Ms. Tichy. "The effect of these agreements was to impair competition, resulting in direct harm to consumers in interfering with the free flow of information from sellers to buyers, raising the costs to consumers of finding the most suitable offering, increasing transaction prices, and raising the price of hotel rooms sold online by reducing the downward pricing pressure exerted by [online travel agencies] and each other," the lawsuit states. Ms. Tichy's lawyer, Berman, was not available for an interview on March 20, but he accused the hotel chains of deceptive advertising in a prepared statement. "Instead of honest competition, these hotel chains chose to cheat the system and deceive their customers," Berman said. The complaint estimates that the practice involves 60 percent of hotel inventory and affects all consumers who booked hotels from 2015 to 2017. Ms. Tichy alleges that the chains entered into group boycott and bid-rigging agreements and unreasonably restrained trade. The proposed class of consumers seeks damages, costs and an injunction. Hyatt spokeswoman Stephanie Lerdall and Hilton spokeswoman Meg Ryan said they could not comment on pending litigation. Marriott spokesman Jeff Flaherty said the company is reviewing the complaint and could not comment further. The other chains did not immediately respond to requests for comment on March 20. COMERICA BANK: Gordon Files Class Action Suit in Calif. ------------------------------------------------------- Alan Gordon and Marlene Gordon, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated Plaintiffs, v. Comerica Bank, and Does 1-10 Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-01298, (C.D. Cal., February 16, 2018), seeks damages, restitution, and all other relief resulting from unjust enrichment and violation of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, Electronic Communications Privacy Act, California's Unfair Competition Law and California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act. Plaintiffs purchased investments from the Woodbridge group of companies. These companies marketed promissory notes and other offerings as low-risk, high-yield investments backed by high- interest real-estate loans to third-party commercial borrowers. However, most of the allegedly supporting loans were to their own shell companies. Lacking the revenue to pay returns owed to Plaintiffs and other investors, Shapiro paid the returns using new investor money, raising more than $1.22 billion before the Ponzi-like scheme collapsed. Each Woodbridge bank account was opened and maintained at Comerica Bank. The latter continued to harbor Shapiro's fraud even after several state regulatory agencies ordered him to cease and desist operations. [BN] Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeff S. Westerman, Esq. Kenneth A. Remson WESTERMAN LAW CORP 1875 Century Park East, Suite 2200 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Tel: (310) 698-7450 Fax: (310) 775-9777 Email: jwesterman@jswlegal.com - and - Steven J. Toll, Esq. Times Wang, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Ave. NW, Fifth Floor Washington, DC 20005 Tel: (202) 408-4600 Email: stoll@cohenmilstein.com twang@cohenmilstein.com COSTCO WHOLESALE: La Vigne Appeals Dismissal of Suit to 2nd Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Mary La Vigne, Kristen Hessler and Kathleen Hogan filed an appeal from the District Court's opinion and order dated January 10, 2018, dismissing their lawsuit entitled La Vigne, et al. v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, Case No. 16-cv-7924, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (White Plains). The appellate case is captioned as La Vigne, et al. v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, Case No. 18-415, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 7, 2018, the District Court granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's amended class action complaint. Plaintiffs La Vigne, Hessler and Hogan filed the proposed class action against Costco alleging violations of New York, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts statutes that prohibit deceptive marketing practices in the sale of consumer goods. The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant has engaged in deceptive acts in connection with the marketing and sale of its Kirkland Signature Premium Chunk Chicken Breast. The Defendant is a Washington corporation that, together with its subsidiaries, operates membership warehouses throughout the country offering a range of branded and private-label products, including its house brand, Kirkland Signature. The Company sells Kirkland Canned Chicken in its membership warehouse stores. An opened can of Kirkland Canned Chicken reveals chicken covered by a layer of water. If the consumer drains the 2/3 of a cup of water that the can contains, she is left with between seven and eight ounces of meat, meaning that as much as 44% of the weight of the can's contents is water. According to the Amended Complaint, the consumer receives little benefit from the water in the can and the Defendant does not intend for consumers to use the water, as evidenced by the recipes it includes with each bulk package, which direct consumers to drain the chicken before using it in a dish. Put simply, the Plaintiffs allege, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, that the Defendant's conduct violates the Poultry Products Inspection Act and misleads the consumers into believing that they are being charged "a reasonable price to pay for chicken" when they buy cans of Kirkland Canned Chicken, even though almost half of the contents of each can is water, and that such conduct constitutes an unconscionable and deceptive commercial practice in violation of consumer protection laws in New York, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants Mary La Vigne, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, and Kristen Hessler, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Matthew Insley-Pruitt, Esq. WOLF POPPER LLP 845 3rd Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 451-9621 Facsimile: (212) 486-2093 E-mail: minsley-pruitt@wolfpopper.com Plaintiff-Appellant Kathleen Hogan, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Patricia Avery, Esq. WOLF POPPER LLP 845 3rd Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 759-4600 Facsimile: (212) 486-2093 E-mail: pavery@wolfpopper.com Defendant-Appellee Costco Wholesale Corporation is represented by: Richard P. O'Leary, Esq. TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP 875 3rd Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 704-6138 E-mail: richard.oleary@troutman.com CORNERSTONE RESIDENTIAL: "Malossi" Suit Seeks to Recoup Unpaid OT ----------------------------------------------------------------- Adrian Malossi, and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff(s), v. Cornerstone Residential Management, L.L.C., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-60359, (S.D. Fla., February 15, 2018), seeks unpaid overtime compensation, as well as an additional amount as liquidated damages, costs and reasonable attorneys' fees under the provisions of Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff was employed as a maintenance person, working in excess of 40 hours per week without overtime compensation. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: R. Martin Saenz, Esq. SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC 20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 503-5131 Facsimile: (888) 270-5549 Email: msaenz@saenzanderson.com COTY INC: "Taylor" Product Liability Suit Transferred to Alabama ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Tara Taylor, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Coty, Inc., The Procter & Gamble Company, Inc., The Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Company, Inc., The Procter & Gamble Distributing, L.L.C., Procter & Gamble Hair Care, L.L.C., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-01359, (W.D. La., October 23, 2017), was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama on February 14, 2018 under Case No. 1:18-cv-00070. Taylor seeks damages and equitable remedies resulting from unjust enrichment, fraud, breach of express and implied warranty and violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and the Louisiana Civil Code. Procter and Gamble developed, designed, formulated, manufactured, packaged, labeled, advertised, marketed, distributed and sold Clairol hair dye products. Clairol Balsam Color brand was sold to Coty, Inc. in July, 2015. Said product line allegedly causes significant hair loss, skin and scalp irritation, scalp burnings and blistering, severe dermatitis, eye irritation and tearing, asthma, gastritis, renal damage and/or failure, vertigo, tremors, convulsions and comas and eczematoid contact dermatitis. Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew B. Moreland, Esq. BECNEL LAW FIRM, LLC 425 West Airline Highway, Suite B LaPlace, LA 70068 Tel: (985) 536-1186 Email: mmoreland@becnellaw.com Defendants are represented by: Brian M. LeCompte, Esq. MCGLINCHEY STAFFORD (NO) 601 Poydras Ste 1200 New Orleans, LA 70130 Tel: (504) 586-1200 Fax: (504) 596-2856 Email: blecompte@mcglinchey.com CSC HOLDINGS: "Zemel" Suit Sues Over SMS Ads Despite Opt-out ------------------------------------------------------------ Daniel Zemel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CSC Holdings, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-02340, (S.D. Fla., February 16, 2018), seeks injunctive relief, statutory damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Plaintiff began receiving unsolicited text messages to his wireless phone from the short code 608-91, a number owned by CSC Holdings. These unsolicited text messages placed to Zemel's wireless telephone were placed via an "automatic telephone dialing system." Despite having an "opt-out" option, CSC continued to send these messages after replying "STOP." [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Ari Marcus, Esq. MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC 1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101 Ocean, NJ 07712 Tel: (732) 695-3282 Fax: (732) 298-6256 Email: Ari@MarcusZelman.com CVS HEALTH: Faces Suit Over Unauthorized HIV Data Disclosure ------------------------------------------------------------ Courthouse News Service reported that CVS, its subsidiary Caremark and financial services company Fiserv were hit with a class action accusing them of unauthorized disclosure for sending letters to HIV-positive people listing their HIV status above their names and addresses. Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Terry L. Kilgore, Esq. 1113 Northridge Oval, Bldg.13 Brooklyn, OH 44144-3262 Telephone: (614) 648-6009 Fax: (216) 600-5494 Email: tksquire13@gmail.com -- and -- Joe R. Whatley, Esq. Edith M. Kallas, Esq. WHATLEY KALLAS LLP 1180 Avenue of the Americas, 20th Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 447-7060 Fax: (800) 922-4851 Email: jwhatley@whatleykallas.com ekallas@whatleykallas.com CVS HEALTH: Faces Suit for Discriminatory Business Practices ------------------------------------------------------------ John Doe One, John Doe Two, John Doe Three and John Doe Four, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, 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 d/b/a AMTRAK and Does 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-01280 (N.D. Cal., February 16, 2018), seeks redress for violations of the Anti-Discrimination Provisions of Affordable Care Act; a claim for benefits due under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act; claims for failure to provide Full and Fair Review, violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, violation of the California Business & Professions Code and violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act of the California Civil Code. Defendants are alleged of 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. Enrollees in said health plans controlled by CVS are required to obtain their HIV/AIDS medications from Caremark Specialty Pharmacy (CSP), a wholly-owned subsidiary of CVS. CSP only delivers such medications by mail order or mails them to a CVS Pharmacy as a drop shipment location purely for pickup, thus threatening their privacy. Should they get them otherwise, they must either pay more out-of-pocket or pay full-price with no insurance benefits. Plaintiffs also seek damages, restitution and disgorgement based on out-of-pocket expenses as a result of the Program. Defendants collectively are in the business of administering pharmacy benefits for health plans and filling specialty prescription requests. National Railroad Passenger Corporation (d/b/a AMTRAK) is the self-insured plan sponsor for one of the unnamed Plaintiffs. [BN] Plaintiffs are represented by: Edith M. Kallas, Esq. WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP 1180 Avenue of the Americas, 20th Floor New York, NY 10036 Tel: (212) 447-7060 Fax: (800) 922-4851 Emails: ekallas@whatleykallas.com - and - Alan M. Mansfield, Esq. WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP 355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Tel: (310) 684-2504 Fax: (855) 274-1888 Email: amansfield@whatleykallas.com - and - Harvey Rosenfield, Esq. Jerry Flanagan, Esq. Laura Antonini, Esq. 2701 Ocean Park Blvd., Suite 112 Santa Monica, CA 90405 Tel: (310) 392-0522 Fax: (310) 392-8874 Emails: harvey@consumerwatchdog.org jerry@consumerwatchdog.org CYAN INC: Loses Bid to Quash California Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Barbara Leonard, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that telecommunications company Cyan failed on March 20 to have the U.S. Supreme Court quash a securities class action it faces in California. The unanimous ruling tackles a law called the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998, which Congress passed to patch loopholes in its last stab at ending class-action abuses, the 1995 Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. Critical to the failure of the 1995 Reform Act was that some of its provisions applied only when a suit was brought in federal court. Artful plaintiffs soon began bringing their class actions under state law to avoid the Reform Act's obstacles. The 1998 law, abbreviated in the March 20 ruling as the SLUSA, meanwhile gave state and federal courts concurrent jurisdiction to all claims seeking enforcement of the Securities Act of 1993 -- the first law passed in the wake of the 1929 stock market crash, which created private rights of action. Still the SLUSA contains exceptions, namely that a case cannot be removed to a federal court unless the state court where the case was filed "would not adequately enforce" another provision that bars sizable class actions founded on state law and allege dishonest practices respecting the purchase or sale of a nationally traded security. The investors who sued Cyan meanwhile brought their case in California Superior Court, insisting that nothing about the SLUSA blocked them from alleging only 1993 Act claims in state courts. Cyan took its appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court last year after striking out at every level of the state court case. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the ruling against it as well on March 20. "The statute says what it says -- or perhaps better put here, does not say what it does not say," Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the court. "State-court jurisdiction over 1933 Act claims thus continues undisturbed." Judge Kagan emphasized that accepting Cyan's construction of the SLUSA "would prevent state courts from deciding any 1933 Act class suits seeking damages for more than 50 plaintiffs," including those where the security is not traded on a national stock exchange. Such securities "are 'primarily of state concern,' and SLUSA 'maintains state legal authority' to address them," Judge Kagan wrote. "Except that under Cyan's view, SLUSA would not," the 24-page ruling continues. "Instead, the law would strip state courts of jurisdiction over suits about securities raising no particular national interest. That result is out of line with SLUSA's overall scope." If Cyan's reading were correct, Judge Kagan added, Congress intended through the SLUSA to completely unravel state-court jurisdiction that had otherwise been in place for 65 years. "To think Cyan right, we would have to believe that Congress upended that entrenched practice not by any direct means, but instead by way of a conforming amendment," Judge Kagan wrote. Quoting the 2001 decision Director of Revenue of Mo. v. CoBank ACB, however, Judge Kagan said that "Congress does not make 'radical -- but entirely implicit -- change[s]' through 'technical and conforming amendments.'" "Or to use the more general (and snappier) formulation of that rule," Judge Kagan continued, "relevant to all 'ancillary provisions,' Congress does not 'hide elephants in mouseholes.'" The case is CYAN, INC., ET AL. v. BEAVER COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT FUND ET AL., No. 15-1439 (U.S.). DAIKIN NA: 300 Alabamans Fight Water Contamination Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- Eva Fedderly, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that unhappy with the $5 million that Daikin NA will pay to settle contaminated-water claims, 300 Alabamans pushed the 11th Circuit on March 8 to make the fluorochemical company pay for future damages. "Daikin operates plants right there on the back side of the Tennessee River . . .as far as I know it's still releasing chemicals today," said Will Lattimore, an attorney at Gathings Law who represents customers of the West Morgan East Lawrence Water Authority. "The people who don't have cancer yet suffer mental anguish," Mr. Lattimore added. "This is an inherently individual injury." Mr. Lattimore's clients brought their appeal to the federal appeals court in Atlanta last year after a federal judge approved Daikin's settlement. U.S. Circuit Judge Charles Wilson, one of three jurists on the panel, grilled Lattimore on his argument. "The District Court said the settlement was fair, reasonable and adequate," Judge Wilson said. "Clients are getting clean water now and some damages. The District Court said this was a reasonable compromise . . . you have to prove there was an error of judgment." Judge Wilson noted that the class has a new filtration system in place, clean water, and has been compensated for the time when the affected people couldn't drink the water in Decatur because it was contaminated. Representing the West Morgan East Water Authority, meanwhile, attorney Lee Patterson, defended the trial court's approval of the settlement. "This settlement in no way releases any personal injury claims," said Mr. Patterson, of the firm Friedman, Dazzio, Zulanas, and Bowling in Birmingham. "With respect to mental anguish, under Alabama law, there is no right to recover under fear of future injury," Mr. Patterson added. Mr. Patterson also noted that related claims against 3M remain pending. "We have 30 million pages of documents in relation to this case, we've done four sampling events at the river, two trips to Minnesota to depose 3M employees," Mr. Patterson said. "In no way has the litigation ended." Representing the industrial company, attorney Robert Shaughnessy said that there is no need to redo the settlement for anguish claims since the settlement already includes "an express carveout for future injuries that have a whole range of remedies." Mr. Shaughnessy also argued that Daikin was responsible only for 5 percent of the water chemicals in the contaminated water. Judge Wilson pressed Mr. Lattimore's co-counsel, Lloyd Gathings, on rebuttal about the relief they are seeking. "Is the class saying Daikin needs to cough up more than $5 million?" Judge Wilson asked. "They didn't give us any recovery for mental anguish and didn't give us the procedural protection of an opt-out," Mr. Gathings argued. "We did not get the procedural protections we need." Mr. Gathings emphasized the stakes at issue in an interview after the hearing. "What they've been going through," Mr. Gathings said of his clients, "is they wonder what day they'll be diagnosed with the cancer from this. They're always living on the edge of deceit about whether or not they'll be the next one who comes down with cancer. And they will have to undergo that for a number of years." Mr. Gathings said he felt the court was "definitely leaning" toward his clients, but it's "hard to tell from an argument." "We were pleased the way the argument went," Mr. Gathings said. "What we're looking for is procedural protections for our clients. If they think it's an unfair settlement, then we can opt them out and let them deal with their individual cases." Mr. Shaughnessy did not respond to request for comment. DELOITTE TOUCHE: Lawyers File Class Action Over Unpaid Benefits --------------------------------------------------------------- Julius Melnitzer, writing for Ottawa Citizen, reports that the strategy driving an employment class action between Deloitte and more than 400 lawyers is masking an issue fundamental to the future of the legal profession. On its face, the case is about whether Deloitte misclassified the lawyers as independent contractors rather than employees and so wrongfully deprived them of statutory overtime, vacation and holiday pay. Deloitte has taken the position that the lawyers weren't providing legal services. That suits the class just fine, because individuals providing legal services don't enjoy the protection of Ontario's employment standards legislation, on which they found their lawsuit. At first blush, then, Deloitte's position seems an odd strategy, because it deprives the firm of the argument that the lawyers weren't entitled to the benefits they claim in the first place. But there's a back story here: admitting that the class performed legal services would almost certainly have exposed Deloitte to charges that the firm was involved in the unauthorized provision of legal services. Currently, only firms owned by lawyers can provide such services. "Deloitte's position is probably based on conflicts and regulatory issues," said Andrew Monkhouse -- andrew@monkhouselaw.com -- managing partner of Monkhouse Law, who is co-counsel for the class with Samuel Marr -- smarr@lmklawyers.com -- of Landy Marr Kats LLP. "The issue of whether Deloitte was providing legal services won't come up directly in the case, but it is hanging over everything." Ironically, perhaps, the Law Society of Ontario (LSO) appears to have provided the impetus for Deloitte's position. In 2014, the LSO (previously the Law Society of Upper Canada) dismissed a complaint by lawyer Shireen Sondhi, who described herself as an "independent contractor" engaged by Deloitte to perform document review services that included tasks properly performed only by lawyers. These tasks included determining the relevance of documents, determining whether documents were privileged and the category of privilege the documents attracted, and highlighting documents that were "hot" in the sense of having the potential to significantly impact the success or failure of a case. There's little doubt that the allegedly offending services were in fact legal services. The website of LawPRO, the errors and omissions insurer owned by LSO, lists these services as examples of tasks requiring legal skills and judgment. Still, the LSO dismissed Mr. Sondhi's complaint. In a 2014 decision, investigation counsel Jessica Caplan concluded that the legal judgment involved in Deloitte's services was provided by an "Instructing Lawyer, who determines the parameters of the document review search." Presumably, the "Instructing Lawyer" was not associated with Deloitte. All that the "independent contractors" did, Ms. Caplan added, was review and compile documents that met the described criteria. There is, however, reason to question the decision as, at best, allowing form to trump substance. In a recent article in LawPRO Magazine, Dan Pinnington, vice- president, Claims Prevention and Stakeholder Relations at the insurer, writes that the profession's "status quo" is "mostly ignoring legal services providers." He goes on to say that this option is "easier and less expensive" than prosecution "but it isn't in the best interest of the legal consumer." This may be as true for the business consumer as the retail consumer. In a 2015 case involving an attempt by CIBC to claim $3 billion in business income deductions, Chief Justice Eugene Rossiter of the Tax Court of Canada refused to allow the bank to claim litigation privilege over 670 documents that had allegedly been misclassified by the third party (not a law firm) to whom CIBC had outsourced its document review. "(The bank) had plenty of opportunity to do (the document review) properly; it chose a certain way of doing it, and it cannot now, many months later, ask for a mulligan," Chief Justice Rossiter wrote. Otherwise, the issue of third-party provision of document review and other legal-like services has been so confused that in September 2015, a lawyer employed by a document review company, who spoke on condition of anonymity, self-reported to the LSO because the lawyer was concerned that the company was engaging in the unauthorized provision of legal services. LSO dropped the investigation on the grounds that the regulator was at the time considering allowing alternative business structures (ABS), which would have permitted non-lawyers to own entities providing legal services. Ultimately, the LSO decided against approving ABS, but no clear policy has emerged. Susan Tonkin, communications advisor, Media Relations and Communications, responding by email to Legal Post inquiries, said only that "If there are allegations and evidence of a breach of the Law Society's Act, Rules or By-Laws, the Law Society will investigate." [GN] DELTA AIRLINES: Tries to Beat Back Bag Fee Collusion Claim ---------------------------------------------------------- Aimee Sachs, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that attorneys for Delta Air Lines and Air Tran Airways argued before the 11th Circuit on March 7 that there is no evidence they colluded to institute a first-checked baggage fee and that a lower court ruling in their favor should be upheld. Martin Siegel, a New Jersey resident, filed a class action against the two airlines in 2009, claiming they conspired to impose a $15 first-check bag fee in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. In his complaint, Siegel said the airlines "would benefit in the form of hundreds of millions of dollars a year in increased revenue, if they both agreed to charge the same first bag fee at the same time, so that neither would risk losing sales to the other and both would profit." On March 6, Seigel's attorney, Kevin Ross, Esq. said allowing a lower court's grant of summary judgment to the airlines "will set up a template for lawful price fixing." But Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Joel Dubina suggested that before worrying about the potential impact of allowing the lower court ruling to stand, attorneys for the class needed to convince the court a conspiracy had in fact happened. "We have evidence that AirTran told investors they would not act independently," Ross said in reply. Delta merged with Northwest Airlines in April 2008, and announced it would implement a first-checked bag fee seven months later. AirTran imposed a similar fee the very next day. But Delta attorney Randall Allen, Esq. -- randall.allen@alston.com -- of Alston & Bird LLP in Atlanta, said there is no evidence that AirTran's plan factored at all into Delta's decision-making process regarding the bag fee. And AirTran attorney Alden Atkins, Esq. -- aatkins@velaw.com -- of Vinson & Elkins LLP in Washington, D.C., went a step further, accusing attorneys for the class of trying to persuade the three- judge panel to establish a new legal standard by which to judge business decisions. Atkins said Delta made bag fee decision in connection with its then just-completed merger with Northwest. "The facts are pretty straightforward on this point," Atkins said. "What we know is two companies were making independent decisions." The panel gave no indication when they will hand down their decision. DENKA PERFORMANCE: Chloroprene Suit Denied Class Action Status -------------------------------------------------------------- Della Hasselle, writing for The New Orleans Advocate, reports that saying that plaintiffs' attorneys missed a key deadline, a federal judge in New Orleans ruled that a lawsuit seeking damages from Denka Performance Elastomer for releasing dangerous levels of chloroprene into the air in St. John the Baptist Parish will not be certified as a class action. U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman is also considering a motion by the company's attorneys to dismiss the suit altogether. Judge Feldman's ruling means that even if the lawsuit goes forward, the legal proceedings likely won't have as far-reaching implications for St. John residents as some had hoped. Lawyers for the St. John residents could still appeal to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. But without a reversal by the appeals court, the lawsuit would be limited to 13 residents who filed it in July. The plaintiffs include Robert Taylor II, the leader of an activist group called Concerned Citizens of St. John, and St. John the Baptist Parish Councilman Larry Sorapuru. Chloroprene -- a chemical used to create the synthetic rubber neoprene -- has been produced at the LaPlace plant for many years. Neoprene is used to make products like wetsuits, sports shoes and medical braces. Denka bought the plant in 2015 from E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co., a company also named in the suit. Controversy began after 2010, when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reclassified chloroprene as a "likely carcinogen." Agency scientists said exposure above 0.2 micrograms per cubic meter of air puts people at increased risk of getting cancer. In December 2016, the EPA released its National Air Toxic Assessment, which found that emissions from the plant cause the highest potential risk of cancer from airborne pollutants of any place in the country. Spikes in emissions have reached up to 765 times the risk-based threshold, according to data collected by the EPA. The most recent numbers, in February, showed spikes of 166 times that number. Some measurements, however, show little to no chloroprene. The lawsuit asks that Judge Feldman order the plant to stop or reduce production until emissions no longer exceed the EPA's risk-based standard, said Eberhard Garrison, an attorney for the residents. The residents are not seeking damages for physical injuries but are for various other issues, including lost property value and "emotional distress" resulting from "release of excessive concentrations" of the chemical. The suit says residents have a "justified fear of development of cancer due to chloroprene exposure." Denka's attorneys, however, have asked the judge to throw out the suit. Lawyer Justin Marocco said the residents failed to show that the chemical has caused them "irreparable injury" or that any alleged injury they have suffered outweighs the damage an injunction would cause the chemical plant. Forcing the plant to dramatically reduce or halt production "could ultimately result in the shuttering of the ... facility," Mr. Marocco said. State regulators, in the meantime, say the long-term effects of chloroprene exposure are still not well understood. Initially filed in state 40th Judicial District Court, the suit requested that it be extended to cover anyone who has lived, worked or attended school within a defined boundary surrounding the facility from 2011 to the present. It was up to the court to determine if the petition met the criteria to become a class action. When the case was kicked over to federal court, Judge Feldman was tasked with determining class-action status. However, in late February, he ruled that the case no longer qualified for that because the residents' lawyers had missed a key 91-day deadline for the request. The lawsuit was moved from state to federal court on Aug. 9, which is when Judge Feldman and the company's lawyers said the clock started ticking for a class action request. That would have put the deadline at Nov. 8. The residents' lawyers didn't apply until Jan. 9. However, Mr. Garrison and his colleagues said the deadline should have been moved back to February because Denka's lawyers had filed a later motion amending their initial request to have the case transferred to federal court. Judge Feldman, who ruled that the case should stay in federal court, disagreed. He denied the request for an extension and then upheld that ruling in February. "Even viewed through the 'less stringent' lens . . . the plaintiffs fail to persuade the court to reconsider its determination that their request to extend the deadline within which to seek class certification was untimely and unsupported by good cause," Judge Feldman wrote. Lawyers for the plaintiffs and for Denka declined to comment. [GN] DIGNITY HEALTH: Must Face Class Action Over Pension Plan -------------------------------------------------------- Helen Christophi, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a federal judge on March 22 indicated he would keep alive a five-year-old proposed class action accusing a hospital system with ties to the Catholic Church of exploiting a religious exemption in federal law to underfund its employees' pensions by $1.5 billion. U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar said he needed clearer rules to decide if Dignity Health's retirement plan qualifies as a "church plan" exempt from funding requirements under the Employee Retirement Security Act to dismiss the case, concluding that Dignity had failed to provide any. "It's an area where I have to tread very cautiously," Judge Tigar said, "because you can't find yourself in a situation where you're asking, 'How religious are you?'" Former Dignity Health billing coordinator Starla Rollins sued Dignity in 2013, claiming the hospital system was underfunding its pension plan in violation of ERISA. The 1974 law established minimum funding and vesting requirements and fiduciary responsibilities for plan administrators. But church plans are exempt from the requirements, sparking court challenges by employees wary of losing their pension benefits if the plans go broke. Ms. Rollins and her newly-added co-plaintiff Patricia Wilson, a registered nurse at a Dignity affiliate in Arizona, claim Dignity's plan in 2016 held assets sufficient to fund only 72 percent of accrued benefits, siphoning money from more than 101,000 current and former Dignity employees. "If Dignity does not honor its promises to adequately fund the promised pension benefits, plaintiffs and the other class members will retire with far less income than they expected and will have been deprived of the opportunity to make up for that lost pension income," the plaintiffs state in their amended November 2017 complaint. To qualify for ERISA's church-plan exemption when Ms. Rollins first sued in 2013, a retirement plan had to have been established and maintained by a church. Rollins argued Dignity's plan didn't qualify for the exemption because Dignity isn't a church. Dignity countered that it is affiliated with the Sisters of Mercy and other Catholic women's orders, the product of a 1986 merger of 10 hospitals run by two California-based Sisters of Mercy congregations. Dignity now runs 39 hospitals in California, Arizona and Nevada. The Ninth Circuit ruled for Ms. Rollins in 2016, holding that Dignity's retirement plan doesn't qualify for ERISA's church-plan exemption because it was not established by a church. Agreeing with other circuits, it held that a church plan must be established by a church and maintained either by a church or a church-affiliated "principal-purpose organization," an organization whose principal purpose is providing benefits to church employees. But last June, the Supreme Court held in Advocate Health Care Network v. Stapleton that religious hospitals can also establish church plans, and that the plans are exempt so long as they're maintained by a principal-purpose organization. Dignity Health participated in that litigation. With the question of whether Dignity can establish a church plan out of the way, the Dignity case now turns on whether Dignity is associated with a church, and whether the internal retirement committee that administers Dignity's pension plan is a principal- purpose organization that also maintains it. The plaintiffs contend that the committee doesn't maintain Dignity's plan because it doesn't have the power to modify or terminate the plan. They argue Dignity maintains the plan, that Dignity isn't affiliated with the Catholic Church, and that its principal purpose is providing health care, not retirement benefits. Even if Dignity's committee maintained the plan, they add, the plan wouldn't qualify for the exemption because the committee is an internal Dignity entity, not a separate organization. "If Congress wanted hospitals to have church plans, it would not have adopted the principal-purpose organization language," said plaintiffs' attorney Matthew Gerend -- mgerend@kellerrohrback.com -- of Keller Rohrback in Seattle. He added that the archbishop of San Francisco and the Diocese of Phoenix have both stated that Dignity is a secular corporation. Dignity insists nothing in Advocate established that a maintaining organization must have modification or termination powers; that its internal committee is a separate organization because it has voting members who assemble to maintain the plan, and that it has a "set of common bonds" with the Catholic Church. "In our particular case, we have a company whose mission quite literally is the healing ministry of Jesus," said Harvey Rochman -- hrochman@manatt.com -- Dignity's lawyer with Manatt, Phelps & Phillips in Los Angeles. Although Judge Tigar signaled that he will allow the case to proceed, he suggested he will toss the plaintiffs' state alternative unjust enrichment claim. The plaintiffs are also suing on state alternative contract and fiduciary duty claims. DIRECTV LLC: Faces FCRA Class Action in California -------------------------------------------------- Meagan Mihalko, Esq. -- meagan.mihalko@troutman.com -- Timothy St. George, Esq. -- tim.st.george@troutman.com -- Alan D. Wingfield, Esq. -- alan.wingfield@troutman.com -- and David N. Anthony, Esq. -- david.anthony@troutman.com -- of Troutman Sanders LLP, in an article for Mondaq, wrote that DirecTV was on the receiving end of a proposed class action in the Central District of California alleging the direct broadcast satellite service provider violates the Fair Credit Reporting Act and California state law by pulling credit reports on consumers without a permissible purpose. The complaint, filed by consumer Jon Wulf Amadeus Adler, claims DirecTV LLC and a number of affiliates "routinely and systematically" run "hard" credit checks on consumers who have had no interactions with the company and who have not consented to the inquiries. Adler claims these impermissible hard credit pulls are visible to potential creditors and have negatively affected his and the putative class members' credit scores. Adler alleges in his complaint that "Defendants, without permission, conducted hard credit pulls ... on Plaintiff and Proposed Class Members' credit histories, without any authorization, prior relationship or interactions initiated by Plaintiff or Proposed Class Members, which necessarily adversely affected their credit scores." Adler claims that he "and Proposed Class Members did not even know about the hard pulls until viewing their own credit reports." The FCRA allows for a "soft pull" of a consumer credit report under certain specified purposes -- including when a creditor plans to extend a firm offer of credit. Soft pulls are only visible to the consumer and do not alter a consumer's credit score. Hard pulls, on the other end, typically occur when a lender with whom a consumer has applied for credit reviews a credit report. Hard pulls can impact consumer credit scores and can be seen by others. Adler alleges violations under both the FCRA and California's Consumer Credit Report Agencies Act and California's Unfair Competition Law. He seeks to represent a proposed class of individuals who were subject to a hard credit pull by DirecTV without their permission within the five years prior to the filing of the complaint. The suit seeks statutory and punitive damages, injunctive relief, civil penalties, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. The claims against DirecTV are similar to other cases we have previously reported on, including Patel v. Comcast Corporation and Heaton v. Social Finance, Inc., the latter of which resulted in a $2.4 million class settlement. The Troutman Sanders' Consumer Financial Services Law Monitor blog offers timely updates regarding the financial services industry to inform you of recent changes in the law, upcoming regulatory deadlines and significant judicial opinions that may impact your business. [GN] DST SYSTEMS: Pratt Suit Seeks to Block Sale to SS&C Technologies ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dennis Pratt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DST Systems, Inc., Stephen C. Hooley, Joseph C. Antonellis, Jerome H. Bailey, Lynn Dorsey Bleil, Lowell L. Bryan, Gary D. Forsee, Charles Haldeman, Jr. and Samuel G. Liss, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00133 (W.D. Mo, February 21, 2018), seeks to preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating, or closing the acquisition of DST Systems, Inc. by SS&C Technologies Holdings, Inc. and Diamond Merger Sub, Inc. The suit also seeks rescissory or other damages in the event Defendants consummate the said merger, costs of this action, including reasonable allowance for attorneys' and experts' fees and such other and further relief under the Securities and Exchange Act. Shareholders of DST will receive $84.00 per share in cash. The complaint says the proxy statement omitted material information regarding DST's financial projections and the financial analyses performed by its financial advisor, BofA Merrill Lynch, and failed to disclose the line items used to calculate total EBITDA, Adjusted EPS, and Adjusted Net Income and a reconciliation of all non-GAAP to GAAP metrics. The disclosure of projected financial information is material because it provides stockholders with a basis to project the future financial performance of a company, and allows stockholders to better understand the financial analyses performed by the company's financial advisor in support of its fairness opinion, the complaint adds. DST is a provider of specialized technology, strategic advisory and business operations outsourcing to the financial and healthcare industries. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James J. Rosemergy, Esq. CAREY DANIS & LOWE 8235 Forsyth, Suite 1100 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 725-7700 Facsimile: (314)721-0905 Email: jrosemergy@careydanis.com - and - RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 - and - RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (484) 324-6800 Facsimile: (484) 631-1305 DYNAMIC LEDGER: Class Action Over Initial Coin Offering Ongoing --------------------------------------------------------------- Hugo Miller and Jennifer Bennett, writing for Bloomberg News, report that all is not well in Crypto Valley. One of the highest profile digital-currency projects in Switzerland, a country that's been among the most enthusiastic advocates for cryptocurrencies, is under fire from both outsiders and insiders over allegations of false marketing and mismanagement, prompting its president to resign. Now the Tezos Foundation, which raised $232 million in an initial coin offering, is engaged in the most American of pursuits: a round of lawsuits. The non-profit's fundraising touted an all-new model for the blockchain technology that underpins cryptocurrencies. A group of investors are claiming in a California court that the entrepreneurs behind the offering misleadingly marketed the purchase of "Tezzie" tokens as part of a charitable contribution, which would leave investors with nothing if the project collapses. Switzerland ranks second just behind the U.S. in capital raised in ICOs, with most of the transactions done by foreigners flocking to Switzerland, according to a 2017 report by venture capital firm Atomico. This case has broad implications for Switzerland's future as a launching pad for ICOs. "Will the judge accept the narrative that this was just like contributing to public radio and all you get is a tote bag, or was it an investment where everyone expected a return," says Stephen Palley, a lawyer who runs the cryptocurrency practice at the firm of Anderson Kill in Washington. "The structure was misused and the age of token entrepreneurs going to Switzerland to set up Swiss foundations is probably over." Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Jay Clayton said that ICOs will face fresh scrutiny as the market is probably full of fraud. The SEC has issued a clutch of subpoenas to ICO operators as part of a broad crackdown. All About Bitcoin, Blockchain and Their Crypto World: QuickTake The Tezos lawsuit "should give Swiss or other foreign entrepreneurs and enthusiasts pause if they are thinking about trying to raise funds for a U.S. operation or from U.S. investors using an ICO structure that doesn't comply with the registration requirements of the Securities Act," says Joel Fleming, a Boston lawyer who represents some of the plaintiffs. At a hearing on March 15 in San Francisco, the investors are expected to consolidate their putative class-action lawsuits. The legal action comes on top of a separate dispute between Tezos's co-founders, a Franco-American couple named Kathleen and Arthur Breitman, and South African Johann Gevers, one of the pioneers behind Zug's push to make itself a cryptocurrency hub. The Breitmans have accused Gevers of mismanagement and conflicts of interest. $1 Billion? The stakes for the Tezos project have risen to more than $1 billion, the plaintiffs allege, as the value of the ether and Bitcoin tokens which were used to invest in the ICO in July has surged. Bitcoin fell 1.4 percent to $10,636 at 7 a.m. in New York, according to a composite of prices compiled by Bloomberg. The leading cryptocurrency has fallen 25 percent this year after climbing more than 15-fold in 2017. Late last year, the Swiss regulator that oversees foundations examined Tezos and demanded it add a board member to reinforce the foundation's independence. On Feb. 22, Gevers stepped down as president of the Tezos Foundation and five days later, an entirely new board was appointed. Oliver Bussmann, who worked with Mr. Gevers to establish Crypto Valley, acknowledged that the Tezos dispute has had a negative impact. But he said he's glad that with a new board and Gevers's resignation, Tezos appears to have "solved their deadlocked situation and can move forward." Mr. Gevers acknowledged a LinkedIn request but didn't respond to a request for comment. On Jan. 19, he sent a flurry of tweets on the topics. Interference, Obstruction "After months of incapacitating interference, obstruction, and attacks, the Tezos Foundation has regained the ability to act," he wrote. "In a high-trust environment, the impossible becomes possible. In a low-trust environment, even the possible becomes impossible." U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg on Feb. 1 stayed any action in the planned class-action until the Supreme Court decides on whether state courts can handle such a case. Lawyer Brian Klein, who represents the Breitmans' investment firm Dynamic Ledger Solutions, declined to comment to Bloomberg Law on the case against his client but said "we are pleased the judge issued the stay and recognized that this case belongs in federal court." The looming lawsuit comes as Swiss financial regulator Finma tries to temper some of the government's enthusiasm for cryptocurrencies. While Swiss Economy Minister Johann Schneider- Ammann has visited Zug to support Crypto Valley, Finma issued guidelines in February to remind investors money-laundering rules will be applied to Swiss ICOs. The regulator has organized roundtable discussions with investors on how these guidelines will affect ICOs in Zug and Geneva on March 14 and 21 that are already fully booked. Last September, Finma shut down cryptocurrency provider E-Coin for accepting deposits without a banking license, and then began investigations into several ICOs over possible fraud. Mr. Bussmann, who now runs a cryptocurrency advisory firm in Zug, says the guidelines will dissuade rogue entrepreneurs and also provide more certainty for legitimate investors. "They have to protect investors but they cannot shut out venture capital," Mr. Bussmann said. "Switzerland has not always had great access to venture capital, and ICOs give them access to that." 'Notorious Haven' The plaintiffs in California have a blunter assessment of Zug. In their lawsuit, they tar the city as a shady place to start a business. "Zug is a notorious haven for white-collar miscreants," reads the complaint, citing the past example of Marc Rich, a commodities trader eventually pardoned by Bill Clinton. "The defendants admitted that they chose to use a foundation in Zug to conduct the ICO and collect investor funds because they perceived Switzerland's regulatory oversight to be weaker than that of the U.S." The case is Baker vs. Dynamic Ledger Sols., Inc. Northern District of California -- 17-cv-06850-RS, 2/1/18 [GN] EDWARD D. JONES: Faces Class Action Over Training Costs ------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that a class of financial advisor trainees claims Edward D. Jones & Co. forced them to agree to repay substantial training costs if they leave within three years, gave them little or no meaningful training, and used their supposed debt to deny them wages. Counsel for Plaintiffs: Linda D. Friedman, Esq. Suzanne E. Bish, Esq. George S. Robot, Esq. STOWELL & FRIEDMAN, LTD. 303 W. Madison St., Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60606 Tel: (312) 431-0888 Email: Lfriedman@sfltd.com sbish@sftld.com grobot@sfltd.com ENAGIC USA: Makaron Asks Ct. to Compel 800Link to File Response --------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiff in the case captioned Edward Makaron, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Enagic USA, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 18-mc-00008, (S.D. Ill., February 21, 2018), moves the court for entry of an order compelling non-party 800Link Inc. to provide responses to his November 10, 2017 subpoena. Defendant made use of 800Link's call forwarding and voicemail system to make automated calls to potential customers, including Makaron. Plaintiff asserts that such calls were made without his consent in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Levin, Esq. Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. 111 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 1700 Chicago, IL 60604 Phone: (312) 212-4355 Fax: (866) 633-0228 Email: dlevin@toddflaw.com Enagic USA is represented by: Dwight M. Francis, Esq. GARDERE WYNNE SEWELL LLP 2021 McKinney Ave., Suite 1600 Dallas, TX 75201 Tel: (214) 999-4264 Fax: (214) 999-3264 Email: dfrancis@gardere.com - and - Fred Puglisi, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER AND HAMPTON LLP 333 S. Hope St., 43rd Floor Los Angeles CA 90071 Tel: (310) 228-3733 Fax: (310) 228-3933 Email: fpuglisi@sheppardmullin.com EXPERIAN INFO: Walsh Files Suit Over Erroneous Tax Lien Reports --------------------------------------------------------------- Edward J. Walsh, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 17-cv- 00246 (M.D. Fla., February 20, 2018) seeks actual, statutory and punitive damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, attorney's fees and costs and such other relief under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Defendant is a consumer reporting agency that sells consumer/credit reports to consumers and/or institutions. Experian allegedly reported Walsh's tax lien inaccurately, reporting the same lien twice as two separate entries. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Janet R. Varnell, Esq. Brian W. Warwick, Esq. David K. Lietz, Esq. VARNELL AND WARWICK PA P.O. Box 1870 Lady Lake FL 32158 Tel: (352) 753-8600 Email: jvarnell@varnellandwarwick.com bwarwick@varnellandwarwick.com dlietz@varnellandwarwick.com - and - Leonard A. Bennett, Esq. Craig C. Marchiando, Esq. Elizabeth W. Hanes, Esq. Matthew James Erausquin CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C. 763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd., Ste. 1-A Newport News, VA 23601 Telephone: (757) 930-3660 Facsimile: (757) 930-3662 Email: lenbennett@clalegal.com craig@clalegal.com elizabeth@clalegal.com matt@clalegal.com - and - Kristy Cahoon Kelly, Esq. Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq. Casey S. Nash, Esq. KELLY & CRANDALL, PLC 3925 Chain Bridge Rd., Suite 202 Fairfax, VA 22030 Tel: (703) 424-7576 Fax: (703) 591-9285 Email: kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com aguzzo@kellyandcrandall.com casey@kellyandcrandall.com - and - E. Michelle Drake, Esq. John Albanese, Esq. BERGER AND MONTAGUE 43 SE Main Street, Suite 505 Minneapolis, MN 55414 Tel: (612) 594-5999 Email: emdrake@bm.net jalbanese@bm.net EXPRESSIVE LIGHTING: Denied Overtime Pay, "Williams" Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Williams, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Expressive Lighting Inc., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-01096, (E.D. N.Y., February 20, 2018), seeks maximum liquidated damages for late overtime wages and non- payment of minimum wages, recovery of compensation for not receiving notices and statements including not being paid on a weekly basis, costs and attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, New York Minimum Wage Act and New York Labor Law. Defendant is engaged in the business of selling lighting fixtures and related items to a wide variety of businesses and individuals from New York and New Jersey where Williams was employed as a warehouse worker. He worked approximately 45-50 hours a week without overtime pay, says the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Abdul K. Hassan, Esq. ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC 215-28 Hillside Avenue Queens Village, NY 11427 Tel: (718) 740-1000 Fax: (718) 355-9668 Email: abdul@abdulhassan.com EXXON MOBIL: Faces "Guimary" Suit in C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Exxon Mobil Corporation. The case is styled as Gabriel Guimary, an individual, for himself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, a New Jersey corporation doing business in California, Defendant/Movant, DOES 1 through 100, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-02430 (C.D. Cal., March 26, 2018). Exxon Mobil Corporation is an American multinational oil and gas corporation headquartered in Irving, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. FINANCIAL BUSINESS: Johnson Sues Over Student Loan Collection ------------------------------------------------------------- Tamika L. Johnson an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Financial Business and Consumer Solutions, Inc. (FBCS), Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00498, (D. Md., February 16, 2018), seeks statutory damages, reasonable attorney's fees and costs and such other and further relief for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. In 2006, Johnson obtained a student loan to finance her education that was subsequently assigned to National Collegiate Student Loan Trust. The latter retained FBCS for the purpose of collecting said student loan. On or about December 5, 2017, FBCS sent Ms. Johnson a collection letter despite that the loan was charged off several years prior to filing the instant action, and was not enforceable by judicial means as a result of the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations; beyond the three-year statute of limitations in Maryland, says the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Kathleen P. Hyland, Esq. HYLAND LAW FIRM, LLC 16 E. Lombard Street, Suite 400 Baltimore, MD 21202 Tel: (410) 777-5396 Fax: (410) 777-8237 Email: kat@lawhyland.com - and - Robert W. Murphy, Esq. MURPHY LAW 1212 S.E. 2nd Avenue Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33316 Tel: (954) 763-8660 Fax: (954) 763-8607 Email: rwmurphy@lawfirmmurphy.com rphyu@aol.com FITNESS 19: Maggard Sues Over Double Gym Fees Charges ----------------------------------------------------- Brent Maggard, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Fitness 19 LLC and Does 1-10, inclusive and each of them, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00263, (C.D. Cal., February 15, 2018), seeks damages, restitution, and all other relief resulting from unjust enrichment and violation of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, Electronic Communications Privacy Act, California's Unfair Competition Law and California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act. On or about early 2016, Plaintiff signed up for a membership with the Fitness 19 Gym in Huntington Beach and entered into an auto- debit plan. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff, however, Defendant both opened a new account for Plaintiff and reactivated his old account and began billing him monthly for both plans. Maggard discovered that Fitness 19 was illegally automatically debiting him for $15 and $24 per month separately in May 2017. Fitness 19 LLC, is a provider of gym services and memberships to gym facilities. [BN] Plaintiffs are represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Thomas E. Wheeler, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St. Suite 780, Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Phone: (877) 206-4741 Fax: (866) 633-0228 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com twheeler@toddflaw.com FORT MYERS, FL: Faces "Miller" Suit in M.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The City of Fort Myers, a municipality. The case is styled as Deretha Miller, Luetricia Freeman Becker, Ralph Henry and Noemy Rodriguez, individually, and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. The City of Fort Myers, a municipality, Randall P. Henderson, Jr. in his official capacity as City of Fort Myers Mayor and Saeed Kazemi in his official capacity as City of Fort Myers Manager, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00195- SPC-CM (M.D. Fla., March 23, 2018). Fort Myers or Ft. Myers, is the county seat and commercial center of Lee County, Florida, United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary A. Davis, Esq. Davis Whitlock, PC PO Box 649 Hot Springs, NC 28743 Tel: (828) 622-0044 Fax: (828) 622-7610 Email: gadavis@enviroattorney.com - and - Ralf Gunars Brookes, Esq. Law Office of Ralf Brookes 1217 E Cape Coral Pkwy, Suite 107 Cape Coral, FL 33904 Tel: (239) 910-5464 Fax: (239) 541-2774 Email: Ralf@RalfBrookesAttorney.com FP HOLDINGS: Guests Sue Over Illegal Taxes for Internet Use ----------------------------------------------------------- Priscilla Hernandez, Abigail Robinson and Tiffani Washington, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FP Holdings, LP, (d/b/a Palms Casino Resort), Fiesta Parentco, LLC, Station Casinos, LLC, NP Palace, LLC (d/b/a Palace Station Hotel & Casino) and Red Rock Resorts, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00321, (D. Nev., February 21, 2018), seeks damages and restitution for the total amount of taxes Defendants unlawfully charged and collected on the portion of the Resort Fees that constitutes charges for Internet access pursuant to the Internet Tax Freedom Act. The complaint says Defendants charge overnight guests a mandatory, per-night resort fee which includes daily access for two guests each day to the fitness center at the property, daily in-room Internet access for two devices, and all local phone calls. When charging a Resort Fee that included Internet access, Defendants applied the Clark County Combined Transient Lodging Tax to the entire amount of the Resort Fee, which includes the portion of the Resort Fee that constitutes charges for Internet access. Hernandez and Robinson stayed at Palms Casino Resort, while Washington stayed at Palace Station Hotel & Casino. They all claim that charges for Internet access where included in the Resort Fees that they paid. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Don Springmeyer, Esq. Bradley Schrager, Esq. WOLF, RIFKIN, SHAPIRO, SCHULMAN & RABKIN, LLP 3556 E. Russell Road, 2nd Floor Las Vegas, NV 89120-2234 Tel: (702) 341-5200 Fax: (702) 341-5300 Email: dspringmeyer@wrslawyers.com bschrager@wrslawyers.com - and - Patrick Madden, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: (215) 875-3000 Fax: (215) 875-4604 Email: pmadden@bm.net - and - Stuart McCluer, Esq. MCCULLEY MCCLUER PLLC 1022 Carolina Blvd., Ste. 300 Charleston, SC 29451 Tel: (855) 467-0451 Fax: (662) 368-1506 Email: smccluer@mcculleymccluer.com FRANKLIN INSTITUTE: Faces "Lee" Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Franklin Institute. The case is styled as Chien-Hui Lee, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Franklin Institute, Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-01266-JLS (E.D. Penn., March 26, 2018). The Franklin Institute is a science museum and the center of science education and research in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C. K. LEE, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 EAST 39TH STREET SECOND FLOOR NEW YORK, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 465-1188 Email: cklee@leelitigation.com FUNKO INC: Time to Answer to Securities Violation Claims Extended ----------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, issued an Order Extending Time to Answer, Move or Otherwise Respond Pending Remand Proceedings in the case captioned ROBERT LOWINGER, Individually and Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. FUNKO, INC; BRIAN MARIOTTI; RUSSELL NICKEL; KEN BROTMAN; GINO DELLOMO; CHARLES DENSON; DIANE IRVINE; ADAM KRIGER; RICHARD MCNALLY; GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO.; J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC; MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED; PIPER JAFFRAY & CO.; JEFFERIES LLC; STIFFEL, NICOLAUS & COMPANY, INCORPORATED; BMO CAPITAL MARKETS CORP.; SUNTRUST ROBINSON HUMPHREY, INC.; and JOHN DOES 1 THROUGH 25, Defendants, No. C18-201 RSM (W.D. Wash.). Plaintiff Robert Lowinger and Defendants agreed to extend the time by which Defendants must answer, move, or otherwise respond to the Complaint alleges only violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the federal Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. Section 77a, et seq. A full-text copy of the District Court's February 22, 2018 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycjmqeec from Leagle.com. Robert Lowinger, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth Ann Leland bleland@kellerrohrback.com, KELLER ROHRBACK, Juli E. Farris, jfarris@kellerrohrback.com KELLER ROHRBACK &T. David Copley -- dcopley@kellerrohrback.com -- KELLER ROHRBACK. Funko, Inc, Brian Mariotti, Russell Nickel, Ken Brotman, Gino Dellomo, Charles Denson, Diane Irvine, Adam Kriger & Richard McNally, Defendants, represented by Benjamin Naftalis -- benjamin.naftalis@lw.com -- LATHAM & WATKINS, pro hac vice, Kevin M. McDonough, kevin.mcdonough@lw.com LATHAM & WATKINS, pro hac vice & Stephen C. Willey -- swilley@sbwllp.com -- SAVITT BRUCE & WILLEY LLP. GENERAL MILLS: "Hilsley" Mislabeling Suit Removed to S.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Crystal Hilsley, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. General Mills, Inc., General Mills Sales, Inc., Mccann-Erickson USA, Inc., Saatchi & Saatchi North America, Inc., Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc., Universal City Studios LLC, Viacom International Inc., Lucasfilm Ltd., LLC, Sanrio Company Ltd., Defendants, Defendants, Case No. 37-2017-00046914 (Cal. Super., December 5, 2017), was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District Of California on February 21, 2018. Complaint alleges violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California Unfair Competition Law, California Business and Professions Code, California False Advertising Law as well as for breach of express and implied warranty arising out of General Mills' alleged mislabeling of twelve varieties of Fruit Flavored Snacks that bear images licensed to General Mills. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: David Elliot, Esq. THE ELLIOT LAW FIRM 3200 Fourth Avenue, Suite 207 San Diego, CA 92103 Tel: (619) 468-4865 Email: davidelliot@elliotlawfirm.com Defendants are represented by: David T. Biderman, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 1888 Century Park E., Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067-1721 Telephone: (310) 788-9900 Facsimile: (310) 843-1284 Email: DBiderman@perkinscoie.com - and - Charles Sipos, Esq. Lauren Watts Staniar, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 359-8000 Facsimile: (206) 359-9000 Email: csipos@perkinscoie.com lstaniar@perkinscoie.com GENERAL MOTORS: Settles Arizona Ignition Switch Case for $6.29MM ---------------------------------------------------------------- Eric D. Lawrence, writing for Detroit Free Press, reports that a settlement in one of General Motors' ignition-switch defect lawsuits will net consumers in Arizona up to almost $6.29 million. Arizona took a different path than other states, including Michigan, in reaching a settlement that directs that payments will go to affected consumers, according to a news release on March 7 from the office of Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich. As part of a $120 million settlement announced in October with 49 states and the District of Columbia, Michigan was to receive $4.3 million, with that money going to the state's general fund. If Arizona had taken part in that settlement, the state would have received about $2 million, the release said. "Consumers should always come first in consumer fraud and class action lawsuits," Mr. Brnovich said in the release. "When I took office (in 2015), I couldn't believe consumer payments weren't the focus of the state's lawsuit against GM. I wasn't going to settle until Arizona consumers received compensation." The release noted that Mr. Brnovich amended the state's 2014 lawsuit, which "alleged GM concealed defects, engaged in false advertising, and created a corporate culture that devalued vehicle safety," to include a claim for consumer payments. "Under the proposed settlement, approximately 33,000 Arizona consumers who purchased certain GM vehicles between July 2009 and July 2014, and did not resell those cars before the recalls were announced, would be entitled to payments," according to the release. Payments will be at least $200, and consumers who participate will need to sign a release form sent by a claims administrator. GM issued a statement after the settlement was announced: "GM has reached a constructive settlement with the state of Arizona to finally resolve claims filed by the Attorney General regarding vehicles in that state that were subject to recalls in 2014, including the ignition switch recall. Since 2014, GM has taken important steps to help ensure the safety of its vehicles, including a new organizational structure dedicated to global vehicle safety and a robust Speak Up for Safety program." The ignition switch defect, which could cause vehicles to stall, was a massive scandal for GM, leaving at least 124 people dead and 275 injured in small cars such as the Chevrolet Cobalt and Saturn Ion made by the old GM. The Detroit automaker recalled more than 2.7 million vehicles in 2014. Penalties and fines for the company topped $2.5 billion, and litigation involving hundreds of plaintiffs remains unresolved. The Arizona settlement, which also requires GM to pay $1 million to the state as well as other costs, will still need court approval. The case is in Arizona Superior Court. [GN] GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Faces "Thorne" Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Genworth Financial, Inc. The case is styled as Braulio Thorne, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Genworth Financial, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02671-VSB (S.D. N.Y., March 26, 2018). Genworth Financial, Inc. provides insurance and homeownership solutions in the United States and internationally. It operates through five segments: U.S. Mortgage Insurance, Canada Mortgage Insurance, Australia Mortgage Insurance, U.S. Life Insurance, and Runoff.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq. Cohen & Mizrahi LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (917) 299-6612 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal GLYNN COUNTY, GA: House Bill 1012 Put on the Back Burner -------------------------------------------------------- Taylor Cooper, writing for The Brunswick News, reports that a bill in the General Assembly intended to prevent taxpayers from requesting refunds of property taxes on behalf of a class of other taxpayers in a similar situation has been put on the back burner. House Bill 1012 would have also prevented a group from bringing a class "action or suit for a refund," against a county or municipality on behalf of others in a similar situation. State Rep. Don Hogan, R-St. Simons Island, introduced the bill in response to an informal request from Glynn County Commissioners. The county is involved in a class-action lawsuit, which alleges that thousands of county residents were overcharged on their property taxes due a misapplication of the Scarlett Williams homestead exemption. Jay Roberts, attorney for the plaintiffs, estimates the allegedly overpaid property taxes total around $15- 17 million. A Cobb County Superior Court judge came down on the county's side last year, but the Georgia Court of Appeals sided with the plaintiffs in January. Both the county and the taxpayers litigating the case asked the Georgia Supreme Court to hear the case. "I don't think it will even get a hearing in the committee it's assigned to," Mr. Hogan said of his bill. In the Georgia General Assembly, a bill is filed and then assigned to a committee for review. The committee makes a recommendation and can send it to the House Rules Committee, which decides which bills will be heard by the House of Representatives. "Chances are it wouldn't make it through the rules committee if it did get there," Mr. Hogan said. Mr. Hogan said the lack of support was likely due to the type of lawsuit involved. "It's a shame that (the plaintiffs) had to do this. To me, the mistake was made by the former tax commissioner, and as the legal authority, it falls on the county commission to make that right," Mr. Hogan said. County officials have also said if the county loses the case, Glynn County Schools would also be on the hook for refunds as well. Because the school board collects more property taxes than the county, it would likely have to pay a larger portion of the refund that the county would. "I really feel for the county commission, and the situation they're in," Mr. Hogan said. "They're trying to do what they think is best for the county. It amounts to the taxpayers suing taxpayers." The conversation that sprung up around the proposed legislation has been beneficial, Mr. Hogan said, and he's glad he was able to discuss it with people on both sides of the issue. "I'm glad that I did what I did, and I think it's brought out a lot of discussion in the community," Mr. Hogan said. The state already has such a law protecting it from class-action lawsuits, and Hogan has previously said this bill would extend that protection to Georgia's counties. He doesn't have any plans to bring it back up at the moment, and will likely invest more time in the issue after the current state legislative session is over. [GN] GOOGLE INC: YouTube Slays Zombie Video Makers' Ad Revenue Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that Google on March 7 decapitated a zombie video maker's class action seeking millions of dollars in lost ad revenue from YouTube. U.S. District Judge Edward Chen dismissed the case with prejudice, finding YouTube's contract with content providers gives it absolute power over advertising for web videos. Plaintiffs James Sweet, Chuck Mere and their Arkansas-based company Zombie Go Boom sued YouTube in July 2017, claiming the online video service abruptly changed its rules last year, resulting in a more than 90 percent drop in ad revenue. The plaintiffs, who create satirical and often gory skits about killing zombies, demanded millions in lost income for themselves and other content providers affected by YouTube's change in policy, which they dubbed "Adpocalyse." The abrupt change came in March 2017, when YouTube started facing criticism and losing advertisers for pairings ads with racist and violent content, including neo-Nazi and Islamic State group support videos. That's when YouTube unveiled a "secret" rating system that allowed advertisers to pull ads from certain categories of content. The plaintiffs say they earned about $10,000 in monthly ad revenue before the "Adpocalypse." Afterwards, the amount earned from 1 million video views sunk from $1,000 to $2,000 to approximately $150, according to the complaint. Zombie Go Boom said YouTube broke promises it made in its partner contract to only pull ads from videos that violate its content guidelines. But YouTube said that same agreement also gives it broad discretion over advertising placement decisions. YouTube's partner program states: "YouTube is not obligated to display any advertisements alongside your videos and may determine the type and format of ads available on the YouTube Service." The plaintiffs argued the agreement was so unfair and lopsided it should be deemed invalid by the court under the unconscionability doctrine. Chen rejected that argument, finding that because content providers reap benefits from the contract, including 55 percent of video ad revenues, the agreement can't be deemed unconscionable. "YouTube allowed Zombie to post videos on its forum free of charge in exchange for getting a license to its content," Chen wrote in his 15-page ruling. "The ability to post videos, even without advertising revenues, can be valuable to content providers in reaching a wide audience." The fact that Zombie Go Boom's videos did not violate YouTube's content guidelines in no way hinders the company's power to pull ads for other reasons, Chen concluded. "Nothing in the Partner Program Policies suggests that violation of the policies is the only reason why YouTube is not obligated to display advertisements; it is simply one reason," Chen wrote. Chen dismissed the case with prejudice and issued judgment in favor of Google. Attorneys for both sides did not immediately return emails and phone calls seeking comment March 7 afternoon. Zombie Go Boom is represented by Todd Friedman, Esq. of Woodland Hills, California. Google is represented by Anthony Weibell, Esq. -- aweibell@wsgr.com -- of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati in Palo Alto. The case is JAMES SWEET, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GOOGLE INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-03953-EMC (N.D. Calif.). GOOGLE LLC: Plaintiffs to Refile Dismissed Nexus 6P Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Golightly, writing for Android Headlines, reports that there's been a new development in an ongoing class-action lawsuit against Huawei and Google, stemming from an investigation last year with regard to the Nexus 6P handset. Specifically, Judge Beth Labson Freeman, presiding over the case for the U.S. District Court of Northern California San Jose Division, issued a ruling to deny motions from the defendants to dismiss the case. Furthermore, Freeman moved to dismiss the two companies' claims that the cases don't warrant a class-action suit. That means that both companies' cases will be proceeding. However, motions were granted in terms of the companies' request to dismiss some of the claims of the suit, which include some fraud or fraud- based, warranty, and unjust enrichment claims. That's likely to prove a major victory for the both Google and Huawei but the two will still face other claims falling under similar categories. For those who may not recall, this lawsuit started in April of last year after users of the Google-branded, Huawei-built Nexus 6P began to notice several big problems with the devices. Primarily, complaints came down to early shutoff of devices despite having plenty of battery remaining and boot looping problems. Users went on to claim that Google and Huawei were unresponsive to the issues. Similar problems had led to suits against other companies but it wasn't immediately clear whether a class-action lawsuit would follow. It now does appear that will happen. Filed in the above-mentioned court under Case No. 17-cv- 02185-BLF, the two companies are set to face a different group of claims. Google will be facing claims based on a state consumer protection statute, while Huawei is looking at express and implied warranty claims. Huawei, as the manufacturer, is facing additional claims under the federal Magnusson-Moss statute and California Unfair Competition Law. Unfortunately, even the dismissed claims could be amended and brought back. In fact, although there's no guarantee that they won't simply be dismissed again, the plaintiffs in the case have indicated that is their plan. They will be refiling the dismissed claims on June 8. The stretch of time involved here is not unusual for cases involving large companies with robust law teams. However, it does mean that this case will likely drag on without any resolution and there's a high likelihood that it won't be over by the end of this year. [GN] GOOGLE INC: Settles Privacy Class Action Over Street View Cars -------------------------------------------------------------- Wendy Davis, writing for MediaPost, reports that Google has tentatively agreed to settle an 8-year-old privacy battle over the collection of data by its Street View cars, according to court papers filed on March 6. Details of the settlement, which has not yet been finalized, haven't been revealed. If accepted by U.S. District Court Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco, the settlement will resolve a class-action lawsuit stemming from revelations that the company's Street View cars collected a host of data -- including URLs, passwords and emails -- sent over unencrypted Wi-Fi networks. News about Google's data gathering sparked investigations into the company, both in the U.S. and abroad. In 2013, Google agreed to pay $7 million to settle with more than 30 state attorneys general who were investigating the so-called "Wi-Spy" debacle. The company also was fined $25,000 in 2012 by the Federal Communications Commission for failing to cooperate with that agency's probe. In addition, revelations about the data gathering sparked a class-action suit by consumers who alleged the company violated the federal wiretap law. Google apologized for the interceptions and said it intended to destroy the data, but also argued that the company didn't violate any laws. The company argued that the class-action should be dismissed on the grounds that the federal wiretap law only prohibits interceptions from Wi-Fi networks that are protected by passwords. Google based its argument on a section of the law that allows the interception of "radio communications" that are "readily accessible to the general public." The company contended that transmissions sent through open networks are accessible to the public at large, and therefore not subject to the prohibition. In 2013, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Google's argument, ruling that Wi-Fi transmissions are not "readily accessible" to the public, because most people aren't able to decode data transmitted over Wi-Fi. Google unsuccessfully attempted to appeal that ruling to the Supreme Court. [GN] GRADY'S PIZZA: Faces "Foster" Suit in E.D. Arkansas --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Grady's Pizza & Subs Inc. The case is styled as Ashley Foster and Erica Morgan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Grady's Pizza & Subs Inc doing business as: Grady's Restaurant, Defendant/Debtor, Case No. 4:18-cv-00217-KGB (E.D. Ark., March 26, 2018). Grady's Restaurant serves pizzas, sandwiches and fresh breads ni Central Arkansas.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Allison Elizabeth Ann Koile, Esq. Sanford Law Firm Post Office Box 39 Russellville, AR 72811 Tel: (479) 880-0088 Fax: (888) 787-2040 Email: allison@sanfordlawfirm.com - and - Chris Sanford, Esq. Joshua Sanford, Esq. Sanford Law Firm One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Tel: (501) 221-0088 Fax: (888) 787-2040 Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com GREENSPOON MARDER: Court Denies Dismissal of "Lapan" FDCPA Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of Vermont issued as Order denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned KARENA LAPAN, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GREENSPOON MARDER P.A., Defendant, Case No. 5:17-cv-130 (D. Vt.). Plaintiff Karena Lapan (Lapan) alleges that Defendant Greenspoon Marder P.A. (Greenspoon), a law firm incorporated in Florida, violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) in the course of pursuing a non-judicial foreclosure on a Las Vegas timeshare by disclosing the details of a claimed debt to third parties. Lapan also alleges that Greenspoon's conduct violated the Vermont Consumer Fraud Act. Lapan claims that Greenspoon's mailing of the unredacted list of individuals in default to all of the timeshare owners on the list violated the FDCPA in two ways. First, it amounted to communication with a third party in connection with the collection of a debt, in violation of 15 U.S.C. Ssection 1692c(b). Greenspoon has moved to dismiss, arguing that this court lacks personal jurisdiction and that the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Decisions holding nonjudicial foreclosures not to be debt collection have frequently done so on the basis of the unavailability of a deficiency judgment. But the fact that the creditor's recovery is limited to the sale value of the collateral does not change the fundamental nature of the foreclosure process, which takes something of value from a debtor and uses it to satisfy a debt. The notice of default sent to Lapan in this case stated that "in the event that your obligation is not brought current within 35 days ELT shall accelerate all sums due under the Note and shall proceed with the sale of the Property." The court is satisfied that this language, construed in the light most favorable to Lapan's claims, did amount to an attempt to collect a debt. There is no meaningful distinction between a demand for repayment and a statement of the consequences for failure to make repayment. The expected effect on the recipient's behavior is the same. The court takes guidance from Romea v. Heiberger & Assocs., 163 F.3d 111, 116 (2d Cir. 1998), where the Second Circuit held that an eviction notice for failure to pay timely rent was an attempt to collect a debt within the meaning of the FDCPA. In that case, the court rejected the notion that a notice required by statute prior to the initiation of a possessory proceeding could not also be an attempt to collect a debt. Romea is not precisely on point, because the language of the eviction notices included the phrase you are required to pay and was thus closer to an explicit demand for payment, but this is not a fatal distinction, and Romea's reasoning remains instructive. Furthermore, even in the complete absence of any language seeking repayment, the essential character of this type of communication would remain that of an attempt to collect a debt by dispossessing an individual of something of value in satisfaction of that debt. The court concludes that Greenspoon's conduct as alleged in the complaint was undertaken in connection with the collection of a debt and was thus subject to the FDCPA. Greenspoon asserts that the facts alleged in the Complaint fail to establish a sufficient basis for personal jurisdiction over Greenspoon. Here, the Complaint alleges that Greenspoon mailed the default and sale notices to Lapan at her address in Vermont, and to all of the other 27 alleged debtors at their respective addresses in other states. This was a single mass mailing undertaken in service of a single purpose, and the court is not persuaded that its individual component letters should be considered in the isolated, piecemeal fashion that Greenspoon urges. The same plan or design that led Greenspoon to mail the notice of default and the notice of sale to Lapan into Vermont also resulted in the delivery of similar letters addressed to the other debtors, which Lapan alleges resulted in her damages. The court concludes that Greenspoon's conduct was sufficient to constitute minimum contacts for the assertion of specific jurisdiction in Vermont. The motion to dismiss is denied in all respects. A full-text copy of the District Court's February 22, 2018 Decision is available at https://tinyurl.com/yc9cgv52 from Leagle.com. Karena LaPan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew B. Delaney, Esq., Martin & Associates, PC, 100 N. Main Street, Suite 2, P.O. Box 607, Barre, VT 05641 & Peter A. Holland, Esq., The Holland Law Firm, P.C., pro hac vice. Greenspoon Marder P.A., Defendant, represented by Justin B. Barnard, Esq., Dinse, Knapp & McAndrew, P.C. & Karen McAndrew, Esq., Dinse, Knapp & McAndrew, P.C.. HENRY SCHEIN: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on March 7 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Henry Schein, Inc. (NASDAQ: HSIC) from March 7, 2013 through February 12, 2018, both dates inclusive ("Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Henry Schein investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Henry Schein class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1291.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or Zachary Halper, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Henry Schein was engaging in unethical, anti- competitive behavior through agreements with Benco Dental Supply Company and Patterson Companies, Inc., in violation of United States antitrust laws; (2) Henry Schein engaged in such behavior, in part, to help maintain profitability in a consolidating health care industry; (3) these violations of U.S. antitrust laws would result in heightened scrutiny by the federal government and a lawsuit filed by the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC"); (4) Henry Schein failed to maintain adequate internal controls; and (5) as a result, defendants' statements about Henry Schein's business, operations and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 7, 2018. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1291.htmlto join the class action. You may also contact Phillip Kim or Zachary Halper of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com. Rosen Law Firm -- http://www.rosenlegal.com-- represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Since 2014, Rosen Law Firm has been ranked #2 in the nation by Institutional Shareholder Services for the number of securities class action settlements annually obtained for investors. [GN] HERSHEY COMPANY: Court Dismisses Class Action Over Candy Box ------------------------------------------------------------ Dan Mehan, writing for The Kansas City Star, reports that are people like Robert Bratton fighting to protect your rights, or are they and their attorneys making a mockery of Missouri's consumer protection law? After buying roughly 600 boxes of Whoppers and Reese's Pieces over the course of a decade, Mr. Bratton sued the candy manufacturers, claiming he was entitled to cash damages because more candy could fit inside the box. Anyone who bought either candy over the past five years was included as a member of Mr. Bratton's class action, which sought millions from candy manufacturers. Initially, a federal court ruled that the lawsuit could proceed, but it ultimately dismissed Mr. Bratton's lawsuit against the Hershey Company, as The Kansas City Star recently reported. The common-sense ruling found Mr. Bratton was not deceived and had experienced no injury, as his purchasing the candy over and over again showed. One might think courts regularly throw out these types of ridiculous lawsuits, but the Bratton case's dismissal is surprisingly the exception, not the rule. In fact, a case he filed making similar allegations against Tootsie Roll Industries over the number of Junior Mints that can fit in a box -- filed the same day by the same law firm -- remains pending in a Missouri state court in Cole County. A small group of attorneys, such as Mr. Bratton's lawyers, misuses a law intended to protect consumers from deceptive practices. They have employed the Missouri Merchandising Protection Act, or MMPA, to create their own profitable lawsuit industry by filing scores of lawsuits alleging deception that doesn't exist. These lawsuits take minutes to generate: Cut and paste from the last complaint, insert another product, snap a photo and file. Some firms use the same plaintiff over and over as they file new lawsuits against different businesses. Hundreds of these types of MMPA class actions have been filed in Missouri courts in recent years. Food and beverage companies are a popular target. For example, lawsuits have alleged that jelly bean packages hide the fact that they contain sugar, or that common food ingredients are not "natural." It's not just food. A wide range of businesses -- including restaurants, retailers and manufacturers of cosmetics, cleaning and pet products -- are being attacked. Most suits mysteriously disappear from court dockets within a few months of being filed as "voluntarily dismissed with prejudice." This means the business owner likely made the choice to settle the case instead of incurring the time and expense of fighting in court. The lawyers win, and consumers -- on whose behalf these cases are purportedly filed -- typically get nothing. "Indulgent amendments and lenient interpretations have encouraged enterprising litigants and lawyers to bring claims, resulting in a dramatic increase in consumer protection litigation" wrote Joanna Shepherd of Emory University School of Law in a study she authored. Whereas the number of consumer protection decisions increased by an average of 188 percent in the U.S. from 2000 to 2009, the number of Missouri decisions under the MMPA increased by an astonishing 678 percent in that same period. Fortunately, a bill pending before the General Assembly would end this racket. Senate Bill 832 would ensure that the MMPA continues to help consumers who have legitimate claims, while reducing the opportunity for no-injury, attorney-generated litigation. It would evaluate lawsuits from the perspective of a reasonable consumer. When consumers are not actually harmed, there would be no award. Also, attorneys' fees in these class actions could no longer dwarf the benefits provided to consumers. The bill has been passed by a committee and awaits debate by the full Senate. A similar bill, House Bill 2089, was reviewed by the House Litigation Reform Committee. It is time to return the MMPA to its intended purpose and end the deception that grants lawyers sweet, multi-million dollar windfalls under the guise of representing consumers. Dan Mehan is president and CEO of the Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry. [GN] HH GULFSTREAM: Faces CDS Gulfstream Suit in S.D. Florida -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against HH Gulfstream LLC. The case is styled as CDS Gulfstream LLC, individually and as a class on behalf of other similarly situated individuals and business entities that were induced by Andrew Greenbaum and Steve Michael into investing monies in entities for real estate investments from and after March 27, 2014, Plaintiff v. Andrew Greenbaum also known as: AviGreenbaum, Steve Michael also known as: Steven Michael, HH Gulfstream LLC and Hudson Holdings LLC, Defendants, Case No. 9:18-cv-80386-DMM (S.D. Fla., March 26, 2018). The Defendants operate as a property development and real estate management group.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary Scott Rosen, Esq. ROSEN LAW LLC 500 Village Square Crossing, Suite 101 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Tel: (561) 899-9999 Fax: (561) 584-6434 Email: grosen@rosenlawllc.com - and - Joseph G Sconzo, Esq. Law Office of Joseph G. Sconzo 250 South Central Boulevard, Suite 201 Jupiter, FL 33458 Tel: (561) 781-3000 Email: josephgsconzolaw@gmail.com - and - Stuart N. Kaplan, Esq. Kaplan & Parker, LLP 3399 PGA Blvd, Suite 150 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Tel: (561) 296-7900 Fax: (561) 296-7919 Email: skaplan@kaplanparkerlaw.com HOME DEPOT: Faces "Sullivan" Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Home Depot Product Authority, LLC. The case is styled as Phillip Sullivan, Jr., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Home Depot Product Authority, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv- 02698 (S.D. N.Y., March 27, 2018). Home Depot Services LLC provides home improvement and decoration services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Lee Litigation Group, PLLC 30 East 39th Street 2nd Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 465-1188 Fax: (212) 465-1181 Email: cklee@leelitigation.com HUNTLEIGH USA: Court Grants Final Approval of $1.5MM Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, issued an Order granting Final Approval of Class Settlement in the case captioned ALIN MUSE, an individual, Plaintiff, v. HUNTLEIGH USA CORPORATION, a foreign corporation; RICHARD SPORN, an individual; DIANE GALFORD, an individual, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00357-RSL (W.D. Wash.). The Court finally and unconditionally certifies the Class defined below: All employees of the Defendant who are alleged to have been either Hospitality Workers or Transportation Workers and who worked one or more hours within the City of SeaTac at any time during the time period from January 1, 2014, to February 14, 2016, and who were paid less than the prevailing minimum wage prescribed by City of SeaTac Ordinance 7.45.050, i.e., a base rate of $15.00 per hour in 2014 and $15.24 in 2015 and 2016. The Settlement Agreement, which requires Huntleigh to pay $1,150,000 as consideration to Class Members, was the result of arm's length negotiations between Huntleigh and Class Counsel. The Settlement Agreement is fair and reasonable. A full-text copy of the District Court's February 22, 2018 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9y4rlz7 from Leagle.com. Alin Muse, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel R. Whitmore, Duncan Calvert Turner, BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER PLLC & Mark A. Trivett, BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER PLLC, 19929 Ballinger Way NE, Suite 200. Seattle, WA 9815 Huntleigh USA Corporation, a foreign corporation, Defendant, represented by John B. Renick -- renick@mcmahonberger.com -- MCMAHON BERGER, pro hac vice, Kenneth J. Diamond -- ken@winterbauerdiamond.com -- WINTERBAUER & DIAMOND, Stephen B. Maule -- maule@mcmahonberger.com -- MCMAHON BERGER, pro hac vice & Vanessa B. Chambers -- vanessa@winterbauerdiamond.com -- WINTERBAUER & DIAMOND. Richard Sporn & Diane Galford, Defendants, represented by Kenneth J. Diamond, WINTERBAUER & DIAMOND. INTERACTIVECORP: Sued for Deleting Transgender Users' Profiles -------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that dating app Tinder, a/k/a IAC/Interactivecorp, has a long history of deleting the profiles of transgender users, according to a class action filed on March 14 by a trans women who says Tinder dumped her. Lead Trial Attorney for Plaintiff Olsen Daines: Michael Fuller, Esq. US Bancorp Tower 111 SW 5th Ave., Suite 3150 Portland, OR 97204 Direct: 503-743-7000 Email: michael@underdoglawyer.com Of Attorneys for Plaintiff: Kelly Jones, Esq. The Law Office of Kelly Jones Phone: 503-847-4329 Email: kellydonovanjones@gmail.com Of Attorneys for Plaintiff: Mark Geragos, Esq. Ben Meiselas, Esq. Lori Feldman, Esq. Geragos & Geragos Historic Engine Co. No. 28 644 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA Phone: 213-625-3900 Email: geragos@geragos.com INFORMATION RESOURCES: Bid to Transfer "Bakhtiar" Denied -------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued an Order denying Defendant Information Resources, Inc.'s Motion to Transfer Venue of the case captioned IRAM BAKHTIAR, Plaintiff, v. INFORMATION RESOURCES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-04559-JST (N.D. Cal.). Bakhtiar alleges that she and the other putative class members are non-exempt employees under state and federal wage and hour laws. She alleges that she and the other putative class members should have been classified as non-exempt employees and received overtime pay consistent with the requirements of those laws. For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district where it might have been brought. Transfer is only appropriate if the action could have been brought in Northern District of Illinois. A district court is one in which an action could have been brought originally if (1) it has subject matter jurisdiction; (2) defendants would have been subject to personal jurisdiction; and (3) venue would have been proper. Here, IRI argues, and Bakhtiar does not dispute, that this action could originally have been brought in the Northern District of Illinois. Proper venue and personal jurisdiction exist in the Northern District of Illinois because IRI maintains its corporate headquarters in Chicago, Illinois. Accordingly, the Court finds that this case could have been brought in the Northern District of Illinois. Bakhtiar has chosen the Northern District of California as the forum for her lawsuit. IRI argues that the relevant acts supporting Bakhtiar's theories of liability occurred predominantly in Chicago because the "Chicago headquarters is where IRI's primary executive, administrative, financial, legal, human resources, and management functions are conducted and the high level officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation's activities. Convenience of the non-party witnesses, convenience to parties, and ease of access to evidence are relevant factors in considering a motion to transfer. IRI argues that a subpoena may be necessary to compel the testimony of former or subordinate employees. However, IRI does not identify any such former or subordinate employees. In fact, its core argument is that the case should be transferred to Chicago because the Chicago headquarters is where primary executive, administrative, financial, legal, human resources, and management functions are conducted and where IRI's senior level officers direct, control and coordinate the corporation's activities. Therefore, IRI's convenience tips only slightly favor of transfer. While federal courts in the Northern District of Illinois are fully capable of applying California law, this Court is more familiar with California law. This factor tips slightly in favor of transfer. Both districts are congested with a similar caseload and both districts have a local interest in the controversy so these factors are neutral. Considering the weight given to Bakhtiar's choice of forum and the diminished weight given to the convenience of IRI, as well as the slight weight given to this Court's familiarity with California law, the Court finds the IRI has not demonstrated that the balance of convenience and interests of justice factors clearly favor transfer. The motion to transfer is denied. A full-text copy of the District Court's February 22, 2018 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybeuavqt from Leagle.com. Iram Bakhtiar, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Bryan Jeffrey Schwartz -- bryan@bryanschwartzlaw.com -- Bryan Schwartz Law & Logan McMillan Starr -- logan@bryanschwartzlaw.com -- Bryan Schwartz Law. Information Resources, Inc., Defendant, represented by Robert Irving Lockwood, Jackson Lewis P.C., Janelle Jad Sahouria, Jackson Lewis P.C. & Mitchell F. Boomer, Jackson Lewis P.C., 50 California Street 9th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4615 JOBMATCH LLC: Marous Sues Over Illegal Text Messages ---------------------------------------------------- Richard Marous, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Jobmatch, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-80186, (S.D. Fla., February 16, 2018), seeks injunctive relief, statutory damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Defendant deals in event staffing, promotional models and experiential marketing across the United States. It sent recruitment texts to Marous' cellphone without express consent. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, FL 33132 Tel: (305) 479-2299 Email: efilings@shamisgentile.com JONES & ASSOCIATES: Order Denying Class Cert in "Vuyancih" Upheld ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County, issued an Opinion affirming the Trial Court's Decision denying Plaintiffs' Amended Motion to Certify Class Action in the case captioned JOHN VUYANCIH, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. JONES & ASSOCIATES LAW GROUP, L.L.C., ET AL., Defendants-Appellees, No. 105727 (Ohio App.). Plaintiffs-appellants appeal the trial court's decision denying their amended motion to certify a class action. The proposed class filed suit against defendants-appellees alleging violations of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (CSPA). The proposed class alleged that the Jones Group sent solicitation letters to homeowners who were named defendants in foreclosure actions in Ohio courts and made false and deceptive statements related to their foreclosures. The trial court denied the amended motion to certify a class action, finding that the proposed class failed to certify the prior notice requirement necessary to maintain a class action under R.C. 1345.09(B). The proposed class argued that consent judgments could provide evidence of prior notice for the purposes of R.C. 1345.09(B), and urges this court to find that consent and default judgments may provide prior notice to a party that its conduct violated the CSPA. The Jones Group argued, and the trial court agreed, that consent judgments cannot form the basis of prior notice under R.C. 1345.09(B). Consent judgments do not support notice because they are not the court's reasoning but instead represent the reasoning of the parties themselves. Ice v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.,N.D.Ohio No. 1:14CV744, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131336, 9 (Sept. 29, 2015). Gascho; Robins v. Global Fitness Holdings, L.L.C., 838 F.Supp.2d 631, 649 (N.D.Ohio 2012), rejecting a party's reliance on consent judgments meeting the requirement for prior notice); Kline v. Mtge. Elec. Sec. Sys., S.D.Ohio No. 3:08CV408, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143391 (Dec. 30, 2010). The cases cited by the proposed class that purport to show notice were decided by consent judgment, default judgment, and a decision on a motion for summary judgment alleging violations of federal law. We agree with the sound reasoning of the federal court in Pattie and Ice that consent or default judgments do not suffice as notice under R.C. 1345.09(B) -- these judgments have no analysis of any kind that put a defendant on notice that its specific conduct was deceptive or unconscionable under the CSPA. The Court further find that the decision in Stiltner, Mansfield M.C. No. 07-CVH-3952, does not provide notice under R.C. 1345.09(B) because that case, while decided via judgment, alleged violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), not the CSPA. The Court need not determine whether a violation of the FDCPA is sufficient to put an entity on notice of the prohibition against a specific act or practice under the CSPA, although we are doubtful that it suffices. In this case, there is simply not enough information provided in the record to determine that the same violation occurred. In Stiltner, the plaintiff received a letter from a non-lawyer advising the plaintiff that foreclosure was imminent and listed a bank that was not a party to the foreclosure. The plaintiff filed a complaint alleging a violation of the FDCPA. In its opinion granting summary judgment, the court did not cite the specific section of the FDCPA upon which it relied to conclude that a violation of the FDCPA had occurred. Moreover, the proposed class does not cite to, let alone rely on, Stiltner in its appellate brief. Absent more, this court declines to find that a violation similar to that in Stiltner is also expressly prohibited by the CSPA and thus provided sufficient notice to the Jones Group under R.C. 1345.09(B). The sole assignment of error is overruled. Judgment affirmed. A full-text copy of the Ohio App.'s February 22, 2018 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/yavvqbvb from Leagle.com. Marc E. Dann, William C. Behrens, Brian D. Flick, Emily White, The Dann Law Firm Co., L.P.A., P.O. Box 6031040, Cleveland, Ohio 44103, Attorneys for Appellants. David H. Boehm, Lavin Boehm, L.L.C., 3091 Mayfield Road, Suite 212, Cleveland, Ohio 44118;William A. Peseski, 46 Public Square, Suite 230, Medina, Ohio 44256, Attorneys for Appellees, for Jones & Associates Law Group, L.L.C. Sean T. Lavin, Lavin Boehm, L.L.C., 3091 Mayfield Road, Suite 212, Cleveland, Ohio 44118, Attorneys for Appellees, for Ken Jones. JP MORGAN: Faces "McShannock" Suit in N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A. The case is styled as Susan McShannock as Executrix of the Estate of Patricia Blaskower, on behalf of the Estate of Patricia Blaskower and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A. doing business as: Chase Bank, Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-01873-MEJ (N.D. Cal., March 27, 2018). JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association provides various banking and other financial services to corporate, institutional, and governmental clients in the United States and internationally.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Harold Mitchell Jaffe, Esq. 3521 Grand Avenue Oakland, CA 94610 Tel: (510) 452-2610 Fax: (510) 452-9125 Email: Jaffe510@aol.com KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Court Consolidates "Sebastian," "Haris" ------------------------------------------------------------ The United States District Court for the Southern District of California issued an Order granting Joint Motion for Consolidation of Related Cases captioned BRITTANY SEBASTIAN and ASHLEY LYNNE POPOWITZ, individually, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. KIMBERLY-CLARK CORPORATION; KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC.; and KIMBERLY-CLARK GLOBAL SALES, LLC, Defendants. NASREEN HARIS, individually, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. KIMBERLY-CLARK CORPORATION; KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC.; and KIMBERLY-CLARK GLOBAL SALES, LLC, Defendants, Case Nos. 3:17-CV- 00442-WQH-JMA, 3:18-CV-00046-WQH-JMA (S.D. Cal.) On March 29, 2017, Plaintiffs Brittany Sebastian and Ashley Lynne Popowitz filed their First Amended Complaint in case number 3:17- CV-00442-WQH-JMA. On December 8, 2017, a related action, Haris v. Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:17-CV-07016-KAW, was filed in the Northern District of California. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) governs consolidation, and states, [i]f actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may: (1) join for hearing or trial any or all matters at issue in the actions; (2) consolidate the actions; or (3) issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay. The Court determines that consolidation of the Sebastian and Haris cases is appropriate. The cases involve the same questions of law and fact and consolidation will reduce delay and confusion without prejudicing the parties. Consolidation of the cases will allow the Court to hear all dispositive motions in conjunction, expediting their resolution. The Joint Motion to Consolidate 3:17-CV-00442-WQH-JMA is granted. A full-text copy of the District Court's February 22, 2018 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7tmk7q8 from Leagle.com. Brittany Sebastian, individually, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated & Ashley Lynne Popowitz, individually, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Michael Thomas Fraser -- mfraser@thefraserlawfirm.net -- The Fraser Law Firm, P.C., Naomi B. Spector -- nspector@kamberlaw.com -- KamberLaw LLP & Christopher Decker Moon -- cmoon@kamberlaw.com -- KamberLaw LLP. Nasreen Haris, individually, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Naomi B. Spector, KamberLaw LLP & Reuben D. Nathan, Nathan & Associates, APC. Kimberly-Clark Corporation, Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc. & Kimberly-Clark Global Sales, LLC, Defendants, represented by Theodore Joseph Boutrous, Jr. -- tboutrous@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Timothy William Loose -- tloose@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Andrew S. Tulumello -- atulumello@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP & Theane E. Kapur -- tkapur@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn & Crutcher. KINDRED HEALTHCARE: "Carter" Claims Shortchanged on Merger Deal --------------------------------------------------------------- Debra Carter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Kindred Healthcare, Inc., Phyllis R. Yale, Benjamin A. Breier, Paul J. Diaz, Sharad Mansukani, Joel Ackerman, Jonathan D. Blum, Heyward R. Donigan, Richard Goodman, Christopher T. Hjelm, Fred J. Kleisner and Lynn Simon, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00254 (D. Del., February 14, 2018), seeks to enjoin Defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating or closing the acquisition of Kindred Healthcare, Inc. by a consortium of TPG Capital, Welsh, Carson, Anderson & Stowe and Humana Inc., and rescinding it in the event defendants consummate the merger. The Plaintiff further seeks rescissory damages, costs of this action, including reasonable allowance for plaintiff's attorneys' and experts' fees and such other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Kindred Healthcare, Inc. will be acquired for $9.00 per share, or approximately $4.1 billion in cash. Carter claims that the merger consideration is not reflective of Kindred's intrinsic value and will short-change existing shareholders. Kindred is positioned for significant stock price appreciation, has ample liquidity, no near-term debt maturities, and is expected to generate around $175 million of core free cash flow in 2018, she adds. Kindred is a health care services company that operates home health, hospice and community care businesses, long-term acute care hospitals, inpatient rehabilitation facilities, and a contract rehabilitation services business. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Nadeem Faruqi, Esq. James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 Third Ave., 26th Fl. New Yor006B, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-9330 Email: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com jwilson@faruqilaw.com - and - Michael Van Gorder, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 20 Montchanin Road, Suite 145 Wilmington, DE 19807 Tel: (302) 482-3182 Email: mvangorder@faruqilaw.com KOBE STEEL: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Data Falsification -------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that Kobe Steel falsified data and failed to perform quality checks for steel, aluminum and copper used in Toyota automobiles for more than a decade, a federal class action claims. Here are the defendants: Kobe Steel Ltd.; Kobe Steel USA Inc.; Kobe Steel International (USA) Inc.; Kobe Aluminum Automotive Products LLC; Shinsho Corporation; Shinsho American Corporation; Toyota Motor Corporation; Toyota Motor Sales USA Inc.; Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America Inc. Counsel for Plaintiff: Jack Fitzgerald, Esq. Trevor M. Flynn, Esq. Melanie Persinger, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JACK FITZGERALD, PC Hillcrest Professional Building 3636 Fourth Avenue, Suite 202 San Diego, CA 92103 Phone: (619) 692-3840 Fax: (619) 362-9555 Email: jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com trevor@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com melanie@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com KOCH FOODS: Broiler Growers File Anti-trust Suit in N. Carolina --------------------------------------------------------------- Haff Poultry, Inc., Nancy Butler, Johnny Upchurch, Jonathan Walters, Myles B. Weaver, Melissa Weaver, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Koch Foods, Inc., Koch Meat Co, Inc., d/b/a Koch Poultry Co., Sanderson Farms, Inc., Sanderson Farms, Inc. (Food Division), Sanderson Farms, Inc. (Processing Division) and, Sanderson Farms, Inc. (Production Division), Defendants.], Case No. 18-cv-00066, (E.D. N.C., February 21, 2018), seeks treble damages under Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act and Section 202 of the Packers and Stockyards Act. Defendants are vertically-integrated poultry companies who operate broiler processing plants while Plaintiffs are broiler growers. Defendants are accused of fixing, maintaining, and/or stabilizing grower compensation below competitive levels and illegally agreed to share detailed data on grower compensation with one another with the purpose and effect of artificially depressing their compensation below competitive levels, thereby suppressing competition for broiler grow-out services. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Larry S. McDevitt, Esq. David M. Wilkerson, Esq. THE VAN WINKLE LAW FIRM 11 N. Market Street Asheville, NC 28801 Tel: (828) 258-2991 Fax: (828) 257-2767 Email: lmcdevitt@vwlawfirm.com dwilkerson@vwlawfirm.com - and - Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq. James J. Pizzirusso, Esq. Melinda R. Coolidge, Esq. Samantha S. Derksen, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 1700 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 Tel: (202) 540-7200 Fax: (202) 540-7201 Email: mhausfeld@hausfeld.com jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com mcoolidge@hausfeld.com sderksen@hausfeld.com - and - Gary I. Smith, Jr., Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 325 Chestnut St., Suite 325 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Tel: (215) 985-3270 Fax: (215) 985-3271 Email: gsmith@hausfeld.com - and - Eric L. Cramer, Esq. Patrick F. Madden, Esq. Christina Black, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: (215) 875-3000 Fax: (215) 875-4604 Email: ecramer@bm.net pmadden@bm.net cblack@bm.net - and - Daniel J. Walker, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 2001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 559-9745 Email: dwalker@bm.net - and - Vincent J. Esades, Esq. HEINS MILLS &OLSON, PLC 310 Clifton Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55403 Tele: (612) 338-4605 Fax: (612) 338-4692 Email: vesades@heinsmills.com - and - Warren T. Burns, Esq. BURNS CHAREST LLP 500 North Akard, Suite 2810 Dallas, TX 75201 Tel: (469) 904-4551 Email: wburns@burnscharest.com - and - Gregory Davis, Esq. DAVIS & TALIAFERRO, LLC 7031 Halcyon Park Drive Montgomery, AL 36117 Tel: (334) 832-9080 Fax: (334) 409-7001 Email: gldavis@knology.net - and - Charles D. Gabriel, Esq. CHALMERS, BURCH & ADAMS, LLC North Fulton Satellite Office 5755 North Point Parkway, Suite 251 Alpharetta, GA 30022 Tel: (678) 735-5903 Fax: (678) 735-5905 Email: cdgabriel@cpblawgroup.com - and - Harlan Hentges, Esq. HENTGES & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 102 Thatcher Street Edmond, OK 73034 Tel: (405) 340-6554 Fax: (405) 340-6562 - and - John C. Whitfield, Esq. Caroline Taylor, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP 19 North Main Street Madisonville, KY 42431 Tel: (270) 821-0656 Tel: john@wbmllp.com caroline@wbmllp.com - and - Gary E. Mason, Esq. Jennifer S. Goldstein, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP 5101 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Ste. 305 Washington, DC 20036 Tel: (202) 429-2290 Fax: (202) 429-2294 Email: gmason@wbmllp.com jgoldstein@wbmllp.com - and - J. Dudley Butler, Esq. BUTLER FARM & RANGE LAW GROUP, PLLC 499-A Breakwater Dr. Benton, MS 39039 Tel: (662) 673-0091 Fax: (662) 673-0091 Email: jdb@farmandranchlaw.com - and - Daniel M. Cohen, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 4725 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20016 Tel: (202) 789-3960 Fax: (202) 789-1813 Email: Danielc@cuneolaw.com - and - David S. Muraskin, Esq. PUBLIC JUSTICE, PC 1620 L St. NW, Suite 630 Washington, DC 20036 Tel: (202) 861-5245 Fax: (202) 232-7203 Email: dmuraskin@publicjustice.net - and - M. David Riggs, Esq. Donald M. Bingham, Esq. RIGGS ABNEY NEAL TURPEN ORBISON & LEWIS 502 W. Sixth St. Tulsa, OK 74119 Tel: (918) 699-8914 Fax: (918) 587-9708 Email: driggs@riggsabney.com don_bingham@riggsabney.com - and - Hollis Salzman, Esq. Kellie Lerner, Esq. ROBINS KAPLAN LLP 99 Park Avenue, Suite 3600 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 980-7400 Facsimile: (212) 980-7499 Email: HSalzman@RobinsKaplan.com KLerner@RobinsKaplan.com - and - Aaron Sheanin, Esq. ROBINS KAPLAN LLP 2440 W. El Camino Real, Suite 100 Mountain View, CA 94040 Telephone: (650) 784-4040 Facsimile: (650) 784-4041 Email: ASheanin@RobinsKaplan.com - and - M. Stephen Dampier, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF M. STEPHEN DAMPIER, P.C. 55 N. Section St. P.O. Box 161 Fairhope, AL 36532 Telephone: (251) 929-0900 Facsimile: (251) 929-0800 Email: dampier.steve@gmail.com LEMONADE INSURANCE: Faces "Thorne" Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lemonade Insurance Agency, LLC. The case is styled as Braulio Thorne, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Lemonade Insurance Agency, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02725 (S.D. N.Y., March 27, 2018). Lemonade Insurance Company is a licensed insurance carrier, offering homeowners and renters insurance powered by artificial intelligence and behavioral economics.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq. Cohen & Mizrahi LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (917) 299-6612 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal LOUISIANA: Prisoners File Suit Over Inhumane Jail Conditions ------------------------------------------------------------ Anthony Tellis and Bruce Charles, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated prisoners at David Wade Correctional Center, Plaintiffs, v. James M. Leblanc, Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Jerry Goodwin, Warden of David Wade Correctional Center, Col. Lonnie Nail, Doctor Gregory Seal, Assistant Warden Deborah Dauzat, Steve Hayden, Aerial Robinson, Johnie Adkins and the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00161, (M.D. La., February 20, 2018), seeks to declare that Defendants' policies and practices of automatically confining all death-sentenced prisoners in indefinite solitary confinement with no opportunity for review violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. The Plaintiffs further seek permanent injunctive relief and promulgation of a meaningful, individualized housing placement procedure for death- sentenced prisoners that is based on validated risk assessment instruments and each prisoner's individual circumstances. Tellis and Charles now suffer mental illness as a result of incarceration and bring this action under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Plaintiffs have been in solitary confinement on David Wade Correctional Center, subjected to indefinite isolation, devoid of mental stimulation, with only limited and sporadic human interaction, confined for twenty-two hours a day in a small cell, illuminated by artificial light 24 hours a day, interfering with normal sleep. Prisoners are allowed to go outside to exercise in a small enclosure for no more than two hours with thrice-weekly showers, occasional trips to the library and sporadic, exclusively non-contact, visits from clergy or family members. [BN] Plaintiffs are represented by: Jonathan C. Trunnell, Esq. Sarah H. Voigt, Esq. Melanie Bray, Esq. Ronald K. Lospennato, Esq. ADVOCACY CENTER 8325 Oak Street New Orleans, LA 70118 Tel: (504) 708-1460 Fax: (504) 507-1956 Email: jtrunnell@advocacyla.org - and - Katie M. Schwartzmann, Esq. RODERICK & SOLANGE MACARTHUR JUSTICE CENTER 4400 S. Carrollton Ave. New Orleans, LA 70119 Tel: (504) 620-2259 Fax: (504) 208-3133 Email: katie.schwartzmann@macarthurjustice.org MDL 2420: Indirect Purchasers Lose Class Certification Bid ---------------------------------------------------------- Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a federal judge refused on March 5 to certify a class of indirect purchasers in long-running litigation over the alleged price- fixing conspiracy of lithium ion batteries. The case is In Re: Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litigation, Case No.: 13-MD-2420 YGR (N.D. Calif.). MDL 2591: Settles Farmers' GMO Corn Suit for $1.5 Billion --------------------------------------------------------- Nick McCann, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that tens of thousands of farmers, grain facilities and ethanol plants reached a $1.5 billion settlement on March 12 with agriculture giant Syngenta over claims related to the company's genetically engineered corn. In recent years, the Swiss company has faced a number of state and federal lawsuits involving its genetically modified corn -- in particular, a product called MIR162, also known as Agrisure Viptera. Farmers in three 2014 class actions claimed that by releasing the variety before it was approved for export to China, Syngenta "destroyed the export of U.S. corn to China and caused depressed prices for all domestic corn." Other companies and farmers who do not even use genetically modified corn claim they were harmed by Syngenta's "widespread contamination of the U.S. corn and corn seed supply with MIR162, which will continue to foreclose the U.S. export market to China in future years and will continue to lead to lower corn prices per bushel in the U.S. market, as a result." Viptera was released in 2009, and was engineered to protect corn plants against insects like the corn borer and corn rootworm. A second-generation version called Agrisure Duracade was distributed in 2014. Syngenta has claimed that it was market forces, not China's failure to approve the corn, that led to the drop in corn prices. The plaintiffs in an Iowa class action claimed the release of Viptera led to an 85 percent drop in Chinese imports of U.S. corn. Syngenta and the various plaintiffs entered into a $1.5 billion settlement agreement that was formally filed on March 12 in Kansas federal court. The agreement still needs to be approved by a judge, but Syngenta has already agreed to create a fund to pay farmers and other agricultural workers who contracted to price corn or its byproducts after a certain date in 2013. The settlement also establishes subclasses of corn producers, grain handlers and ethanol producers. Attorneys representing the corn producers called the decision "an equitable result for all involved." "America's corn farmers and related businesses were hurt economically and this settlement will provide fair compensation for their damages," they said in a statement. A Syngenta spokesman reportedly said that the settlement agreement does not constitute an admission about the merits of the allegations. The case is IN RE SYNGENTA AG MIR162 CORN LITIGATION, Master File No. 2:14-MD-02591-JWL-JPO, MDL No. 2591 (D. Ks.). Co-Lead, Litigation Class and Liaison Counsel for Plaintiffs and Proposed Settlement Class Counsel and Subclass Counsel for the Non-Viptera/Duracade Purchaser Subclass (Subclass 1): Patrick J. Stueve, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816)714-7100 Facsimile: (816) 714-7101 Email: stueve@stuevesiegel.com Member of Plaintiffs' Settlement Negotiation Committee and Proposed Settlement Class Counsel and Subclass Counsel for the Non-Viptera/Duracade Purchaser Subclass (Subclass 1): Christopher A. Seeger, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP 55 Challenger Road Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660 Telephone: (212)584-0700 Email: cseeger@seegerweiss.com Minnesota Co-Lead Litigation Class Counsel, Member of Plaintiffs' Settlement Negotiation Committee and Proposed Settlement Class Counsel and Subclass Counsel for the Non-Viptera/Duracade Purchaser Subclass (Subclass 1) Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC 120 S. 6th St. Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 Facsimile: (612) 339-6622 Email: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com Co-Lead and Litigation Class Counsel: Don M. Downing, Esq. GRAY, RITTER & GRAHAM, P.C. 701 Market Street, Suite 800 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314)200-4737 Facsimile: (314) 241-4140 Email: ddowning@grgpc.com Scott A. Powell, Esq. HARE WYNN NEWELL & NEWTON 2025 3rd Ave. North, Suite 800 Birmingham, Alabama 35203 Telephone: (205)328-5330 Facsimile: (205) 324-2165 Email: scott@hwnn.com bvines@hwn.com William B. Chaney, Esq. GRAY REED & McGRAW, P.C. 1601 Elm Street, Suite 4600 Dallas, Texas 75201 Telephone: (214)954-4135 Facsimile: (214) 953-1332 Email: wchainey@grayreed.com Proposed Subclass Counsel for the Viptera/Duracade Purchaser Subclass (Subclass 2): Lynn R. Johnson, Esq. SHAMBERG JOHNSON AND BERGMAN 2600 Grand Blvd., Suite 500 Kansas City, MO 64108 Telephone: (816) 474-0004 Facsimile: (816) 474-0003 Email: ljohnson@sjblaw.com Proposed Subclass Counsel for the Grain Handling Facility Subclass (Subclass 3): Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq. WEXLER WALLACE LLP 55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3300 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (816)589-6270 Facsimile: (312) 346-2222 Email: kaw@wexlerwallace.com Proposed Subclass Counsel for the Ethanol Production Facility Subclass (Subclass 4): James E. Cecchi, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Rd. Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973)994-1700 Facsimile: (973) 994-1744 Email: JCecchi@carellabyrne.com MDL 2804: Hartford City Agrees to Join Opioid Crisis Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Pat Hughes, writing for News-Times, reports that members of the Hartford City Common Council agreed to join in a class action lawsuit against drug makers and distributors of opioids. At the recommendation of Council President Bill Hess, the council asked the City Attorney James Forcum take the necessary steps to include the city in the lawsuit that is being pursued by the Indianapolis law firm of Cohen & Malad, LLP. Cohen & Malad has been working on similar efforts with other government entities in the state of Indiana. According to Mr. Hess, if the suit is successful, the law firm would retain 30 percent of any award, leaving 70 percent to the other parties involved. Mr. Hess told the council that the city could utilize any monies resulting from the lawsuit to purchase Narcan or other supplies needed in the fight against the opioid drug abuse. There is no cost to the city for joining in on the class action lawsuit. The Indianapolis law firm has filed complaints on behalf of more than 13 local governments across Indiana against more than 20 pharmaceutical companies seeking compensation for the nation's opioid epidemic. [GN] MERCHANTS CREDIT: "Nicholson" Disputes Collection Letter -------------------------------------------------------- Keisha Nicholson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Merchants Credit Guide Co., and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00680 (E.D. Pa., February 15, 2018), seeks actual and statutory damages, costs and attorneys' fees, declaratory and injunctive relief under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA). Merchants Credit, a collection agency, sought to recover a debt incurred by Nicholson to Montgomery Ward via a collection letter. The letter lists Montgomery Ward as "Our Client" but nowhere does the letter clearly identify who the current creditor is as is required by the FDCPA, says the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Antranig Garibian, Esq. GARIBIAN LAW OFFICES 1800 JFK Blvd., Suite 300 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: (215) 326-9179 Email: ag@garibianlaw.com MINNESOTA: Averts Class Action Over Handling of Abandoned Money --------------------------------------------------------------- Bob Collins, writing for Minnesota Public Radio, reports that the Minnesota Supreme Court has put a stop to a lawsuit against Minnesota's system for handling money that is abandoned. In their lawsuit, four people allege the Department of Commerce doesn't do enough to unite people with their unclaimed money, and that the state doesn't pay interest on the money it keeps that is later returned to owners. Under the state's law, only the principal has to be returned once the money's owner is found. Timothy Hall, one of the people filing the class action suit, learned that under $100 a former employer was holding for him, was lost to the state after four years. Mary Wingfield failed to respond to a bank's request to contact it regarding the account, and the $138,000 was sent to the state, which eventually found Ms. Wingfield and returned the money, but not any interest. The amount of unclaimed money has increased in recent years -- $750 million in 2016, for example -- as banks have been more diligent in filing reports of money that's missing its owners. And more recent legislation changed the number of years that must elapse before money and accounts are declared "dormant" from 20 to three. Wages can be forfeited after just one year. Any abandoned property is required to be sold with the proceeds going to the state's general revenue fund. That violates due process under the Fifth Amendment, the suit claimed. The state said it doesn't "because it is the owner's inaction -- not State action -- that caused the holder to turn the unclaimed property over to the state." More than a year ago, the Minnesota Court of Appeals quashed the suit, ruling the state hadn't taken the money; the owners had abandoned it. Writing for the majority, Minnesota Supreme Court chief justice Lorie Gildea mostly upheld the Court of Appeals, and rejected the argument that Minnesota should pay interest on money it gets from abandoned accounts. "To require that the state pay interest to these owners of unclaimed property would reward their inattention and provide an inappropriate windfall," she said. But she said Ms. Wingfield is a different story because her money was in an interest-bearing account. "The right to earn interest was part of Wingfield's unclaimed property, and she therefore has the right to receive that interest from the State if she is to be made whole. In other words, Wingfield, unlike Hall, Undlin, and Herron, has suffered an actual loss of interest that she reasonably expected her principal to earn," Justice Gildea said. Ms. Wingfield's situation, however, opened the door for the court to examine whether Minnesota's plan for reuniting people with their abandoned money -- basically, the website missingmoney.com -- is robust enough. Judge Gildea closed the door quickly, saying the fact the state has a law that outlines what happens when money is abandoned is sufficient notice to people about what will happen if they don't tend to their money. "The process to claim the property through the site is simple; it requires that the owner fill out a form on the MissingMoney.com website and the State then contacts the owner to validate identity and return the property. The Commissioner also engages in other forms of public outreach including events at the Mall of America and State Fair, sends email alerts to lawmakers, and uses a database to find owners due unusually large sums. We conclude that the numerous types of notice provided by statute including publication, mailed notice by the holder, the ability to inspect public records, and the general notice provided by the statute itself, combine to provide sufficient notice to satisfy the requirements of due process." The court sent the case back to the District Court to pave the way for Ms. Wingfield to get her interest. [GN] MISSISSIPPI: Hopkins Files Suit v. State Secretary -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann. The case is styled as Dennis Hopkins, Herman Parker, Jr., Walter Wayne Kuhn, Jr., Byron Demond Coleman, Jon O'Neal and Earnest Willhite, individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann in his official capacity, Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00188-CWR-LRA (S.D. Miss., March 27, 2018). Delbert Hosemann Jr. is the incumbent Secretary of State of Mississippi, serving since 2008.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jody E. Owens, II, Esq. SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER - Jackson 111 East Capitol Street, Suite 280 Jackson, MS 39201 Tel: (601) 948-8882 Fax: (601) 948-8885 Email: jody.owens@splcenter.org MOKBAR II: "Kaewjino" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT, Spread-of-Hours Pay --------------------------------------------------------------- Tatpong Kaewjino, Jonatan Moreno and Devpaul Dharamraj, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Mokbar II, LLC, Mokbar LLC., Esther Choi, Jessica Park, Robert Koda and Jonathan Kavourakis, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-01558 (S.D. N.Y., February 21, 2018), seeks to recover, unpaid "spread-of-hours" and overtime wages, unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law. Defendants own, operate, and/or control a Korean restaurant located at 212 Flatbush Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11217 under the name "Mokbar" where Plaintiffs were employed by defendants as a cashier, server and cook. Plaintiffs worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate overtime compensation for the hours they worked. Defendants also failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of their hours worked. Plaintiffs also were not paid the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which they had to work over 10 hours per day. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Tel: (212) 317-1200 Email: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com NATIONAL DISTRIBUTION: Perez-Reyes Appeals Ruling to 9th Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Juan Manuel Perez-Reyes and Myra Perez-Reyes filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit titled Juan Perez- Reyes, et al. v. National Distribution Centers, LLC, et al., Case No. 5:17-cv-02434-JGB-SP, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Riverside. The nature of suit is stated as civil rights - jobs. The appellate case is captioned as Juan Perez-Reyes, et al. v. National Distribution Centers, LLC, et al., Case No. 18-55250, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Appellants Juan Manuel Perez-Reyes and Myra Perez-Reyes' opening brief is due on April 25, 2018; -- Appellees Does and National Distribution Centers, LLC's answering brief is due on May 25, 2018; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellant JUAN MANUEL PEREZ-REYES and MYRA PEREZ- REYES, as individuals and on behalf of all similarly situated employees, are represented by: Treana L. Allen, Esq. Kevin Mahoney, Esq. MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC 249 East Ocean Boulevard Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 590-5550 E-mail: tallen@mahoney-law.net kmahoney@mahoney-law.net Defendant-Appellee NATIONAL DISTRIBUTION CENTERS, LLC, is represented by: Joshua J. Cliffe, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 333 Bush Street, 34th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 433-1940 E-mail: Jcliffe@littler.com - and - Britney Torres, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 500 Capitol Mall, Suite 2000 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 830-7252 E-mail: btorres@littler.com NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Faces "Ratunil" Suit in N.D. Fla. ------------------------------------------------------ Jennifer D. Ratunil and Charles W. Griffiths, each individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00054 (N.D. Fla., February 20, 2018), seeks damages and injunctive relief for violation of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. Ratunil is stationed at the Offut Air Force Base in Nebraska while Griffiths is a retiree from the U.S. Army. Both took out real estate mortgage loans while they were in service and accuse Nationstar of charging interest in excess of 6%, the cap set by the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: D. Ross McCoy, Esq. HAND ARENDALL HARRISON SALE Post Office Drawer 1579 Panama City FL 72811 Tel: (850) 769-3434 Fax: (850) 769-6121 Email: rmccloy@hsmclaw.com lbenjamin@@hsmclaw.com bmatos@hsmclaw.com - and - Sean F. Rommel, Esq. James C. Wyly, Esq. WYLY ROMMEL PLLC 4004 Texas Blvd. Texarkana, TX 75503 Tel: (903) 334-8646 Fax: (903) 334-8645 Email: srommel@wylyrommel.com jwyly@ wylyrommel.com - and - M. Chad Trammel, Esq. TRAMMEL PIAZZALAW FIRM PLLC 418 North State Line Ave. Texarkana, AR Tel: (870) 779-1860 Fax: (870) 779-1861 - and - John S. Odom, Esq. JONES AND ODOM LLP 2124 Fairfield Ave. Shreveport, LA 71104 Tel: (318) 221-1600 Fax: (318) 425-1256 Email: john.odom@jodplaw.com NEW YORK: Class Action Against MTA Seeks Safety Reforms ------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Ottaway, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that recounting nearly a dozen cases of tragedy on New York City's subway tracks, one woman who had a close call brought a federal class action on March 21 demanding safety reforms. Lead plaintiff Mary West suffered only superficial injuries when her leg got caught last year between a uptown 1 train and the platform at the West 23rd Street station, but her 36-page complaint is brimming with disturbing photographs of other commuters who did not fare as well. One shows the harrowing image of an oncoming train barreling toward Ki Suk Han as the 58-year-old tried to climb off the tracks onto which he was pushed by a homeless person. Han's death "sparked public debate about subway safety, although this coverage did not spur Defendants to undertake the necessary safety measures," the complaint states, filed in Brooklyn by the Lee Litigation Group. Alleging three counts of negligence, strict products liability and breach of warranty, lead plaintiff Ms. West says guardrails are the only solution. There is even evidence that the Metropolitan Transportation Authority and the New York City Transit Authority have discussed handrails and gates internally, according to the complaint, but still little has been done beyond awareness campaigns. "They also have the financial means to construct them but simply choose not to," the complaint continues. Though the agencies declined to comment on pending litigation, they emphasized in a statement that safety is their "No. 1 priority." A line item in the MTA's 2018 budget projects a cost of $31.4 million to install a pilot platform screen door at a subway station in the East Village. The projected completion date is March 2020. In her complaint meanwhile, Ms. West notes that the city turned down an offer from a company called Crown Infrastructure to put up platform doors for free if it could keep all the advertising revenue from whatever appeared on the doors. "Defendant's public service announcements are no substitute for actual safety features," said the complaint. "Defendant's messages do not prevent injuries and death, yet defendant simply repeats its messaging with updated injury and death totals." While New York City's subway system dates back to 1904, versions of the safety barriers described in the complaint, known as Platform Screen Doors (PSD), exist in subway stations in many Asian and European cities including Tokyo, Beijing, Copenhagen, Paris, and Chennai, India. Lead plaintiff West notes that her injury occurred at the station right beside her apartment on West 23rd Street. While boarding a train in May 2017 on her way to a writing group meeting, West accidentally stepped into the gap between the train and the platform. Though she was helped to safety by other passengers, photographs included in the complaint show that Ms. West suffered bruising, cuts and swelling on the leg. Implying that even the subway safety matters for even the most seasoned riders, the complaint notes that Ms. West, who turns 66 this year, has been using the subway for "nearly her entire life." "A PSD system would be a much-needed addition to the subway platform safety, at the West 23rd Street station [where her accident occurred] and all the other 471 MTA stations," the complaint states. Ms. West's attorney C.K. Lee has not returned a phone call. NEW YORK PIZZA: "Hyskaj" Suit Seeks to Recoup Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Bujar Hyskaj, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. New York New York Pizza, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company and Mamudi Ferit, individually, and Arber Novaku, individually, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00397 (M.D. Fla., February 15, 2018), seeks to recover, unpaid overtime wages, unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Florida Minimum Wage Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and Florida common and statutory law. New York New York Pizza operates as "NY Pizzeria," a restaurant in the Tampa Bay area. Hyskaj worked the kitchen for NY Pizzeria from November 27, 2014 to October 23, 2017. He worked more than 40 hours a week but was paid only hourly wages with no overtime. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Spiro T. Komninos, Esq. KOMNINOS LAW FIRM, P.A. 4124 West Linebaugh Ave. Tampa, FL 33624 Tel: (813) 251-3444 Fax: (813) 251-3445 Email: spirolaw@hotmail.com Website: www.klawfirmtampa.com NEWBOLD SERVICES: "Guinn" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Jessica Guinn and Ashleigh Witt, Each Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Newbold Services, LLC and IH Services, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00133 (E.D. Ark., February 16, 2018), seeks to recover monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, as a result of Defendants' failure to pay overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. Defendants provide facility management, janitorial and cleaning services within the State of Arkansas where Guinn and Witt were employed as an assistant account manager and housekeeper. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Lydia Hicks Hamlet, Esq. Sanford Law Firm Post Office Box 39 Russellville, AR 72811 Tel: (479) 880-0088 Fax: (888) 787-2040 lydia@sanfordlawfirm.com NEWTON COUNY, GA: Class Action Mulled Over NABORS Landfill Fee -------------------------------------------------------------- Harrison Daily Times reports that Newton County property owners showed up at the Monday, March 5, quorum court meeting to ask why an $18 fee has been attached to their property taxes. They wanted to take down names of those responsible and called on the quorum court to take legal action on the grounds that the taxpayers didn't vote for what they feel is an illegal tax. The fee is being collected to pay back bond holders for the now closed NABORS landfill purchase. The fee is being collected in 2018 on 2017 real property taxes, barring a legal challenge of the court-ordered fee. The subject was raised by County Judge Warren Campbell at the February quorum court meeting when he explained to justices of the peace that the Ozark Mountain Solid Waste District voted in 2005 to buy the NABORS landfill issuing more than $12 million in bonds for the purchase. It's located in northern Baxter County near the Three Brothers community. Numerous problems arose and revenue at the landfill declined. The landfill was closed in 2012 and the solid waste district defaulted on bond payments, the first time a public entity had done so. Judge Campbell acknowledged that there are many questions about the fee. He said he would have someone more familiar with the matter come to the March quorum court meeting to help clarify the situation and answer questions quorum court members might have. David Ethredge, prosecuting attorney for the 14th Judicial Circuit, attended the March 5 quorum court meeting though he emphasized that he was not a party to the action. He said he had read the court's order and would try to answer questions from the JPs or those attending the meeting. In the way of background, the solid waste district filed for bankruptcy protection, but the court ruled the district wasn't eligible for bankruptcy because it could have been charging all citizens and businesses in the six-county area for the availability of trash service whether they used it or not. Newton County decided not to use the landfill years ago and instead transfers solid waste to a facility in another state. Bond holders sued the district and a receiver was appointed to collect money owed them. A court accepted the receiver's report and ordered that each residential unit and commercial business pay $18 a year on property taxes until bond holders are paid off, about 19 years, or until all claims surrounding the landfill are satisfied. The Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality has since taken over permanently closing the landfill, using the $2.4 million the solid waste district had in financial assurances. The cost of closing the landfill has been estimated to go as high as $20 million. Special legislation passed in 2014 allows ADEQ to use post- closure funds to close the landfill, but it also allows ADEQ to seek remuneration from solid waste district members after the landfill is permanently closed. So, ADEQ will also be paid back through the collection of those fees on real estate. Bond holders might be paid off in about 19 years, but ADEQ's collection will go on after that. The court order states that county tax collectors must collect the $18 fee before property taxes. So, if a tax payer refuses to pay the fee it will in essence mean that he/she will actually be $18 delinquent on tax payment. JPs said that property owners should not be assessed the fee, which they view as a tax, for something they didn't use. One remedy might be through a property owner class action lawsuit. The district would have to reimburse taxpayers if such a suit proved successful, but that debt would simply be stacked up atop all the other money owed by a district that generates little revenue. Even if such a suit were filed, the service fee would be collected anyway unless the court granted potential plaintiffs a temporary restraining order blocking the fee. [GN] OHIO: Workers File Class Action Over Payroll System Glitch ---------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that a class of Ohio government workers claims they were denied overtime pay for the last three years because of a "systemic and widespread failure" in Cuyahoga County's payroll system. Attorneys for Plaintiff: David J. Steiner, Esq. Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq. THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC 920 Rockefeller Building 614 W. Superior Avenue Cleveland, OH 44113 Phone: 216-696-5000 Facsimile: 216-696-7005 Email: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com david@lazzarolawfirm.com ONE MILE HOUSE: De Los Santos Sues Over Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------- Albino Galvez De Los Santos and Palemon Mejia Guzman, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. One Mile House Inc., Martin P. Whelan, Mark Whelan, Michael Winsch, Daniel C. Dwyer, Gerard Leary and Benjamin Heitner, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-01457 (S.D. N.Y., February 16, 2018), seeks to recover, unpaid "spread-of-hours" and overtime wages, unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law. Defendants own, operate, and/or control a bar located at 10 Delancey St, New York, NY 10002 under the name "One Mile House" where Plaintiffs were employed by defendants as a dishwasher, porter and cook. The complaint says Plaintiffs worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate overtime compensation for the hours they worked. Defendants also failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of their hours worked. Moreover, Plaintiffs weren't paid the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which they had to work over 10 hours per day. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Tel: (212) 317-1200 Email: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com OUR NEIGHBORHOOD: Faces "Toribio" Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Our Neighborhood Spanish Restaurant Corp. The case is styled as Felix Toribio, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Modesto Abreu and Our Neighborhood Spanish Restaurant Corp., Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01827 (E.D. N.Y., March 26, 2018). The Defendants are engaged in the restaurant business.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. OVERTON RUSSELL: Faces "Luci" Suit in N.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Overton, Russell, Doerr and Donovan, LLP. The case is styled as Patrick Luci, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Overton, Russell, Doerr and Donovan, LLP, Thomas R. McCormick, Brian S. Strohl and Linda L. Donovan, Defendants, Case No. 6:18- cv-00360-DNH-ATB (N.D. N.Y., March 23, 2018). Overton, Russell, Doerr & Donovan, LLP provides online payment services. The Company offers medical and commercial payment collection services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Pietrafesa, Esq. Law Office of Anthony J. Pietrafesa 721 University Building 120 East Washington Street Syracuse, NY 13202 Tel: (518) 218-0851 Fax: (518) 514-1241 Email: ajp@ajp1law.com - and - Daniel A. Schlanger, Esq. Schlanger Law Group LLP 9 East 40th Street, Suite 1300 New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 500-6114 Fax: (646) 612-7996 Email: dschlanger@consumerprotection.net PENNSYLVANIA HIGHER: Clancy Sues Over Bad Credit Report ------------------------------------------------------- Carol Clancy, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency (PHEAA), Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00753 (E.D. Pa., February 21, 2018), seeks monetary and punitive damages, restitution, prejudgment interest and any other relief resulting from breach of contract, unjust enrichment, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, negligent representation and violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. Clancy borrowed federal student loans to pay for her undergraduate education with FedLoan being her loan servicer. The complaint says Clancy has made timely payments since her loans were transferred to Defendant PHEAA each and every month as she has been on a direct deposit program, yet despite these timely payments, her loan has not been placed in good standing and her credit report reflects a much lower value than it should. PHEAA is tasked with funding student loans and grants and a primary servicer of federal student loans. [BN] Plaintiffs are represented by: Marc H. Edelson, Esq. Liberato P. Verderame, Esq. EDESON AND ASSOCIATES LLC 3 Terry Drive, Suite 205 Newtown, PA 18940 Tel: (215) 867-2399 Fax: (267) 685-0676 Email: mcdelson@edelson-law.com lverderame@edelson-law.com - and - Joshua H. Grabar, Esq. GRABAR LAW OFFICE 1735 Market Street, Suite 3750 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: (267) 507-6085 E-mail: jgrabar@grabarlaw.com - and - Paul J. Scarlato, Esq. Brian Penny, Esq. GOLDMAN SCARLATO & PENNY, RC. 8 Tower Bridge, Suite 1025 161 Washington Street Conshohocken, PA 19428 Tel: (484) 342-0700 Fax: (484) 580-8747 Email: scarlato@lawgsp.com penny@lawgsp.com PETER ROFE: Faces Sexual Harassment Class Action ------------------------------------------------ Courthouse News Service reported that a Dutch artist hoping to advance her career by undergoing voiceover training claims in a class action that Peter Rofe, a reputable voice coach, groped her "under the pretext that the sexual acts were part of a scene, even though it was not." Plaintiffs are represented by: Jordan K. Merson, Esq. MERSON LAW, PLLC 150 East 58th Street, 34th Floor New York, NY 10155 Telephone: (212) 603-9100 PETROLEO BRASILEIRO: June 4 Securities Settlement Hearing Set ------------------------------------------------------------- If You Previously Purchased or Otherwise Acquired Certain Petrobras Securities, You Could Get a Cash Payment from a Class Action Settlement The following statement is being issued by Pomerantz LLP regarding In re Petrobras Securities Litigation. Important Legal Notice from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York Two proposed settlements have been reached in a securities class action lawsuit brought by investors against Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. ("Petrobras") and certain of its affiliates, underwriters, external auditors, and current and former directors and officers. The Settlements include certain securities issued by Petrobras. Petrobras, the Underwriter Defendants, and PricewaterhouseCoopers Auditores Independentes ("PwC Brazil") deny any and all allegations of wrongdoing, and the District Court has not decided who is right. If you requested exclusion in response to the previously mailed notice of pendency of class action dated May 9, 2016, you are included in this Settlement, and you must request exclusion again if you do not want to be included in the Settlement Class. Am I included in the proposed Settlements? You are encouraged to visit the website www.PetrobrasSecuritiesLitigation.com to see if you are included in the Settlement Class. The Settlement Class includes all Persons who: (a) during the time Period between January 22, 2010 and July 28, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"), purchased or otherwise acquired Petrobras Securities, including debt securities issued by PifCo and/or PGF, on the New York Stock Exchange or pursuant to other Covered Transactions; and/or (b) purchased or otherwise acquired debt securities issued by Petrobras, PifCo, and/or PGF, in Covered Transactions, directly in, pursuant and/or traceable to a May 13, 2013 public offering registered in the United States and/or a March 10, 2014 public offering registered in the United States before Petrobras made generally available to its security holders an earnings statement covering a period of at least twelve months beginning after the effective date of the offerings (August 11, 2014 in the case of the May 13, 2013 public offering and May 15, 2015 in the case of the March 10, 2014 public offering). For purposes of the Settlements, "Covered Transaction" means any transaction that satisfies any of the following criteria: (i) any transaction in a Petrobras Security listed for trading on the New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE"); (ii) any transaction in a Petrobras Security that cleared or settled through the Depository Trust Company's book-entry system; or (iii) any transaction in a Petrobras Security to which the United States securities laws apply, including as applicable pursuant to the Supreme Court's decision in Morrison v. National Australia Bank, 561 U.S. 247 (2010). The full definition of the Settlement Class, as well as full lists of Petrobras Securities eligible to satisfy criteria (i), (ii), and (iii) are available at: www.PetrobrasSecuritiesLitigation.com. What do the Settlements provide? Petrobras, the Underwriter Defendants, and PwC Brazil have agreed to Settlements with a combined value of US$3 billion (US$3,000,000,000.00). The proposed settlement could provide for a cash payment depending upon: which securities you purchased or acquired; the number of eligible securities that you purchased or acquired; and when you purchased or acquired the eligible securities. How can I get a Payment? You must submit a Proof of Claim to receive payment postmarked or submitted by June 9, 2018. Visit the website and file a Proof of Claim online, or download one and file by mail. What are my other options? If you do not want to be legally bound by the Settlement, you must exclude yourself by submitting a written Request for Exclusion Form so that it is received no later than April 27, 2018. If you do not exclude yourself, you will release any claims you may have against Petrobras, the Underwriter Defendants, and PwC Brazil and certain other Released Parties. You may object to the Settlement by submitting a written objection so that it is received no later than May 11, 2018. You cannot both exclude yourself from, and object to, the Settlement. The longer Notice available on the website listed below explains how to exclude yourself or object. The court will hold a Settlement Hearing on June 4, 2018 to consider whether to finally approve the Settlement and a request for attorneys' fees of up to 9.5% of the total Settlement Amount, which is $285,000,000.00, and a compensatory award of up to $400,000 for the Class Representatives. You may appear at the Settlement Hearing, either by yourself or through an attorney hired by you, but you do not have to. For more information, including the relief, eligibility, and release of claims, call 1-855-907-3218 or visit www.PetrobrasSecuritiesLitigation.com [GN] PHILLIPS & COHEN: Bernal Disputes IRS Note on Collection Letter ----------------------------------------------------------------- Leticia Bernal, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Phillips & Cohen Associates, Ltd. and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00023, (W.D. Tex., February 14, 2018), seeks damages and declaratory and injunctive relief under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act. Bernal incurred a debt to Merrick Bank Corporation that defaulted and Phillips & Cohen was assigned to collect it. Plaintiff received a collection letter that falsely invoked an Internal Revenue Service regulation for the settlement amount that was intended to threaten Bernal into paying. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. RC LAW GROUP, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Tel: (201) 282-6500 Ext. 101 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@rclawgroup.com PHILLIPS & COHEN: Bernal Disputes IRS Note on Collection Letter ----------------------------------------------------------------- Leticia Bernal, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Phillips & Cohen Associates, Ltd. and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00023, (W.D. Tex., February 14, 2018), seeks damages and declaratory and injunctive relief under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act. Bernal incurred a debt to Merrick Bank Corporation that defaulted and Phillips & Cohen was assigned to collect it. Plaintiff received a collection letter that falsely invoked an Internal Revenue Service regulation for the settlement amount that was intended to threaten Bernal into paying. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. RC LAW GROUP, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Tel: (201) 282-6500 Ext. 101 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@rclawgroup.com PLEASANTON FITNESS: Lecomte Sues Over Illegally Debited Gym Fees ---------------------------------------------------------------- Brandi Lecomte, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Pleasanton Fitness LLC, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00977, (N.D. Cal., February 15, 2018), seeks damages, restitution, and all other relief resulting from unjust enrichment and violation of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, Electronic Communications Privacy Act, California's Unfair Competition Law and California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act. Lecomte was automatically debited $35 by Defendant for "Club Dues" despite not being a member of one of their gyms and never executed any membership agreement or authorization. Pleasanton did not obtain authorization to deduct funds from Plaintiff's account on a regular basis, says the complaint. Pleasanton Fitness LLC, is a provider of gym services and memberships to gym facilities. [BN] Plaintiffs are represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Thomas E. Wheeler, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St. Suite 780, Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Phone: (877) 206-4741 Fax: (866) 633-0228 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com twheeler@toddflaw.com PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Faces "Thorne" Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Principal Financial Services, Inc. The case is styled as Braulio Thorne, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Principal Financial Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02724 (S.D. N.Y., March 27, 2018). The Principal Financial Group is a global financial investment management leader headquartered in Des Moines, Iowa. Principal Financial Services, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Principal Financial Group Inc. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq. Cohen & Mizrahi LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (917) 299-6612 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal PROFESSIONAL PLACEMENT: Court Grants Final OK of "Safranski" Deal ----------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Green Bay Division, issued an Order and Judgment granting Parties' request for final approval of the Class Settlement Agreement in the case captioned KATHY L. SAFRANSKI, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PROFESSIONAL PLACEMENT SERVICES, LLC; a Wisconsin Limited Liability Company; and, JOHN AND JANE DOES NUMBERS 1 THROUGH 25, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00129-WCG (E.D. Wis.). Upon consideration of the Parties' request for final approval of the Class Settlement Agreement (Agreement) between Plaintiff and Defendant, the Court finds the Settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate and, accordingly, finally approves the Agreement submitted by the Parties, including the Release and payments by PPS. Upon the Effective Date, PPS will make the following payments: (a) PPS will create a class settlement fund of $9,000.00, which Class Counsel through the Settlement Administrator will distribute pro rata (up to $50.00) among those Class Members who did not exclude themselves and who returned a claim form (Claimants). Claimants will receive their share of the Class Recovery by check, which shall become void sixty (60) days from the date of issuance. Any checks that have not been cashed by the void date, along with any unclaimed funds remaining in the Class Recovery will be donated as a cy pres award to Legal Action of Wisconsin and earmarked for assisting Wisconsin residents with consumer issues. (b) PPS shall pay Plaintiff $2,000.00. (c) PPS shall pay Class Counsel $48,000.00 for their attorneys' fees and costs incurred in the based upon their requested hourly rates and expenses incurred. Class Counsel will not request additional fees or costs from PPS or the Class Members. A full-text copy of the District Court's February 22, 2018 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yanscaw4 from Leagle.com. Kathy L Safranski, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew T. Thomasson, Stern Thomasson LLP, Philip D. Stern, Stern Thomasson LLP & Heather B. Jones, Stern Thomasson LLP, 150 Morris Avenue 2nd Floor Springfield, NJ 07081. Professional Placement Services LLC, Defendant, represented by Christopher J. Smith, Sager & Colwin Law Office SC, 201 S Marr St Fond Du Lac, WI, 54935-4410. PROFESSIONAL RECOVERY: Cal. App. Affirms Dismissal of "Lee" ----------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Four, issued an Opinion affirming the judgment of the Trial Court granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment in the case captioned FREIDA LEE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. PROFESSIONAL RECOVERY SYSTEMS, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents, No. A142730 (Cal. App.). Plaintiff Freida Lee brought this action alleging defendants engaged in unfair debt collection practices by twice reporting the same debt, monies owed to the East Bay Municipal Utilities District (EBMUD), on her credit report and failing to note on the report that she disputed the debt. Shortly before trial, she moved to amend her complaint to add class action allegations and additional causes of action, and the trial court denied the motion. The trial court denied the motion for leave to amend the complaint, noting that the case had been pending for more than two years; trial had already been continued twice; discovery was closed and defendants' summary judgment motion had been scheduled; the amendment would change the entire complexion of this case by adding new causes of action and converting the matter to a class action; and the amendment would cause further delay, reopening of discovery, class certification proceedings, and a new round of challenges to the pleadings and dispositive motions. The court also found unconvincing plaintiff's explanation for the delay in seeking leave to amend. The court granted summary adjudication as to plaintiff's first cause of action for violation of the Debt Collection Practices Act on the ground it was pre-empted by federal law and ordered that cause of action dismissed. The court denied summary adjudication as to the second cause of action for violation of the Credit Reporting Agencies Act. At plaintiff's request, the complaint was then dismissed without prejudice. The Trial Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Denying Leave to Amend the Complaint Plaintiff contends the trial court abused its discretion in denying her leave to amend the complaint to add class action allegations and new causes of action. Plaintiff contends she only learned of the basis for the class allegations when defendants brought their motion for summary judgment, supported by the evidence that there were errors in the transfer of information when PRS's system was converted to KBR's system. The trial court could reasonably conclude plaintiff did not adequately explain why she was unable to learn the bases for her new allegations during the more than two years the action was pending. On this record, plaintiff has not shown a manifest or gross abuse of discretion in denying leave to amend her complaint. Section 1788.17 Is Pre-empted and Does Not Apply The trial court granted summary adjudication of the first cause of action, for violation of the Debt Collection Practices Act, on the ground it was pre-empted by federal law, specifically, the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) Plaintiff contends this was error. It appears plaintiff has not proven a claim under section 1788.17. Defendants presented evidence that they worked on collecting plaintiff's debt for a period of about six weeks beginning in July 2008, when the debt was referred to PRS; that they did not take any further steps to collect on the account after August 28, 2008; and that the debt was first reported to the credit agencies in October 2008. Plaintiff neither disputed nor objected to that evidence. Plaintiff neither alleges nor argues that defendants were engaged in debt collection activities or efforts at any time during the period in question. In opposition to defendants' motion plaintiff herself contended, the only pertinent facts of this case is that KBR obtained a bill assigned by EBMUD for collection, but so completely bungled its merger with the collector that originally held the debt that it managed to be credit reported by two entity names it uses to collect debts simultaneously. It also failed to note plaintiff's dispute of the entry on her credit, as is its obligation. Plaintiff did not and does not contend the erroneous credit reporting was in connection with the collection of any debt and there is no evidence that defendants were collecting or attempting to collect a consumer debt when furnishing the reports to the credit agencies. The judgment is affirmed. A full-text copy of Cal. App.'s February 22, 2018 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycwwsmeb from Leagle.com. PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Faces "Thorne" Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Prudential Financial, Inc. The case is styled as Braulio Thorne, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Prudential Financial, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02719 (S.D. N.Y., March 27, 2018). Prudential Financial, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides insurance, investment management, and other financial products and services in the United States and internationally. It operates through U.S. Individual Solutions, U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq. Cohen & Mizrahi LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (917) 299-6612 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal PURDUE PHARMA: Faces American Resources Suit in S.D. Alabama ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Purdue Pharma L.P. The case is styled as American Resources Insurance Company, Inc., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Purdue Pharma L.P., Purdue Pharma, Inc., The Purdue Frederick Company, Inc., Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Laboratories, Inc., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Actavis South Atlantic LLC, Cephalon, Inc., Johnson & Johnson, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc. other Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Endo Health Solutions, Inc., Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Qualitest Pharmaceuticals, Inc. other Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., Allergan PLC formerly known as: Actavis PLC, Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. other Actavis, Inc., Watson Laboratories, Inc., Actavis, LLC, Actavis Pharma, Inc. formerly known as: Watson Pharma, Inc., Mallinckrodt PLC, Mallinckrodt LLC, Mallinckrodt Brand Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., West-Ward Pharmaceuticals Corp., KVK-Tech, Inc., Rhodes Pharmaceuticals L.P., UCB, Inc., Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc., Alvogen Inc., Aurolife Pharma LLC, Specgx LLC, Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Tris Pharma, Inc., Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC, Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC, Impax Laboratories, Inc., Impax Generics, Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., McKesson Corporation, Cardinal Health, Inc. and Amerisourcebergen Drug Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00145 (S.D. Ala., March 27, 2018). The Defendants operate in the pharmaceuticals industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Anthony Busby, Esq. Daniell, Upton, Perry & Morris 30421 Highway 181 Daphne, AL 36526 Tel: (251) 625-0046 Fax: (251) 625-0464 Email: dab@dupm.com RENO, NV: Lemon Valley Flooding Class Action Can Proceed -------------------------------------------------------- KOLO reports that a Washoe District Court judge has approved allowing Lemmon Valley residents suing the city of Reno to get class action status. The plaintiffs say the city of Reno ignored a 2007 water study that showed any increase in water in the North Valleys would mean an increase in waste water and storm run-off. The study said water would end up in Silver Lake and Swan Lake. The suit charges the city continued to allow development in the area and pumped water from Silver Lake to Swan Lake. The suit charges the city wanted to protect businesses near Silver Lake at the expense of Lemmon Valley. Washoe District Court Judge Barry Breslow made the ruling. Eligible residents will be notified by mail. [GN] S & A RETAIL: Faces "Olsen" Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against S & A Retail, Inc. The case is styled as Thomas J. Olsen, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. S & A Retail, Inc. doing business as: Geox and S & A Distribution, Inc. doing business as: Geox, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02631 (S.D. N.Y., March 26, 2018). S&A Retail Inc. owns and operates footwear stores.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq. Lipsky Lowe LLP 630 Third Avenue New York, NY 10017-6705 Tel: (212) 392-4772 Fax: (212) 444-1030 Email: chris@lipskylowe.com SAGAL FILBERT: "Jackson" Disputes Validity of Collection Letter --------------------------------------------------------------- Crystal Jackson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Stuart L. Sagal and Sagal, Filbert, Quasney & Betten, P.A., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv- 00495, (D. Md., February 16, 2018), seeks statutory damages, reasonable attorney's fees and costs and such other and further relief for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Crystal and Tavon Jackson lived in a complex known as "Windsor Forest" which was managed by The Maryland Management Company. The whole apartment block was infested with mice and cockroaches and Maryland Management did not address the issue. Ms. Jackson gave 60 days advance notice, and then moved out. In 2014, well past the 3 year statute of limitations, Defendants sued Crystal Jackson for owed rent, late fees and court costs. However, said letter claimed that Ms. Jackson owed attorney's fees before any court had found them to be due, threatened suit if she did not pay all amounts demanded, threatened the debt would be automatically increased if suit was filed and that she would be forced to attend trial if suit were filed, notes the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Peter A. Holland, Esq. Emanwel J. Turnbull, Esq. THE HOLLAND LAW FIRM, P.C. P.O. Box 6268 Annapolis, MD 21401 Tel: (410) 280-6133 Fax: (410) 280-8650 Email: peter@hollandlawfirm.com eturnbull@hollandlawfirm.com - and - Scott C. Borison, Esq. LEGG LAW FIRM, LLP 38 S. Paca St. #116, Suite B Baltimore, MD 21201 Tel: (301) 620-1016 Fax: (301) 620-1018 Email: Borison@legglaw.com SAN REMOS GROUP: Does Not Properly Pay Wages, "Guzman" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cesar Gonzalez Guzman, Jonathan Hernandez, Michael Rodriguez, And Samuel Lopez Montalvo, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. San Remos Group One, LLC (d/b/a San Remo Cafe), Val City Lounge LLC (d/b/a San Remo Cafe), Benjamin Kotler, Valeriy Evdokimov, Edward M Bilowich and Ilias Sarras, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-01446, (S.D. N.Y., February 16, 2018), seeks unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law, "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. Defendants operate a restaurant located at 201 Lafayette Street, New York, NY 10012 under the name "San Remo Cafe" owned by Benjamin Kotler, Valeriy Evdokimov, Edward M Bilowich and Ilias Sarras, where Plaintiffs were employed as busboys, barbacks and bartender. They worked in excess of 40 hours per week, without receiving the applicable minimum wage or appropriate overtime compensation for the hours over 40 per week, say the Plaintiffs. They also accuse the Defendants of failing to maintain accurate recordkeeping of hours, failing to pay the applicable minimum wage, and failing to pay the required "spread-of-hours" pay for any day in which Plaintiffs had to work over 10 hours a day. Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Tel: (212) 317-1200 Email: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com SANTANDER BANK: Must Face Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Wichert, writing for Law360, reports that a New Jersey federal judge on March 6 rejected Santander Bank NA's bid to toss a putative collective and class action alleging it coerced branch operations managers into not reporting extra hours worked despite their being entitled to overtime pay, saying the lawsuit sufficiently pled a claim for class certification. U.S. District Judge Peter G. Sheridan denied a motion filed by the bank and two staff members to dismiss the lawsuit from onetime branch operations manager Crystal Sanchez, finding that the motion is premature. The case is SANCHEZ v. SANTANDER BANK, N.A. et al, Case No. 3:17- cv-05775. The case is assigned to Judge Peter G. Sheridan. The case was filed August 4, 2017. [GN] SONIC AUTOMOTIVE: Denial of Class Cert in "Bornstein" Affirmed -------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division Three, issued an Opinion affirming the Trial Court's Order denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in the case captioned AARON BORNSTEIN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SONIC AUTOMOTIVE, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents, No. G053839 (Cal. App.). Plaintiff Aaron Bornstein appeals from the trial court's order denying his motion to certify a class action. The complaint alleged that Bornstein was employed by, and Hall was a customer of, the dealership, and that at all relevant times herein, Sonic implemented, established, controlled, permitted and/or participated in the illegal tapping, recording or eavesdropping on telephone calls by and between the dealership, Sonics' California dealerships, their customers and employees. The complaint further alleged as part of their business in selling and leasing automobiles to California consumers, defendants have engaged in illegal and unlawful conduct including, without limitation, eavesdropping on, recording and/or wiretapping telephone calls and otherwise making unauthorized connections to telephone calls in violation of California Penal Code sections 631 and 632. The trial court, in a detailed and thorough written order, denied Bornstein's motion to certify a class action as to his claim on three separate and independent grounds. The court decided that Bornstein failed to meet his burden of showing the ascertainability of his proposed class, that common issues predominate over individual issues, and the superiority of class action treatment of his claim. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss this appeal on the ground this court lacked jurisdiction because the appeal was not taken from an appealable order. This court denied the motion, finding the death knell exception to the one final judgment" rule applied. Trial courts have discretion in granting or denying motions for class certification because they are well situated to evaluate the efficiencies and practicalities of permitting a class action. The Court will affirm an order denying class certification if any of the trial court's stated reasons is valid and sufficient to justify the order, and is supported by substantial evidence The Court must reverse an order denying class certification if the trial court used improper criteria or made erroneous legal assumptions, even if substantial evidence supported the order. Trial court's decision that rests on an error of law is an abuse of discretion. Here, the trial court concluded, in part: "The proposed class is not ascertainable. There is no reasonable method to identify class members. Any such effort would be unreasonable both in terms of time and expense. There is no evidence that any records still exist to permit the parties or court to determine 'without unreasonable expense or time' when incoming toll-free telephone calls were received during the relevant time period, whether those calls were monitored/recorded, and which putative class members engaged in those conversations." The only telephone conversations that could have been monitored/recorded were incoming calls through dealership toll- free lines provided by the Callbright system. Only those employees who engaged in 'Callbright' telephone conversations initiated through toll-free incoming calls could be class members. Defendants monitored those incoming toll-free calls by logging into the Callbright system and listening to them. Incoming calls through local area codes to the dealership could not be monitored or recorded. Plaintiff initially suggested that 'at least 6,950 employees' participated in incoming calls on toll-free lines. Defendants argued this estimate is grossly inaccurate as it represents the total number of employees who worked at Long Beach BMW or at other Sonic subsidiary dealerships in California. Exhibit 25 (the list of 6,900+ employees at all the Sonic dealerships in California for a plus-ten year period) supports Defendants' position on this point. In any event, Plaintiff seemed to concede this number is over-inclusive. The trial court also denied the motion for class certification on the separate and independent ground that individual issues would predominate over common issues in determining the element of consent an element that is critical to proving a violation of section 631. The court did not abuse its discretion in reaching this conclusion. The court correctly observed that while a companywide practice can support a finding of commonality for class certification, a companywide policy or practice, alone, does not guarantee class certification. The court also concluded, however, that the absence of a uniform companywide policy to inform did not, in the court's view, conclusively establish a uniform companywide policy not to inform. The court cited evidence that defendants did not have a uniform or companywide policy against informing employees that their calls might be monitored and/or recorded. The court also cited evidence that a number of Sonic employees/putative class members expressly or impliedly consented to the monitoring/recording. Bornstein does not dispute the evidence cited in the court's order. In his opening brief, Bornstein does not address the trial court's statement that he has failed to suggest how individualized issues might be managed fairly and efficiently in a class action context. Instead, he argues, without analysis, that Sonic's centralized practices 'make class certification appropriate, a class action would also serve to redress Sonic's alleged wrongdoing and the public policy which led to the enactment of Penal Code section 631, and the corporate policies and practices established by Sonic's headquarters are subject to common proof and it would not be efficient to require repetitious litigation. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Bornstein failed to show how his invasion of privacy claim based on a violation of section 631 would be best resolved through a class action. The order is affirmed. A full-text copy of the Cal. App.'s February 22, 2018 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9xgk4u8 from Leagle.com. Carroll, Kelly, Trotter, Franzen, McKenna & Peabody, Michael J. Trotter mjtrotter@cktfmlaw.com and David P. Pruett -- mjtrotter@cktfmlaw.com -- for Plaintiff and Appellant. Arent Fox, Victor P. Danhi, George N. Koumbis -- george.koumbis@arentfox.com -- and Bradley M. Tanner -- bradley.tanner@arentfox.com -- for Defendants and Respondents. SOUTH FLORIDA TILE: "Maradiaga" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pablo De Jesus Isaula Maradiaga, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), Plaintiff, vs. South Florida Tile Delivery & Installation, Corp, Yony Alonso, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-20673, (S.D. Fla., February 21, 2018), requests double damages and reasonable attorney fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act for all overtime wages still owing along with court costs, interest and any other relief. Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a delivery helper from on or about August 20, 2003 through on or about February 5, 2018. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: J.H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Tel: (305) 865-6766 Fax: (305) 865-7167 Email: zabogado@aol.com SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Settlement Obtains Preliminary Court Approval ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Mitchell, writing for Journal Tribune, reports that the class action lawsuit against Delta Air Lines, American Airlines and United Airlines (Big Three) with plaintiffs alleging illegal collusion to restrict capacity for the express purpose of fleecing consumers and boosting record-setting profits took an important turn earlier this year. A US Federal judge granted preliminary approval of Southwest Airlines' settlement with plaintiffs in return for paying $15 million and pledging to cooperate against the Big Three. This so-called "Icebreaker" settlement is reason for consumers to cheer. It could well pave the way for the class action plaintiffs to prove that the Big Three "colluded to limit capacity on their respective airlines in a conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, and/or stabilize prices for air passenger transportation services in the United States" in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The settlement could also provide unintended visibility to global coordination among airlines to conspire against the interests of consumers. The scope of Southwest's promised cooperation is broad, and therefore, likely to be extremely worrisome to the Big Three. Is it far-fetched that this class action lawsuit might prove to be just the tip of the iceberg of the Big Three colluding to increase record-setting profits by jointly working in coordination to stifle competition? Not at all! In fact, January marks the three-year anniversary of the Big Three's political campaign against Open Skies and the important consumer-friendly choice provided by Emirates Airline, Etihad Airways and Qatar Airways (Gulf Carriers). Even though it is blatantly obvious that this political campaign against Open Skies is nothing more than a coordinated, joint anti-competitive initiative masquerading under the guise of a policy debate, the Big Three claim that they are not motivated by enhancing their already historic profits. Rather, they portray themselves as champions of American workers motivated solely by an altruistic sense of national and moral responsibility to protect US jobs. The Big Three know well that an Achilles' heel of their fictitious "we are the champion of US jobs" narrative is the stubborn and indisputable fact that Gulf Carriers, not the Big Three, are loyal customers of US built wide-body aircraft and their orders are a vital engine for creating and supporting hundreds of thousands of US aerospace manufacturing jobs. So, feeling vulnerable that their jobs-concern faáade is cracking, the Big Three turned once again to their expert advisor Rob Britton to develop the most compelling rebuttal possible. Let's hope that Southwest's Icebreaker settlement and pledge of cooperation is as illuminating and helpful to the plaintiffs as its appropriately broad scope suggests. With the Big Three and Southwest controlling some 80 percent of the US domestic market, consumers are counting on it. Importantly, the unintended outcomes for the Big Three flowing from this settlement could include more clear visibility to consumer-harmful coordination among them and their partners in the US-Europe market. Along with their European antitrust immunized alliance and joint venture partners, the Big Three control over 80 percent of the seats in the US-Europe market. Immunization allows those market participants to engage in commercial activities that would otherwise be illegal. The Big Three and their European airline partners, along with their labor groups, have run a coordinated, scorched-earth campaign against the Gulf Carriers and Norwegian Air International in Washington and Brussels. This historically unprecedented dominance in the domestic US and transatlantic markets makes tacit and explicit coordination among market participants a super grave risk for consumers. To be fair, when granting antitrust immunity to these airline partners, regulators could not have possibly anticipated how a downstream force-multiplier effect from US airline industry consolidation could produce such massive airline economic, political and market power to be used to frustrate new airline entry and harm consumers. As evidenced by initiating a fourth year of the political campaign against Gulf Carrier new entry, the Big Three will not likely stop aggregating and coordinating their economic and political power in an effort to eliminate competition, maintain monopoly market positions and benefit from supra premium prices in thousands of US city-pair markets. As such, the Trump Administration needs to forcefully reject the embarrassing, un- American and thinly veiled neo-mercantilism embodied within the Big Three's political campaign. Finally, regulators and legislators on both sides of the Atlantic need to revisit the assumed public-interest efficacy of airline antitrust immunity. Brussels, in particular, needs to take heed of the many damaging consumer impacts of recent massive US airline industry consolidation before that preverbal egg is forever scrambled in Europe. Mr. Mitchell is the founder of the Business Travel Coalition and OpenSkies.travel. [GN] ST. LOUIS, MO: ArchCity Defenders to Challenge "Wanteds" System --------------------------------------------------------------- Jessica Karins, writing for The St. Louis American, reports that the first oral arguments in a case against St. Louis County's system of "wanteds" took place on February 28, and the constitutional challenge by ArchCity Defenders, co-counsel Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) will proceed to the next step. The system of "wanteds," also known as "wanteds for questioning," in St. Louis County allows police officers to enter information about an individual they want to question in relation to a crime into a database. This can be seen by all other county police officers, who can then arrest the wanted individual, hold them for 24 hours and question them -- without obtaining a warrant from a judge. ArchCity and the CCR, two legal advocacy organizations, are challenging the system as violating several principle of the U.S. Constitution, including the Fourth Amendment right to protection against unreasonable search and seizure, the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent under police questioning, and the Fourteenth Amendment's protection against being deprived of liberty without due process of law. The fundamental legal question is whether police officers can determine that a person should be held for questioning without seeking a warrant from the judicial branch. "Wanteds are used for serious state-level crimes and minor code violations alike, including traffic offenses," the CCR said on its website. "In some cases, wanteds seem to be issued merely because officers want to take custody of an individual for questioning. It is unclear how long a wanted may stay in the system -- potentially months or even years." The case, known as Furlow v. Belmar, names the St. Louis County Police Department and Police Chief Jon Belmar as defendants, along with several individual arresting officers. The defendants are Dwayne Furlow, Ralph Torres and Howard Liner, three people who were arrested and then released under the wanteds system. The attorneys with CCR and ArchCity hope to proceed with the case as a class-action lawsuit on behalf of everyone arrested because of a wanted. They are seeking actual and punitive damages. In court on February 28, both sides sought an immediate judgment in their favor. Blake Strode, the executive director of ArchCity Defenders and one of the attorneys in the case, said it was "undisputed" in the case that the plaintiffs were held and questioned without judicial oversight. Mr. Strode said that if the court would issue an immediate order that the wanteds system was unconstitutional, the plaintiffs' attorneys would be willing to set aside the question of whether there was probable cause to arrest their three clients. "The entire debate regarding probable cause, I think, is actually quite beside the point," Strode said. Mr. Strode argued that St. Louis County is abusing a Missouri law that allows suspects to be held for 24 hours before charges are filed. He argued that it is always unconstitutional to question a suspect in custody without at any point seeking a warrant. St. Louis County Counselor Michael Hughes said the CCR and ArchCity were misinterpreting the cases they cited as precedent and that the wanteds procedure was permissible as long as the officers had probable cause. "Everyone said, without exception, that they always had probable cause," Mr. Hughes said. "There's no underlying unconstitutional conduct by any of the named officers." In most jurisdictions, the norm is to obtain an arrest warrant before the arrest in most circumstances; exceptions might include arresting a suspect who is dangerous or fleeing a crime scene, or arrests that take place over a weekend or holiday when no judges are available. In St. Louis County, Mr. Strode argued, the wanteds have replaced that system as the default. "Police are allowed to arrest without a warrant as an exception to the warrant rule," Mr. Strode said. "What they're not allowed to do is have a system of warrantless arrests." One of the plaintiffs in the case, Ralph Torres, was arrested in his garage at his home, in front of his eight-year-old son. Several weeks had gone by since a wanted was issued for Torres' arrest. In all the cases being considered, the arresting officers did not know what crime the individual was suspected of committing, or why the officer who issued the wanted believed there was probable cause. "They were purely acting on the probable cause of other officers' determination, which is not permitted by the Fourth Amendment," Mr. Strode said. The plaintiffs' attorneys also argued that the case should be allowed to proceed as a class action lawsuit because everyone who has been arrested because a wanted was issued for them shared the same underlying legal grievance. Mr. Hughes said each case is simply too unique and too complex to make a determination about all suspects as a class. The judge in the case, John Ross, asked each side of the case to write a legal brief on the class action question within the next 30 days, at which point he will make a determination of how the case should proceed. [GN] STANDARD & POOR'S: SCDO Class Action in Australia Commences ----------------------------------------------------------- Australian Financial Review reports that a $250 million class action against Standard & Poor's ratings of risky financial products during the GFC was set to begin on March 8 in the Federal Court of Australia and could pave the way for a wave of more claims. This latest class action on behalf of local councils and other investors includes four claims and 13 separate products. It covers synthetic collaterised debt obligations (SCDO) products between 2005 and 2007 rated by S&P. It is unusual in that it is likely to be heard in court. Last year, the Federal Court granted leave to investors in the class action to pursue a "tort of deceit claim" against S&P over the way it rated investments, arguing S&P intentionally tweaked its ratings methodology to rate products more highly. If successful, the tort of deceit claim means that class actions can be pursued until 2023. "It's a significant case because it will determine what date noteholders could reasonably discover any deceit by Standard & Poor's in representing the rating of the product," said Squire Patton Boggs partner Amanda Banton, who is representing the investors. "If the date [of the deceit being uncovered] is as late as last year, it potentially opens the way for more class actions in relation to the losses of the financial products of including corporate CDOS and RMBS CDOs." Synthetic CDOs typically take exposure to the debt of about 100 companies -- or residential mortgage backed securities (RMBs) -- by purchasing insurance through the credit default swaps market. The premiums are then passed on to investors. But if a set number of companies default on their debt, the entire investment is declared worthless. Duty of care The global credit crisis and its aftermath led to many defaults of companies referenced by CDOs held by councils and other investors, with Australian councils and charity foundations losing hundreds of millions of dollars. In addition to Standard & Poor's, ANZ is also being sued. The action cites ANZ's responsibilities as an AFSL licence holder, its duty of care and duties under the Code of Banking Practice. Some of Squire Patton Boggs' previous actions were funded by IFM Bentham, but this one will be funded by Singaporean funder Litigation Capital Partners. Clifford Chance is representing S&P. Eight weeks has been set aside to hear the case. In 2016, S&P settled a multimillion-dollar class action brought by around 90 councils, churches and charities who invested in the products; delivering litigation funder IMF Bentham an almost $50 million profit boost. Class actions are increasing, though the vast majority settle out of court. The Australian Law Reform Commission is conducting a federal inquiry into litigation funding, spurred by the increased incidence of class actions. A discussion paper is due by the end of May. [GN] TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Defective Prius Windshields ----------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that Toyota Fourth Generation 2016-17 Priuses have defective windshields that crack under normal conditions, a class action claims in federal court. TRANS UNION: Judge Inks $8MM Settlement in Credit Reports Case -------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that a federal judge on March 11 signed off on the $8 million settlement of a lawsuit accusing credit-reporting agency Transunion of disseminating credit reports with serious errors that included, in the lead plaintiff's case, notes describing him as a terrorist with a criminal record. The case is AMIT PATEL, Plaintiff, v. TRANS UNION, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 14-cv-00522-LB (N.D. Calif.). TRANS1 INC: 4th Cir. Partly Reverses Dismissal of Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, issued an Opinion affirming in part and reversing in part the District Court's dismissal of the securities fraud class action filed by lead plaintiff Phillip J. Singer on behalf of Trans1 Inc. shareholders. These appeals arise from the dismissal of a securities fraud class action complaint in the Eastern District of North Carolina. Lead plaintiff Phillip J. Singer (Complaint), TranS1 and the Officers (Company) conjured up and carried out a scheme that enabled surgeons to utilize the System and secure fraudulent reimbursements from various health insurers and government-funded healthcare programs. The scheme resulted in federal False Claims Act proceedings against TranS1 in the District of Maryland and a fraud investigation conducted by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). On the theory that the Company had concealed the fraudulent reimbursement scheme from the market by way of false and misleading statements and omissions and that TranS1's stock price dropped precipitously when the scheme was finally revealed this class action was initiated pursuant to, inter alia, section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act. In dismissing the Complaint with prejudice, the district court concluded that, although the Complaint alleges the loss causation element of the section 10(b) claim, it does not sufficiently plead the material misrepresentation element or the scienter element of that claim. By his appeal (No. 15-2579), Singer seeks reinstatement of the Complaint, contesting the court's rulings on the misrepresentation and scienter elements. TranS1 and the Officers have cross-appealed (No. 16-1019), asserting that the court erred in rejecting their challenge to the loss causation element. In this securities fraud class action, the putative class includes those investors in TranS1 who purchased common stock in which the Complaint alleges that the Company's fraudulent reimbursement scheme was concealed from the market. Each of the Officers was, in one capacity or another, involved in the management of TranS1 during the relevant time frame. The Complaint explains that a healthcare provider submitting a reimbursement claim for a surgery is obliged to use Current Procedural Terminology codes (CPT codes) promulgated by the American Medical Association (AMA). The Fourth Circuit first considers Singer's appeal (No. 15-2579), which implicates the Officers Order and the Final Order. If the Fourth Circuit were to affirm the district court's rulings in those Orders, the Company's cross-appeal would be moot, as it merely provides an alternative reason for dismissal of the Complaint. The Complaint advances two separate claims. First, it alleges that TranS1 and the Officers violated section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act, as well as its companion regulatory provision in SEC Rule 10b-5. Second, the Complaint alleges separate violations of section 20(a) against the Officers. In his appeal, Singer challenges the district court's rulings in the Officers Order and the Final Order that the Complaint fails to allege the material misrepresentation and scienter elements of the section 10(b) claim. Under the Complaint, by choosing to inform the market that it was training surgeons on how to obtain reimbursements for the System in the wake of the AMA's Category III coding requirement, the Company was obliged to further disclose its fraudulent reimbursement scheme, its instructions to surgeons to unlawfully code the System under Category I. Otherwise, the Officers' statements about the Company's training efforts were utterly misleading. The same is true of the Officers' statements that the Category III code was causing only limited losses; by not disclosing the Company's fraudulent reimbursement scheme and improper use of Category I codes, the Officers misled the market about the actual source of TranS1's continuing revenues. As such, the Complaint alleges that the Company possessed and breached a duty to disclose the fraudulent reimbursement scheme. In concluding that those warnings failed to cure the corporation's non-disclosure of ongoing and serious pollution violations, the Meyer, Meyer, 761 F.3d at 251, court explained: "A generic warning of a risk will not suffice when undisclosed facts on the ground would substantially affect a reasonable investor's calculations of probability. One cannot, for example, disclose in a securities offering a business's peculiar risk of fire, the installation of a comprehensive sprinkler system to reduce fire danger, and omit the fact that the system has been found to be inoperable, without misleading investors." The Fourth Circuit agrees with the Second Circuit's cogent analysis. Despite the general warnings in TranS1's Form 10-Ks, the Officers' statements about the Company's reimbursement practices may be deemed materially misleading premised on the omission of the fraudulent reimbursement scheme. At bottom, the Complaint is sufficient to establish that, by choosing to speak about its reimbursement practices, the Company possessed a duty to disclose its alleged illegal conduct. The Company violated that duty and acted deceptively by way of false statements and statements that were misleading because they omitted the fraudulent reimbursement scheme. Furthermore, the facts of that scheme were material, in that a reasonable investor would have considered the scheme important in deciding whether to buy or sell TranS1 stock, and would have viewed the total mix of information made available to be significantly altered by the scheme's disclosure. The Fourth Circuit is therefore satisfied that the Complaint adequately alleges the material misrepresentation element of the section 10(b) claim. Turning to the issue of scienter, the Company argues that the Complaint also insufficiently pleads that element of the section 10(b) claim. In order to allege the scienter element, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant acted with 'a mental state embracing intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud. By alleging that the fraudulent reimbursement scheme was known to the Officers, clearly illegal, and fundamental to TranS1's financial success, the Complaint establishes that the Officers' failure to disclose the scheme presented a danger of misleading Singer and other investors a danger that was also known to the Officers, or so obvious that the Officers must have been aware of it. That is, the Complaint gives rise to a strong inference that TranS1 and the Officers intended to deceive the market, or at the very least acted recklessly, when they made false and misleading statements about the Company's reimbursement practices that omitted the fraudulent reimbursement scheme. In these circumstances, the Fourth Circuit is satisfied that the Complaint adequately pleads the scienter element of the section 10(b) claim against both TranS1 and the Officers. Consequently, in Singer's appeal, the Fourth Circuit vacates the district court's rulings in the Officers Order and the Final Order that the Complaint fails to allege the scienter element, along with the court's rulings in those same Orders that the Complaint is insufficient as to the material misrepresentation element of the section 10(b) claim. The appeals cases are PHILLIP J. SINGER, Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff- Appellant, and JOEL CAPLIN, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. KENNETH REALI; JOSEPH P. SLATTERY; RICHARD RANDALL; MICHAEL LUETKEMEYER; TRANS1, INC., Defendants-Appellees. PHILLIP J. SINGER, Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff- Appellee, and JOEL CAPLIN, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. KENNETH REALI; JOSEPH P. SLATTERY; RICHARD RANDALL; MICHAEL LUETKEMEYER; TRANS1, INC., Defendants-Appellants, Nos. 15-2579, 16-1019 (4th Cir.). A full-text copy of the Fourth Circuit's February 22, 2018 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8jkvnd5 from Leagle.com. ARGUED: Jeremy Alan Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- POMERANTZ LLP, New York, New York, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee. Stephen L. Ram -- sram@sycr.com -- Aaron C. Humes -- ahumes@sycr.com -STRADLING YOCCA CARLSON & RAUTH, P.C., Newport Beach, California, for Appellees/Cross-Appellants. ON BRIEF: Michele S. Carino -- mcarino@pomlaw.com -- POMERANTZ LLP, New York, New York, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee. John F. Cannon -- jcannon@sycr.com -STRADLING YOCCA CARLSON & RAUTH, P.C., Newport Beach, California; Jonathan D. Sasser - tsasser@carybankruptcy.com -- Thomas H. Segars -- tom.segars@elliswinters.com -- Kelly Margolis Daggerv - leslie.packer@elliswinters.com -- ELLIS & WINTERS LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees/Cross-Appellants. TRAVELERS INDEMNITY: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- The Los Angeles employment law lawyers at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP, on March 7 disclosed that they filed a class action complaint alleging that The Travelers Indemnity Company failed to provide their California employees with meal and rest periods as required by California law. The Travelers Indemnity Company class action lawsuit, Case No. BC695351, is currently pending in the Los Angeles County Superior Court for the State of California. According to the lawsuit filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, The Travelers Indemnity Company allegedly failed to provide their employees with meal and rest breaks because allegedly The Travelers Indemnity Company did not have a policy to provide their hourly employees thirty (30) minute uninterrupted meal breaks prior to their fifth (5th) hour of work. California labor laws require an employer to provide an employee required to perform work for more than five (5) hours during a shift with, a thirty (30) minute uninterrupted meal break prior to the end of the employee's fifth (5th) hour of work. Additionally, the complaint further alleges The Travelers Indemnity Company committed acts of unfair competition in violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Secs. 17200, et seq. (the "UCL"), by engaging in a company-wide policy and procedure which failed to accurately calculate and record all missed meal and rest periods by PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members. As a result of DEFENDANT's intentional disregard of the obligation to meet this burden, DEFENDANT allegedly failed to properly calculate and/or pay all required compensation for work performed by the members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS and violated the California Labor Code. If you would like to know more about the The Travelers Indemnity Company lawsuit, please contact Attorney Nicholas J. De Blouw today by calling (858) 952-0354. Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP is an employment law firm with offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside and Chicago that dedicates its practice to helping employees, investors and consumers fight back against unfair business practices, including violations of the California Labor Code and Fair Labor Standards Act. If you need help in collecting unpaid overtime wages, unpaid commissions, being wrongfully terminated from work, and other employment law claims, contact one of their attorneys today. [GN] UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Averts Antitrust Suit Over Surge-Pricing Model ----------------------------------------------------------------- Adam Klasfeld, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that dismissing an antitrust lawsuit challenging Uber's surge-pricing model, a New York federal judge said he had no choice but to enforce arbitration clauses that he called "legal and factual fictions." Uber has spent more than two years fighting an antitrust lawsuit by Connecticut resident Spencer Meyer, who sued the ride-share company and its then-CEO Travis Kalanick in late 2015. Mr. Meyer hobbled his lawsuit from the start by agreeing to Uber's terms of service, which included a clause agreeing to settle all disputes before an arbitration panel rather than a court of law. In August 2016, U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff found that such clauses illegally deprived consumers of their constitutional rights to a jury trial, but he was overruled in 2017 by the Second Circuit. Judge Rakoff reluctantly followed the Second Circuit's instructions on March 5. "One might have thought that such waivers were unenforceable on their face," he wrote in a 21-page opinion and order. "The right to trial by jury, in civil as well as criminal cases, is a central feature, not only of the federal Constitution, but also of the constitutions of virtually every state. The right reflects the deep-seated view of the American people that the community is the best judge of justice. But this, it appears, is not the view of the judiciary." An Uber spokesperson said the company was "pleased with the decision." But Judge Rakoff complained that the classical view of contracts as a "meeting of the minds" has become a "figment of the imagination, or nostalgia, at least so far as national retail markets are concerned." "Increasingly, consumers purchasing a product were forced, as a condition of their purchase, to agree to a form contract drafted by the seller, replete with one-sided legalistically worded provisions that the consumer had to accept if she wished to make the purchase," Judge Rakoff wrote. "Such one-sided, take-it-or-leave-it form contracts were utilized by sellers in even otherwise competitive markets, because sellers saw no material competitive advantage in eliminating or negotiating any of these terms. Most consumers, for their part, did not even bother to read these small-print forms -- not that most consumers would have been able to understand most of them if they had read them." Mr. Meyer's attorney Ankur Kapoor, with Constantine Cannon, declined to comment. UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Wins Motion to Stay Heller Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- The Lawyer's Daily reports that Uber developed computer software applications (apps) for GPS-enabled smartphones. The apps transformed the transportation business, most particularly the taxi and limousine business and the restaurant delivery business. The plaintiff Heller was a resident of Ontario. He entered into several contracts with Uber and, using the Uber apps, he delivered food from restaurants to consumers. He brought a proposed class action on behalf of Uber drivers and alleged that he and his fellow putative class members were employees of Uber and entitled to the benefits of Ontario's Employment Standards Act. Heller was seeking, among other things, a declaration that Uber had violated the Employment Standards Act. If the action was certified as a class action, he was seeking $400 million in damages for the class. The agreements between Heller and Uber included an agreement to arbitrate disputes. Heller took the position that since his proposed class action was about an alleged employment relationship, it could not be stayed because that issue was outside the jurisdiction of the arbitrator to decide. Uber took the position that, in accordance with the Competence-Competence Principle, it was for the arbitrator to decide whether he or she had jurisdiction, save for limited circumstances, none of which applied to the case at bar. Motion by the defendants, Uber Technologies et al (Uber), to stay the plaintiff Heller's action in favour of arbitration in the Netherlands. HELD: Motion allowed. The International Commercial Arbitration Act was the applicable statute. The issue of whether employment claims were arbitrable was an issue subject to the Competence- Competence Principle. It was a complex issue of mixed fact and law to be determined in the first instance by the arbitrator. It was not a simple matter of statutory interpretation to be resolved by the court. Furthermore, none of the exceptions to a stay and referral to arbitration applied. While there was an inequality of bargaining power, Uber did not take advantage of Heller and did not extract an improvident agreement by inserting an arbitration provision. The case is styled Heller v. Uber Technologies Inc., [2018] O.J. No. 502 [GN] UBER TECHNOLOGIES: "Vergara" Suit Brought Before 7th Cir. --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Maria Vergara, Sandeep Pal, Jennifer Reilly, Justin Bartolet, James Lathrop, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs/Appellee v. Uber Technologies, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, Kerry A. Sweeney, Defendant/Appellant, Case No. 18-1659, was brought before the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on March 26, 2018. Uber Technologies Inc. is a peer-to-peer ridesharing, food delivery, and transportation network company headquartered in San Francisco, California, with operations in 633 cities worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiffs/Appellees are represented by: Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 1828 L Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20036 Tel: 202-973-0900 The Appellant/Defendant is represented by: Kerry A. Sweeney, Esq. 1223 20th Street Santa Monica, CA 90404 Tel: 424-299-0832 - and - Adam J. Hunt, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER 250 w. 55th Street New York, NY 10019 ULTA BEAUTY: Brower Piven Files Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- The securities litigation law firm of Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, on March 7 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of purchasers of Ulta Beauty, Inc. (Nasdaq:ULTA) ("Ulta" or the "Company") securities during the period between March 30, 2016, and February 23, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors who wish to become proactively involved in the litigation have until May 1, 2018 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. If you wish to choose counsel to represent you and the class, you must apply to be appointed lead plaintiff and be selected by the Court. The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and participate in important decisions including whether to accept a settlement for the class in the action. The lead plaintiff will be selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from investment in Ulta securities during the Class Period. Members of the class will be represented by the lead plaintiff and counsel chosen by the lead plaintiff. No class has yet been certified in the above action. The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the defendants' failure to disclose during the Class Period that the Company was engaged in the widespread practice of repackaging returned cosmetics and re-shelving them alongside unblemished products to sell at full retail price. According to the complaint, following February 9, 2018 reports that a consumer class action lawsuit had been filed against Ulta alleging that the Company engaged in the widespread repacking of returned cosmetics and re-shelving them, and a February 23, 2018 report by CBS news of statements that Ulta store managers frequently pressured the Company's employees to clean and resell used products, the value of Ulta shares declined significantly. If you have suffered a loss in excess of $100,000 from investment in Ulta securities purchased on or after March 30, 2016 and held through the revelation of negative information during and/or at the end of the Class Period and would like to learn more about this lawsuit and your ability to participate as a lead plaintiff, without cost or obligation to you, please contact Brower Piven either by email at hoffman@browerpiven.com or by telephone at (410) 415-6616. Attorneys at Brower Piven have extensive experience in litigating securities and other class action cases and have been advocating for the rights of shareholders since the 1980s. If you choose to retain counsel, you may retain Brower Piven without financial obligation or cost to you, or you may retain other counsel of your choice. You need take no action at this time to be a member of the class. [GN] UNITED AIRLINES: Wins Case Over 'Lifetime' Benefits --------------------------------------------------- Jeff D. Gorman, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that United Airlines prevailed in a federal class action from a customer who claimed he was wrongfully denied his lifetime "Silver Wings" benefits. Howard Neft of Scottsdale, Arizona accused United of breach of contract in January 2016. He asked for a refund of his $225 membership fee. Neft said he purchased a lifetime membership in United's Silver Wings Plus senior discount program in 2000, but United stopped offering the program seven years later. On March 5, U.S. District Judge Robert Dow Jr. granted summary judgment to United. The airline started Silver Wings Plus in 1986 for travelers 55 and older. Members got discounts on hotels, car rentals and cruises through United's travel partners. They also received flight discounts and bonus miles from United, and reduced fares in certain zones of the United States. United worked with a company called Relationship Management Partners, which sent membership cards and brochures to the Silver Wings Plus members. United stopped working with RMP at the end of 2002 and stopped offering Silver Wings Plus memberships in 2007. Neff received 17,000 bonus miles through Silver Wings Plus. But Judge Dow noted that the membership fee could be refunded only within the first 90 days of enrollment. Another item in United's Terms and Conditions stated: "Silver Wings Plus and its partners reserve the right to substitute or withdraw any offers or to limit their availability at any time." Neff said that he "basically forgot about" the Silver Wings Plus program between 2007 and 2016. Dow wrote: "There were seven flights that plaintiff booked between January 1, 2007 and 2012 where a zoned fare was available, the zoned fare was cheaper than the fare that plaintiff paid, and the booking met zoned fare requirements. However, all of those flights were booked during the time when plaintiff had 'forgotten' about the program, and plaintiff concedes that he did not try to book a zoned fare for any of those flights." Neff argued that United breached its contract by failing to offer him access to the zoned fares, which airline continues to sell today. But Dow cited a flight Neff booked between Phoenix and Chicago as the only one he tried to purchase as a zoned fare. "Plaintiff presents no evidence that United did, in fact, offer zoned airfare between Phoenix and Chicago for the date he wished to travel, a date that he did not specifically recall," Dow wrote. "Such evidence would be essential to his claim that he was not allowed to access a zoned fare that United purported to make available to Silver Wings customers, given his concession that United has a right to withdraw and limit any offers and therefore does not have a contractual obligation to offer zoned airfare generally or on any particular routes." UNITED HEALTHCARE: Faces "Thorne" Suit n S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against United Healthcare Services, Inc. The case is styled as Braulio Thorne, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. United Healthcare Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02676 (S.D. N.Y., March 26, 2018). United HealthCare Services, Inc. provides health benefit programs for individuals and families, employers, military service members, retirees.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq. Cohen & Mizrahi LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (917) 299-6612 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal UNITED STATES: Faces Class Action Over Trump's 3rd Travel Ban ------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that President Donald Trump's third travel ban has ruined lives and kept citizens of Muslim- majority nations from visiting their loved ones in the United States, dozens claim in a class action filed on March 13. Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Shabnam Lotfi, Esq. Veronica Sustic, Esq. LOTFI LEGAL, LLC 22 East Mifflin Street, Suite 302 Madison, WI 53703 Telephone: (608) 259-6226 Facsimile: (208) 977-9974 Email: shabnam@lofilegal.com veronica@lotfilegal.com Mark D. Rosenbaum, Esq. Judy London, Esq. PUBLIC COUNSEL 610 South Ardmore Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90005 Telephone: (213) 385-2977 Facsimile: (213) 385-9089 Email: mrosenbaum@publiccounsel.org jlondon@publiccounsel.org Luis Cortes Romero, Esq. Alma David, Esq. IMMIGRANT ADVOCACY & LITIGATION CENTER, PLLC 19309 68th Avenue S., Suite R102 Kent, WA 98032 Telephone: (253) 872-4730 Facsimile: (253) 237-1591 Email: lcortes@ia-lc.com adavid@ia-lc.com UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO: Faces Pay Discrimination Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that professors say in a class action that the University of New Mexico pays women less than similarly situated men, in Bernalillo County Court. Attorney for Plaintiffs: David L. Plotsky, Esq. PLOTSKY & DOUGHERTY, P.C. 122 Girard Blvd. SE Albuquerque, NM 87106 Telephone: (505) 268-0095 Facsimile: (505) 266-9585 Email: plotsky@gmail.com VALLEY NATIONAL: Faces "Thorne" Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Valley National Bank. The case is styled as Braulio Thorne, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Valley National Bank, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02726 (S.D. N.Y., March 27, 2018). Valley National Bank is a banking institution.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq. Cohen & Mizrahi LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (917) 299-6612 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal WINES' TIL SOLD: AGs Wants Court to Reject Class Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------- Mark Iandolo, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich announced Feb. 26 that he is leading a bipartisan coalition of 19 state attorneys general in urging a federal district court in New Jersey to reject a proposed class action settlement in the WTSO.com (Wines 'Til Sold Out) case. The proposed settlement in the case involves victimized consumers receiving a coupon that comes with highly restrictive clauses while the attorneys earn $1.7 million. Mr. Brnovich filed a legal brief in the case, his ninth legal brief regarding class action settlements he deems unfair. "As attorney general, I am focused on making sure consumers are fairly compensated in class action lawsuits," Mr. Brnovich said in a statement. "Settlements focused on diverting money to special interests must be vigorously opposed. We will continue to file legal briefs opposing unfair class action settlements as long as lawyers continue to profit off of the backs of consumers." Joining Mr. Brnovich in the coalition are the attorneys general of Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Washington and Wyoming. [GN] WISCONSIN: Faces Class Action Over DNA Database Fee --------------------------------------------------- Journal Sentinel reports that a lawsuit that could cost taxpayers millions of dollars says the state forced more than 10,000 offenders to pay an unconstitutional fee to maintain a DNA database. State officials three years ago acknowledged collecting the $200 fee from certain offenders was unconstitutional but have not taken steps to reimburse them. The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Milwaukee, centers on a 2013 law that greatly expanded the collection of DNA from criminals. The new law required DNA to be collected from anyone convicted of a misdemeanor or felony, rather than just those who committed certain felonies. The law did not kick in at once. It required anyone convicted after Jan. 1, 2014, to pay the $200 fee, but the new types of offenders did not have to provide DNA samples unless they were convicted after April 1, 2015. The law was structured that way so the state would have money on hand to handle the increased number of DNA samples it needed to analyze. The lawsuit was brought by three people who committed misdemeanors before Jan. 1, 2014, and were convicted during the 15-month period that the DNA fee was being levied but samples were not being collected. Their attorneys, John Bradley and Ben Elson, are seeking to make the case a class-action lawsuit that would allow them to represent more than 10,000 others who were collectively ordered to pay more than $2 million. "As applied to the plaintiffs and class members, this was a classic ex post facto punishment in violation of Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution because the law increased the penalty for an offense after the offense has been committed," Messrs. Bradley and Elson wrote in their lawsuit. The lawsuit was brought against Attorney General Brad Schimel; former Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen, the architect of key parts of the law; two former heads of the state court system; and 14 current and former chief judges. The officials knew money was being taken illegally but did nothing to stop it, the lawsuit alleges. The lawsuit relies in part on a May 2015 unanimous state Court of Appeals decision that found the fee was unconstitutional when levied against someone like those bringing the new lawsuit -- criminals who were charged the fee but not required to give a DNA sample. In that case, Garett Elward was convicted in Ozaukee County of fourth-offense drunken driving after being arrested in July 2013. "The state received money for nothing," Chief Appeals Judge Richard Brown wrote for the court. "This served only to punish Elward without pursuing any type of regulatory goal. Therefore, the surcharge as applied to Elward was a fine, not a fee, and violated the Constitution's ex post facto clause." Even before the court issued its decision, Ozaukee County District Attorney Adam Gerol filed a brief acknowledging "the DNA surcharge violates the ex post facto clause when applied to defendants like Elward." More than three years after the state admitted it was unconstitutional to collect the fee from these types of offenders, "Schimel continues to keep the illegally obtained money instead of returning it to the people it was wrongfully taken from," according to the lawsuit. The lawsuit contends Mr. Gerol made the filing acknowledging the fee was unconstitutional in some instances in concert with Mr. Schimel's Department of Justice, but Mr. Schimel spokesman Johnny Koremenos denied that on March 7. Mr. Koremenos said DOJ attorneys had not yet fully reviewed the lawsuit and could not answer other questions. A week and a half after the law took effect, chief judges from around the state met with the director of state courts and acknowledged concerns over the law being applied retroactively. They noted that judges in Milwaukee and Chippewa counties weren't charging the fee for people who committed crimes before the law took effect but decided as a group that they would charge it based on the conviction date, not the offense date, according to the lawsuit. Bringing the lawsuit are Jacob Fish of West Allis, who was convicted of possessing drug paraphernalia; Tomick Copeland of Milwaukee, who was convicted of battery; and Taylor Claybrook of Racine, who was convicted of retail theft. Mr. Claybrook was later jailed for failing to pay the DNA fee and other fines. The lawsuit contends two of the 10 days he spent in jail were because he hadn't paid an unconstitutional fee. [GN] Courthouse News Service reported that attorneys for plaintiffs are: John H. Bradley, Esq. STRANG BRADLEY, LLC 33 E. Main St., Ste. 400 Madison, WI 53703 Tel: (608) 535-1550 Email: John@StrangBradley.com Ben H. Elson, Esq. G. Flint Taylor, Esq. People's Law Office 1180 N. Milwaukee Ave. Chicago IL 60642 Telephone: (773) 235-0070 Email: ben.elson79@gmail.com flint.taylor10@gmail.com WYNDHAM VACATION: "Pierce" Suit Brought Before 6th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Jesse Pierce and Michael Pierce, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs/Appellees Cross/Appellants v. WYNDHAM Vacation Resorts, Inc. and WYNDHAM Vacation Ownership, Inc., Defendants/Appellants Cross/Appellees, Case No. 18-5298 was brought before the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on March 26, 2018. Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc. operates a chain of resorts in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs/Appellees Cross/Appellants are represented by: Martin D. Holmes, Esq. Dickinson Wright 424 Church Street, Suite 1401 Nashville, TN 37219 Tel: 615-244-6538 615-244-6538 The Defendants/Appellants Cross/Appellees are represented by: Colby Shannon Morgan, Jr., Esq. Jackson Lewis 999 Shady Grove Road, Suite 110 Memphis, TN 38120 Tel: 901-462-2603 XCEL HEALTHCARE: "Norris" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Tihara Norris, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Xcel Healthcare Providers Inc., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00400, (N.D. Ohio, February 20, 2018), seeks unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act. Defendant is a home health care business where Norris was employed as a home health aide between July 2014 and October 2016. She claims to have worked more than 40 hours per week, but Defendant failed to pay them overtime compensation. [BN] Plaintiffs are represented by: Chastity L. Christy, Esq. Lori M. Griffin, Esq. Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq. THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC 920 Rockefeller Building 614 W. Superior Avenue Cleveland, OH 44113 Phone: (216) 696-5000 Facsimile: (216) 696-7005 Email: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com lori@lazzarolawfirm.com XENIA HOTELS: Faces "Knowles" Suit in Massachusetts --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Xenia Hotels & Resorts, Inc. The case is styled as Carlton Knowles, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Xenia Hotels & Resorts, Inc. doing business as: Hotel Commonwealth, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10559 (D. Mass., March 23, 2018). Xenia Hotels & Resorts is an Orlando, Florida-based publicly traded company. It owns 46 full service hotels in 19 states and the District of Columbia.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. YAHOO INC: Settles Securities Class Action for $80 Million ---------------------------------------------------------- Dena M. Castricone, Esq. -- dcastricone@murthalaw.com -- of Murtha Cullina, Esq., in an article for The National Law Review, wrote that Yahoo agreed to pay shareholders $80 million to settle a federal securities class action suit, as detailed in the parties' March 2, 2018 proposed settlement agreement filed with the court. In that suit, the shareholders claimed that Yahoo failed to disclose a number of data breaches affecting more than 3 billion users, which caused Yahoo's stock prices to fall. One of the named plaintiffs is not participating in the settlement. This was one of the first federal securities lawsuits arising out of a data breach. Several others have followed. If the court approves the settlement, it will be the first recovery in a shareholder lawsuit based on a data breach and certainly will encourage other such suits in the future. [GN] YOUTUBE: Judge Dismisses Class Action Over Adpocalypse Debacle -------------------------------------------------------------- Ben Hancock, writing for Law.com, reports that a federal judge on March 7 dismissed a proposed class action against YouTube over the so-called "Adpocalypse" debacle, ruling that its contract with content providers gave YouTube leeway to decide how advertisements are shown. The lawsuit was filed last October by the producers of the "Zombie Go Boom" YouTube channel, described by its creators as "a live-action zombie series that is essentially a combination of 'Mythbusters' and 'The Walking Dead.'" It sought to represent a class of other filmmakers who were financially impacted by YouTube's ad changes. Represented by attorneys at the Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman in Los Angeles, the "Zombie Go Boom" producers alleged that their ad revenue dropped dramatically -- from about $300 to $500 per day to $20 to $40 per day -- after YouTube altered its AdSense algorithm. Those changes were made after The Wall Street Journal reported in March of last year that YouTube, which is owned by Google, displayed ads on objectionable content such as videos supporting neo-Nazi causes and ISIS. But the plaintiffs alleged the changes didn't work, and instead pulled ads from content that did not breach YouTube guidelines while still displaying them next to other videos that did. U.S. District Judge Edward Chen of the Northern District of California, in an order granting YouTube's motion to dismiss the case with prejudice, agreed with the company that its standard agreement with content providers gives YouTube full discretion about whether to display ads next to posted videos at all. Chen also rejected arguments by the plaintiffs that those provisions in the contract should be declared invalid because they make the agreement "illusory" and breach the "implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing" under California law. "While the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing may be applied where contract terms are silent," Chen wrote, "its application to contradict an express term of a contract is narrowly circumscribed." The judge's order goes in-depth into case law touching on when the covenant can override a contract's terms. But he ultimately concludes that in YouTube's case, doing so is not warranted because video producers still gain benefits under other provisions. "Regardless of how YouTube exercised its discretionary power in determining whether to display advertisements under the partner program terms," Chen wrote, "the agreement . . . between Zombie and YouTube was supported by adequate independent consideration." "In particular, YouTube allowed Zombie to post videos on its forum free of charge in exchange for getting a license to its content," he added. Lawyers for the plaintiffs did not immediately answer emails seeking comment on Judge Chen's ruling on March 7. Google, which is represented by Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, also did not immediately respond to a request for comment. [GN] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Marion Alcestis A. Castillon, Jessenius Pulido, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche Maricon Castillon-Lopez, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2018. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. * * * End of Transmission * * *