/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/180404.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, April 4, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 68 Headlines ADIR INT'L: Valdovinos Sues for Illegal Termination AETNA HEALTH: Accused by Young Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site ALLERGAN INC: Rigged Eye-drop Prices, Says Louisiana Health ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Bid to Certify Class Denied without Prejudice AMAZON.COM DEDC: Renewed Class Certification Bid Denied as Moot AMERICAN HOME: "Mojer" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages APPLE INC: Ward Appeals Denial of Class Cert. Bid to 9th Cir. ARS NATIONAL: Faces "Rowand" Suit in District of New Jersey ASSOCIATED WHOLESALE: Piazza Seeks to Certify Class of Employees ATTENDING HOMECARE: Appeals Order in "Abdullayeva" to 2nd Cir. AUSTRALIA: Yarra's Edge Residents Mull Suit Over Tram Bridge AVIACODE INC: Parties Seek to Inform Medical Coders of Class Suit AVIOR AIRLINES: "Cavalieri" Suit Seeks to Certify Class BANK OF AMERICA: Bingham Sues Over OON Fees on ATM Withdrawals BANRO CORP: Faces EMA GARP Investors Suit Over Congo Operations BARNES & NOBLE: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in "Bernardino" Suit BATTERY WAVE: Padilla Files Suit Over Illegally Withheld Tips BAYCARE HEALTH: Figueroa Seeks to Certify Employees Class BLOOMBERG LP: Fails to Design Deaf-Accessible Site, Sullivan Says BLUE STAR: Court Certifies Agricultural Workers Class BRUNSWICK, GA: Faces Class Action Over Property Taxes BUCKS COUNTY, PA: Water Contamination Lawsuits Continue BUFFALO WILD: Borenkoff Appeals S.D.N.Y. Order to Second Circuit BUILDZOOM INC: Innovative Design Sues for Trademark infringement CABOT INVESTMENT: Court Certifies Class & 6 Subclasses CALLIDUS SOFTWARE: "Stein" Class Suit Challenges Merger With SAP CENTENE MANAGEMENT: Certification of Employees Class Sought CHEEVER DEV'T: Finishing Workers File Suit Over RICO Breach CHICAGO, IL: Proceedings and Discovery in "Campbell" Stayed CLARENCE DAVIDS: Notice of "Balderrama-Baca" Class Action Okayed COMMONWEALTH BANK: May Face Credit Card Insurance Class Action CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Accused by "Brown" of Violating FDCPA COOK COUNTY, IL: Class Certification Bid in "Shyne" Continued CRAFTMASTER PAINTING: Certification of Opt-Out Class Sought EASTAR JET: Faces KYW1.5MM Class Action Lawsuit FARMERS RESTAURANT: Stephens, et al. Seek Class Certification FAST ADVANCE: Fabricant Seeks Certification of Classes FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Rehman Seeks Certification of 2 Classes FLOWERS FOODS: Distributors Class Conditionally Certified FOOT LOCKER: May 8 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline FRANCESCA'S HOLDINGS: Conditional Certification Sought in "Magee" FYRE MEDIA: Founder Pleads Guilty to Fraud Amid Class Action GC SERVICES: "Ocampo" Suit Seeks to Certify Class GC SERVICES: Green Asks Court to Certify FDCPA Class GENESCO INC: "Chen" Class Suit Moved From Illinois to Indiana GILBERT ENTERPRISES: Walsh Seeks to Certify Exotic Dancers Class GLYNN COUNTY, GA: ACLU Sues Officials Over Cash Bail GOLD STANDARD: Certification of Laborers Class Sought HARVARD COLLECTION: Debt Collection Violates FDCPA, "Bond" Says HCA HEALTH: Sued by Clark for Not Paying Minimum Wage Under FLSA HIDAY & RICKE: "McCray" Disputes Vague Collection Letter HOME DEPOT: Court Terminates Bid to Certify Class in "Manopla" HOSPITALITY VENTURES: Certification of FLSA Collective Sought HRHH HOTEL/CASINO: "Mason" Sues Over Internet Tax in Resort Fee HSBC BANK: Royal Park Appeals Denial of Cert. Bid to 2nd Circuit HSBC BANK: BlackRock Appeals Denial of Bid to Certify Class HUNTER WARFIELD: Faces "Troutt" Suit in Tenn. for Violating FDCPA ILLINOIS: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in "Kolton" INTELLICHECK LLC: Cunha Seeks to Certify Background Check Class IOOF: In Whistle-blower Dispute with Maurice Blackburn JONATHAN SWEENEY: Class Certification Bid in "Bragg" Suit Denied KISWANI TRUCKING: Haggerty Asks Court to Join as Party-Plaintiffs KROGER CO: Court Denies as Moot Bid for Class Certification LANDAU UNIFORMS: Parker Seeks OT Pay for Off-the-Clock Work LORALI BUILDING: "Stein" Sues Over Substandard Living Conditions LOUISIANA: Sued Over Inadequate Medical Care at Angola Prison MDL 2804: Lowell, Billerica Join Opioid Crisis Class Action MECTA CO: Class Certification Denied in ECT Shock Treatment Suit MERCHANTS & PROFESSIONAL: "Patterson" Disputes Collection Letter MERCK & CO: Rigged Cholesterol Meds Price Claims Painters' Fund MESSERLI & KRAMER: Proceedings in "Kleczewski" Suit Stayed MIDLAND CREDIT: Hernandez Amended Class Certification Bid Denied MILWAUKEE, WI: Collins, et al. Seek to Certify Class & Subclass MIMEDX GROUP: "Gordon" Sues Over Share Price Drop MODERNIZE INC: Morris Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass MONARCH RECOVERY: Hartman Seeks to Certify Consumers Class MONAT: Faces Consumer Claims Over Hair Product Line NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Court Denies "Long" Class Certification Bid NEW MEXICO: Wage Theft Settlement Approved NEW POWER INC: "Calderon" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT, Wage Statements NEW YORK: NYCHA Fails to Address Mold Issues After Settlement NFL: Patriots Report Brain Injuries, Suit Claims NORTHSHORE UNIVERSITY: Barrett Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective ONTARIO: Suit Accuses Gov't of Leaving Foreign-Born Crown Wards OPTIMUM OUTCOMES: Class Cert. Proceedings in "Dunn" Suit Stayed PLY GEM: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Delaware PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: "O'Brien" Case Settlement Has Initial OK PURDUE PHARMA: Lynnfield Hopes to File Opioid Crisis Class Action REVOLUTION MOTORSPORTS: Billings Sues over Robocalls RIVMAR CORP: Delgado Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA & IMWL ROWDY FARMS: Faces "Smith" Suit in Western Dist. of Texas SCI DIRECT: Motion to Certify Class in "Romano" Underway SEVENTY SEVEN: Sudarsan Appeals Order and Judgment to 2nd Circuit SK BEAUTY: Underpays Cashiers, "Jeon" Suit Claims SKYLINE METRICS: Sued by Shainsky for Illegally Contacting Phone SOS INTERNATIONAL: Certification of Interpreters Class Sought SPRINT CORPORATION: "Rubio" Case Settlement Wins Final Approval STARJEM RESTAURANT: "Mera" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wage under FLSA STEINHOFF: Veldhuizen Discusses Possibility of Class Action STONEHOUSE REST: Refuses to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Sanchez Says SUNRISE FAMILY: "Mendez" Action to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages SURETEMPS LLC: Court Certifies Hoppers Employees Class TECH MAHINDRA: Kumar Seeks to Certify 2 Classes of Engineers TEXAS CES: Debord Seeks to Certify Class of Employees THE NOW: "Richards" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages, Reimbursements THOMAS DART: Class Certification Denied in "Polletta" Suit THOMAS DART: Class Certification Denied in "Hacker" Suit TIGER BRANDS: Richard Spoor Attorneys, Marler Clark Hit with Suit TIGER BRANDS: Richard Spoor to Launch Listeriosis Class Action TIGER BRANDS: CEO Comments on Possible Listeriosis Class Action TIGER BRANDS: Products Implicated in Listeriosis Still Being Sold TOKYO ELECTRIC: Class Actions Over Fukushima Disaster Ongoing TOWNE PROPERTIES: Court Certifies Equitable Remedy Class TRANSGLOBAL SERVICES: "Bradbury" Seeks to Recover OT Under FLSA U.S. CARGO: Court Certifies FLSA Class in Hall, et al. Suit UBER TECH: Vehicles not Wheelchair Accessible Claims "Smith" UBER TECHNOLOGIES: "Safe Rides Fee" Class Action Heads to Trial UBIQUITI NETWORKS: "Xiya" Sues Over Share Price Drop ULTA BEAUTY: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Class Action UNITED AIRLINES: Class Certification Bid in "Pumputyte" Denied UNITED COLLECTION: Class Action Settlement Has Initial Approval UNITED NORTHERN: Kline Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls UNIVERSAL TRANSPORTATION: Sprague Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS: Sued Over Embryo Freezer Malfunction VALLEY CREDIT: Asks Court to Deny Class Cert. in "Schweinhart" VOLKSWAGEN AG: Emissions Higher Than Allowable Australian Limits WAGEWORKS INC: Faces Class Action, May 8 Lead Plaintiff Deadline WAGEWORKS INC: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Class Action WALGREEN CO: Faces Lawsuit Over U.S. Generic Drug Pricing WESTERN EXPRESS: Elmy Seeks Certification of Collective Action WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION: Schechner, et al. Seek to Certify Class YELP INC: April 19 Hearing on "Sapan" Bid to Certify Class ZION HEALTH: Bid to Certify Nationwide & California Classes Nixed ********* ADIR INT'L: Valdovinos Sues for Illegal Termination --------------------------------------------------- Yuliana Valdovinos, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. Adir International, LLC, Alex Hernandez, , Eric Vital Rubio and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC695541, (Cal. Super., February 27, 2018), seeks to recover loss of earnings, including commissions and bonuses and back pay including any increased tax liability thereon, pension, insurance and other employment benefits, general damages, compensatory damages, restitution and disgorgement, punitive damages where applicable, litigation costs, attorney's fees, civil penalties, interest and any other relief resulting from discrimination, violations of the California Family Rights Act, California Labor Code and applicable orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission and California Business and Professions Code. Adir International operates as "Curacao," a chain of retail stores that sell electronics, home furnishings, entertainment products, fragrances and personal care products and gifts. Valdovinos worked as a sales associate at Curacao's store located at 5980 Pacific Blvd. Huntington Park, CA 90255. Valdovinos claims that her paystubs did not accurately reflect the number of hours they had worked during the pay period. On or around February 7, 2017, Plaintiff was terminated allegedly for complaints of understaffing, failure to get proper duty-free rest and meal breaks, compensation claims and accommodation for her medical condition. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Twila S. White, Esq. Matthew H. Tesfai, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF TWILA S. WHITE 6033 West Century Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90045 Telephone: (213) 381-8749 Facsimile: (213)381-8799 AETNA HEALTH: Accused by Young Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site --------------------------------------------------------------- LAWRENCE YOUNG AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. AETNA HEALTH INC. AND AETNA HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK, Case No. 1:18-cv-02068-PGG (S.D.N.Y., March 7, 2018), accuses the Defendants of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act by failing to design, construct, maintain and operate its Web site -- http://www.aetna.com/-- to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. Mr. Young is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who requires screen-reading software to read Web site content using his computer. Aetna Health Inc. is a domestic business corporation with offices and locations throughout New York State and New York County. Aetna Health Inc. owns and operates locations, subsidiary companies and the Web site, which provides a variety of insurance options and products nationwide, such as life insurance, dental insurance, medicare, claims processing and updates, etc. Aetna Health Insurance Company of New York, is a privately held company and subsidiary of Aetna Health Inc. with offices and locations throughout New York State and New York County. Aetna Health Insurance owns and operates locations and the Web site, which provides a variety of insurance options and products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradly G. Marks, Esq. THE MARKS LAW FIRM, PC 175 Varick St., 3rd Floor New York, NY 10014 Telephone: (646) 770-3775 Facsimile: (646) 867-2639 E-mail: brad@markslawpc.com - and - Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: nyjg@aol.com danalgottlieb@aol.com ALLERGAN INC: Rigged Eye-drop Prices, Says Louisiana Health ----------------------------------------------------------- Louisiana Health Service and Indemnity Company (d/b/a Blue Cross Blue Shield of Louisiana) and HMO Louisiana, Inc. on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Allergan, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00186 (M.D. La., February 26, 2018), seeks damages, injunctive relief, and all other relief available under Sherman Anti-trust Act. 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 has U.S. Administrative Headquarters in Parsippany, New Jersey, USA. Plaintiffs are health insurance corporations involved in the business of providing health benefits, third party administrative services and managing health care services for its insureds and members. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Dugan, II, Esq. Douglas R. Plymale, Esq. David S. Scalia, Esq. Bonnie A. Kendrick, Esq. THE DUGAN LAW FIRM, APLC 365 Canal Street, Suite 1000 New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 648-0180 Facsimile: (504) 648-0181 Email: jdugan@dugan-lawfirm.com dplymale@dugan-lawfirm.com dscalia@dugan-lawfirm.com bonnie@dugan-lawfirm.com - and - Charles A. O'Brien, Esq. HMO LOUISIANA, INC. (BLUECROSS BLUESHIELD OF LOUISIANA) 5525 Reitz Ave. P.O. Box 98029 Baton Rouge, LA 80809 Telephone: (225) 295-24454 Facsimile: (225) 297-2760 ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Bid to Certify Class Denied without Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled GORDON SIEVERT, Individually and on Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. ALLTRAN FINANCIAL, LP, the Defendant, Case No. 16-CV-1309 (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Magistrate Judge William E. Duffin entered an order on March 26, 2018: a. granting Defendant's unopposed motion for extension of time to submit settlement documents; and b. denying without prejudice pending amended motion to certify class and motion to compel discovery. The Court said, "This motion will be granted and settlement documents shall be submitted by April 6, 2018. In light of the parties' pending settlement, and with consideration to administrative requirements, the currently pending amended motion to certify class and the motion to compel discovery will be denied without prejudice. Plaintiff may re-file the motion to certify class with the settlement documents." A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=eVnYEuL7 AMAZON.COM DEDC: Renewed Class Certification Bid Denied as Moot --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled DOVOVAN HARGRETT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AMAZON.com DEDC LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 8:15-cv-02456-RAL-AAS (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Richard A. Lazzara entered an order on March 13, 2018: 1. staying all deadlines in this case to afford the parties an opportunity to paper their settlement and file a motion for preliminary approval of their settlement no later than April 30, 2018; and 2. denying as moot Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Class Certification and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=oLomiEN1 AMERICAN HOME: "Mojer" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------- Genaia Mojer, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. American Home Solutions, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00470 (M.D. Pa., February 27, 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 the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. Defendant is in the business of providing home care services where Mojer worked as an hourly employee at their Avoca PA location. She claims to have regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per work week without being paid overtime premium. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Winebrake, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC 715 Twining Road, Suite 211 Dresher, PA 19025 Phone: (215) 884-2491 Facsimile: (215) 884-2492 Email: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com APPLE INC: Ward Appeals Denial of Class Cert. Bid to 9th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Zack Ward and Thomas Buchar filed an appeal from a court ruling denying class certification in their lawsuit styled Zack Ward, et al. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 4:12-cv-05404-YGR, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 26, 2018, the Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. In the lawsuit, the Plaintiffs allege that "[b]y locking the iPhones and refusing to give consumers the software codes needed to unlock them, Apple and AT&T unlawfully prevented iPhone customers from exercising their legal right to switch carriers." Among other injuries, the Plaintiffs allege that iPhone consumers were unable to switch to a less expensive carrier and unable to use local carriers while traveling abroad, thus incurring "exorbitant roaming charges." The Plaintiffs seek to represent a class comprised of all persons, other than Apple and non-party AT&T Mobility ("ATTM") and their employees, who purchased an iPhone anywhere in the United States at any time from October 19, 2008, through April 8, 2012, and who purchased voice and data service for their iPhones from ATTM. The Plaintiffs allege that Apple conspired unlawfully to monopolize the aftermarket for iPhone voice and data service through a number of means that forced iPhone purchasers to use ATTM after the expiration of their initial service contracts without their knowledge or consent. The appellate case is captioned as ZACK WARD and THOMAS BUCHAR, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Petitioners v. APPLE INC., Defendant-Respondent, Case No. 18-80027, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Plaintiffs want the Ninth Circuit to determine whether: 1. the District Court manifestly err in concluding that Plaintiffs' methodologies for demonstrating impact and calculating damages on a class-wide basis did not satisfy the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3) because the methodologies were not "data-driven" and did not include a "functioning" damages model; and 2. the Order is a questionable class certification decision that is a "death knell" for Plaintiffs.[BN] Plaintiffs-Petitioners ZACK WARD and THOMAS BUCHAR, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Rachele R. Rickert, Esq. Brittany N. Dejong, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 750 B Street, Suite 2770 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 239-4599 Facsimile: (619) 234-4599 E-mail: rickert@whafh.com dejong@whafh.com - and - Mark C. Rikfin, Esq. Demet Basar, Esq. Michael Liskow, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 270 Madison Ave. New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 545-4600 Facsimile: (212) 545-4653 E-mail: rifkin@whafh.com basar@whafh.com liskow@whafh.com Defendant-Respondent APPLE INC. is represented by: Daniel M. Wall, Esq. Christopher S. Yates, Esq. Sadik Huseny, Esq. Aaron T. Chiu, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111-6538 Telephone: (415) 391-0600 E-mail: dan.wall@lw.com chris.yates@lw.com sadik.huseny@lw.com aaron.chiu@lw.com ARS NATIONAL: Faces "Rowand" Suit in District of New Jersey ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against ARS National Services Inc. The case is captioned as JESSICA ROWAND, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ARS NATIONAL SERVICES INC. and JOHN DOES 1-25, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-03353-RMB-AMD (D.N.J., March 9, 2018). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Renee Marie Bumb. ARS offers accounts receivable management services. It caters to financial services organizations; banks; and credit card companies. The company is based in Escondido, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph K. Jones, Esq. JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC 375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100 Fairfield, NJ 07004 Telephone: (973) 227 5900 Facsimile: (973) 244 0019 E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com ASSOCIATED WHOLESALE: Piazza Seeks to Certify Class of Employees ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled MICHAEL PIAZZA, JR, On behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the PLAINTIFFS, v. ASSOCIATED WHOLESALE GROCERS, INC., the DEFENDANT, Case No. 2:17-cv-10289- JTM-KWR (E.D. La.), the Plaintiff moves the Court for an order: 1. conditionally certifying a class of: "all individuals who were employed by AWG at any point from October 7, 2014 to the present, were compensated on an hourly wage basis, and had 30 minute lunch breaks automatically removed from their recorded work hours"; 2. directing Defendant to produce to Plaintiff, in electronic form, the full names, last known address, telephone numbers and e-mail addresses of all putative collective members within 15 days of the Court's granting of conditional certification; 3. authorizing Plaintiff to send notice along with a consent to opt-in form to the members of the putative collective via regular mail, and email; 4. authorizing Plaintiff to send notice to the members of the putative collective via text message as follows: "If you worked for AWG as a laborer at any time since October 7, 2014, you may be entitled to join a lawsuit claiming unpaid overtime pay. For additional information about the case, including how to join, please call the employees' attorney at 985-590-5026 or 985-898-6368"; 5. directing Defendant to post notice in Defendant's Pearl River Facility in a location easily visible to current employees. 6. setting an opt-in deadline 60 days after the date in which notice is mailed to members of the collective, and that any opt-ins who seek to join the action after that deadline must establish good cause for their delay; and 7. directing parties to file a joint motion to approve a third party administrator with the Court within 14 days of the order conditionally certifying the collective action. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=kXFhB2ax The Plaintiff is represented by: Chad A. Danenhower, Esq. DANENHOWER LAW FIRM, LLC 212 Park Place Covington, LA 70433 Telephone: (985) 590 5026 E-mail: chad.danenhower@danenhowerlaw.com - and - Dale E. Williams, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DALE E. WILLIAMS 212 Park Place Covington, LA 70433 Telephone: (985) 898 6368 E-mail: dale@daleslaw.com ATTENDING HOMECARE: Appeals Order in "Abdullayeva" to 2nd Cir. -------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Attending Homecare Services LLC filed an appeal from the District Court's memorandum and order entered on March 5, 2018, in the lawsuit titled Abdullayeva v. Attending Homecare Services LLC, Case No. 17-cv-5951, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn). The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit was filed on October 11, 2017. Attending Home Care is a New York home health care agency, serving elderly New Yorkers with home care needs. The appellate case is captioned as Abdullayeva v. Attending Homecare Services LLC, Case No. 18-651, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee Tatyana Abdullayeva, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, is represented by: Steven L. Wittels, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN L. WITTELS 18 Half Mile Road Armonk, NY 10504 Telephone: (914) 319-9945 E-mail: slw@wittelslaw.com Defendant-Appellant Attending Homecare Services LLC, DBA Attending Home Care, is represented by: Daniel Gomez-Sanchez, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 290 Broadhollow Road Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 247-4713 E-mail: daniel.gomezsanchez@jacksonlewis.com AUSTRALIA: Yarra's Edge Residents Mull Suit Over Tram Bridge ------------------------------------------------------------ Jemimah Clegg, writing for Domain, reports that a proposed tram bridge will prevent large boats and yachts from entering Docklands' Yarra's Edge marina, causing property prices in the ritzy locale to drop, residents say. The bridge is part of a state government draft proposal for the new Fishermans Bend precinct, and, if approved, will extend the tram line at Collins Street, connecting Docklands with the new suburb. A group of Yarra's Edge locals were planning to hold a rally on Tuesday, March 13, at which Footy Show host and local resident Sam Newman was expected to speak, to pressure the government to consider an alternative to the tram bridge. Resident Keith Sutherland said the group plans to bring a class action lawsuit against the government should the bridge plan go ahead. "Most of us, including myself, bought into the area with the ability to look down at the marina seeing all these large yachts and boats that come in," Mr Sutherland said. Many of the 2500 Yarra's Edge residents also owned yachts which they berthed in the marina, and Mr Sutherland said they were worried the tram bridge could cut their property values by up to $100,000. He said he understood there was a certain amount of risk when buying property for the view -- but that he did not expect it would be a factor at Yarra's Edge. "There's an open marina, a river and basically you buy there not expecting anything to be changed," he said. Fishermans Bend is expected to house 80,000 residents along with 80,000 jobs. The project is proposed to be built in stages, with the tram bridge slated to be completed by 2025. Also proposed is an underground rail connection and two off-road cycling paths. Mr Sutherland said instead of the tram bridge, he would like to see an immersed tube -- a tunnel which is pre-built in sections and then submerged in the river -- to take on the trams to Fishermans Bend. "The alternate we've come up with is an immersed tube which would run down trams 86 and tram 70 -- they are the least utilised trams," he said. "The current proposal is to use the Collins Street tram which is already at maximum capacity." Mr Sutherland said he has consulted experts about the possibility of an immersed tube, but they were unable to comment on it without planning specifications. "I'm not an engineer, I can't offer any technical support, and that's what I want the government to look at and offer their support to have a look at it." Up to 300 people were expected at the rally on Tuesday, March 13, and Mr Sutherland said most of the residents he had spoken to did not want the tram bridge. He said if it went ahead, it would be costly for the government. "If they have to spend $300 million to $500 million paying out a class action -- that's well and truly going to cover the cost of the immersed tube," he said. "This could be the largest class action in Victoria if it goes ahead -- but we're wanting sanity to prevail." Transport for Victoria considered a number of routes for the tram connection to Fishermans Bend, including a tunnel option, a government spokeswoman said. "The government is currently considering feedback provided on the draft Fishermans Bend Framework," the spokeswoman said. [GN] AVIACODE INC: Parties Seek to Inform Medical Coders of Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled BRIAN HAZEL, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. AVIACODE, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01065-BSJ (D. Utah), the parties jointly ask the Court to approve a Notice of Collective Action Lawsuit to certain Medical Coders that worked for Aviacode, Inc. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=AS0MAvJx The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric D. Barton, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP 4740 Grand Ave. Suite 300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 701 1100 E-mail: ebarton@wcllp.com - and - Jack McInnes, Esq. MCINNES LAW LLC 3500 West 75th Street, Suite 200 1600 Prairie Village, KS 66208 Telephone: (913) 220 2488 Facsimile: (913) 273 1671 E-mail: jack@mcinnes-law.com - and - Patrick G. Reavey, Esq. Kevin C. Koc, Esq. REAVEY LAW Gennessee St Ste 303 Kansas City, MO 2018 Telephone: (816) 474 6300 Facsimile: (816) 474 6302 E-mail: preavey@reaveylaw.com kkoc@reaveylaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Andrew W. Bagley, Esq. CROWELL & MORING LLP 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 624 2672 Facsimile: (202) 628 5116 E-mail: abagley@crowell.com - and - Cheylynn Hayman, Esq. Austin J. Riter, Esq. NW PARR BROWN GEE & LOVELESS, P.C. 101 South 200 East, Suite 700 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Telephone: (801) 532 7840 Facsimile: (801) 532 7750 E-mail: chayman@parrbrown.com AVIOR AIRLINES: "Cavalieri" Suit Seeks to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled ROBERTO HUNG CAVALIERI, individually, and SERGIO ENRIQUE ISEA, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. AVIOR AIRLINES C.A., a Venezuelan company, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-22010-FAM (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for class certification of: "all persons that the Airline charged an Exit Fee, from five years prior to the filing of the Complaint through the date of class certification". Excluded from the Class are 1) the Airline, the Airline's agents, subsidiaries, parents, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which the Airline or its parents have a controlling interest and their current and former employees, officers, and directors, 2) the Judge or Magistrate Judge to whom this case is assigned and the Judge or Magistrate Judge's immediate family, 3) persons who execute and file a timely request for exclusion, 4) the legal representatives, successors, or assigns of any such excluded person; and 5) Plaintiff's counsel and the Airline's counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ZtcDy1Wu The Plaintiff is represented by: G. Crabtree, Esq. George R. Baise Jr., Esq. Brian C. Tackenberg, Esq. CRABTREE & AUSLANDER 240 Crandon Boulevard, Suite 101 Key Biscayne, FL 33149 Telephone: (305) 361 3770 Facsimile: (305) 437 8118 E-mail: jcrabtree@crabtreelaw.com gbaise@crabtreelaw.com btackenberg@crabtreelaw.com floridaservice@crabtreelaw.com - and - Jose L. Baloyra, Esq. BALOYRA LAW 201 Alhambra Cir., Ste. 601 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 442 4142 Facsimile: (305) 442 4377 E-mail: jbaloyra@baloyralaw.com rcruz@baloyralaw.com - and - Milton Fuentes, Esq. M. FUENTES & CO. 201 Alhambra Circle, Suite 601 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 447 1960 Facsimile: (786) 288 3808 E-mail: mf@mfuenteslaw.com sc@mfuenteslaw.com - and - Brian M. Torres, Esq. BRIAN M. TORRES, P.A. One S.E. Third Ave., Ste. 3000 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 901 5858 ext. 101 Facsimile: (305) 901 5874 E-mail: btorres@briantorres.legal mrodriguez@briantorres.legal e-service@briantorres.legal - and - John Cody German, Esq. COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A. Cole, Scott, & Kissane Building 9150 South Dadeland Blvd., Ste. 1400 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (786) 268 6415 Facsimile: (305) 373 2294 E-mail: cody.german@csklegal.com yvonne.orosa@csklegal.com Attorneys for Avior Airlines, C.A.: Pedro Alejandro Gonzalez, Esq. James Kellner, Esq. SANCHEZ-MEDINA, GONZALEZ, QUESADA, LAGE, GOMEZ& MACHADO LLP 201 Alhambra Circle, Suite 1205 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 377 1000 Facsimile: (855) 327 0391 E-mail: PGonzalez@SMGQLAW.com JKellner@SMGQLAW.com CPrieto@SMGQLAW.com BANK OF AMERICA: Bingham Sues Over OON Fees on ATM Withdrawals -------------------------------------------------------------- JOSH BINGHAM, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Case No. 2:18-cv-00498-JAM-AC (E.D. Cal., March 7, 2018), is brought on behalf of BANA consumers arising from its alleged unfair and unconscionable assessment of two out-of-network ATM fees on out-of-network ATM withdrawals in which an accountholder performs a balance inquiry. BANA is a national bank with its headquarters and principal place of business located in Charlotte, North Carolina. Among other things, BANA is engaged in the business of providing retail banking services to consumers, including the Plaintiff and members of the putative classes, which includes the issuance of debit cards for use by its customers in conjunction with their checking accounts. BANA operates banking centers and, thus, conducts business, throughout the state of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. KALIEL PLLC 1875 Connecticut Ave., NW, 10th Floor Washington, DC 20009 Telephone: (202) 350-4783 E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com BANRO CORP: Faces EMA GARP Investors Suit Over Congo Operations --------------------------------------------------------------- EMA GARP FUND, L.P. and LAWRENCE LEPARD, Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated v. BANRO CORPORATION and JOHN CLARKE, Case No. 1:18-cv-01986 (S.D.N.Y., March 5, 2018), arises out of the Defendants' alleged deliberate and unlawful conduct to promote and mislead investors and the public to believe that Banro's operations in the Democratic Republic of the Congo were stable and free from interference. The Defendants touted and assured investors that Banro had obtained operational stability in the DRC by forming close and sustainable relationships with the local communities, the Plaintiffs contend. Indeed, the Defendants represented that Banro's operations in the Eastern DRC were free of the instability that had plagued the region for some time -- all for the purpose of deceiving investors and artificially inflating Banro's stock price, the Plaintiffs allege. Unbeknownst to Plaintiffs and Class Members, a violent and ongoing conflict between Banro -- one of the world's leading gold mining companies with 100% ownership rights to over $19 Billion in gold reserves in the DRC -- and a local population of disenfranchised inhabitants has persisted for years, according to the complaint. The violence has caused significant disruption to Banro's operations in the DRC, which ultimately rendered the Company insolvent by late 2017. EMA GARP Fund, L.P., is a limited partnership organized and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware. Lawrence Lepard, is an individual residing in Norfolk County, Massachusetts. Banro Corporation is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Canada with a principal place of business located in Toronto, Canada. John Clarke, a resident of Cardiff, United Kingdom, is the Chief Executive Officer of Banro. Banro is a Canadian mining company operating exclusively in the DRC, with a focus on the exploration, development and production of gold. The DRC is reported to have the 10th highest gold reserves in the world.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kurt T. Kalberer II, Esq. KALBERER LLP 7 World Trade Center 250 Greenwich Street, 46th Floor New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 266-0044 E-mail: kkalberer@kalbererlaw.com BARNES & NOBLE: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in "Bernardino" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Melina Bernardino filed an appeal from a District Court judgment dated February 1, 2018, in the lawsuit titled Bernardino v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., Case No. 17-cv-4570, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit was filed on June 16, 2017, seeking to recover money damages, statutory money damages, injunctive relief and declaratory relief on behalf of similarly situated customers, who purchased DVDs or other video media from Defendant's online store. Barnes & Noble operates an Internet bookstore, offering books, eBooks, magazines, toys and games, music, and DVDs. According to the complaint, the federal Video Privacy Protection Act and its New York state counterpart (the Video Consumer Privacy Act or "NY VCPA") both prohibit the disclosure of personally-identifiable video purchase records to third parties without the express written consent of the customer in a separate stand-alone consent form. In violation of these statutes, the Defendant does not obtain any consent, let alone the required express consent, prior to disclosing video purchase records to Facebook. The appellate case is captioned as Bernardino v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., Case No. 18-607, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant Melina Bernardino, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated persons, is represented by: David A. Straite, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 850 3rd Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 687-1980 E-mail: dstraite@kaplanfox.com Defendant-Appellee Barnes & Noble, Inc., is represented by: Sandra C. Goldstein, Esq. CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP Worldwide Plaza 825 8th Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 474-1000 E-mail: sgoldstein@cravath.com BATTERY WAVE: Padilla Files Suit Over Illegally Withheld Tips ------------------------------------------------------------- Edwin Padilla and Luis Turcio, on behalf of themselves and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs, v. Battery Wave, LLC and Thomas Makkos, Case No. 18-cv-01738, (S.D. N.Y., February 26, 2018), seeks unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages, illegally retained tips, liquidated damages, unpaid spread of hours premium, statutory penalties and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants owned and operated a restaurant, "Battery Gardens" located at 1 Battery Place, New York, New York 10004 where Padilla and Turcio worked as bussers, waiters and food runners. Both claims to have worked six days a week f from 10:00 a.m. to 11 p.m. but were only paid for 20-30 hours a week. Defendants also maintained a tip pool but did not maintain accurate records of their tip credits. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, Second Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 465-1188 Fax: (212) 465-1181 BAYCARE HEALTH: Figueroa Seeks to Certify Employees Class --------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled ELAYNE FIGUEROA, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BAYCARE HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv- 01780-JSM-JSS (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff moves the Court for and order: 1. certifying Fair Credit Reporting Act case as a class action for the following class of similarly-situated persons: "Disclosure and Authorization Class: All of Defendant's employees and prospective employees in the United States for whom Defendant procured consumer reports without first making proper disclosures in the format required by 15 U.S.C. section 1681b(b)(2)(A)(i), and as a result of the improper format failed to obtain proper authorization, within five years of the filing of this Complaint through the date of final judgment in this action"; 2. appointing Plaintiff as class representative, and appointing the law firm Wenzel, Fenton, Cabassa, P.A. as class counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=cHR9D2oX The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon J. Hill, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA P.A. 1110 N. Florida Avenue, Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 224 0431 Facsimile: (813) 229 8712 E-mail: lcabassa@wfclaw.com twells@wfclaw.com bhill@wfclaw.com jcornell@wfclaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Thomas M. Gonzalez, Esq. Nathan Paulich, Esq. THOMPSON, SIZEMORE, GONZALEZ & HEARING, P.A. One Tampa City Center 201 North Franklin Street, Suite 1600 Tampa, FL 33602-5246 BLOOMBERG LP: Fails to Design Deaf-Accessible Site, Sullivan Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- PHILLIP SULLIVAN, JR. on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. BLOOMBERG L.P., Case No. 1:18-cv-01954 (S.D.N.Y., March 5, 2018), is a civil rights class action brought against the Defendant for allegedly failing to design, construct, and/or own or operate a Web site that is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, deaf and hard of hearing people. Mr. Sullivan contends that the Defendant is denying him and other deaf and hard of hearing individuals throughout the United States equal access to the goods and services it provides to non- disabled individuals through http://www.bloomberg.com/ The Web site provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, employment opportunities and other programs offered by the Defendant. Bloomberg is a limited partnership organized under the laws of Delaware and is registered in the state of New York to do business. Based in New York City, the Defendant runs the Web site, which provides business market news, data, analysis, and videos featuring stories from Businessweek and Bloomberg news.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, Second Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com BLUE STAR: Court Certifies Agricultural Workers Class ----------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled RICARDO MARTINEZ, et al., the Plaintiffs, v. BLUE STAR FARMS, INC., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00681-RJJ-PJG (W.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Robert J. Jonker entered an order: 1. certifying a class of: "migrant and seasonal agricultural workers employed at Blue Star Farms to harvest blueberries in 2011, 2012, or 2013"; 2. appointing Plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel. 3. cancelling hearing regarding renewed motion for Class Certification; and 4. rescheduling hearing regarding motions for summary judgment to May 8, 2018 at 3:00 p.m. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=DqP8wrYm BRUNSWICK, GA: Faces Class Action Over Property Taxes ----------------------------------------------------- Taylor Cooper, writing for Brunswick News, reports that the county may be racking up a larger potential bill as three class- action lawsuits against it alleging overcharging for property taxes continues through the court system. Jay Roberts, a St. Simons Island attorney representing the taxpayers, said the total amount he estimates to be as high as $15-17 million is still increasing as the case drags on because the alleged problem has not been remedied and interest is accruing. The case started with the first-class action filed in 2012. It alleged some taxpayers using the Scarlet Williams homestead exemption were overtaxed because the tax commissioner at the time assigned their properties the wrong base year. Two more class- action suits were filed in 2013 and 2014 alleging that more taxpayers had been overcharged. Under the Scarlet Williams exemption, a homeowner's property taxes will not increase if the assessed value of their home rises above what it was in the base year. The three class-action lawsuits cover somewhere in the neighborhood of 6,500 to 9,000 taxpayers, Mr. Roberts said. Some drop in and out of the class for various reasons, such as their appraised value dropping below the allegedly correct base year. Because the alleged error hasn't been corrected, Mr. Roberts said the county is continuing to overtax the people in the three class action suits at a rate of around $2 to $2.5 million per year. Mr. Roberts also believes the taxpayers are due interest, which he said is accumulating at somewhere around $840,000 a year. The crux of the case is how the base year is determined. The law establishing the exemption states that the year prior to the year the exemption is granted should be the base year. In the case of J. Matthew and Elizabeth Coleman, who filed the original case, the homeowners were granted the exemption in 2006, and 2006 was set as their base year. According to the class- action lawsuit, the Colemans and several thousand others were overcharged on their property taxes because they were assigned the wrong base year. The Colemans contend 2005 should have been the base year used. Due to the language used the law, the county's lawyers maintain it couldn't have used 2005 as the Colemans' base year. The law states that anyone with the exemption won't be charged any property taxes on the assessed value of their homestead beyond the "base year value of that homestead." Because the Colemans' property allegedly did not meet the legal definition of a homestead in 2005, the Colemans' homestead did not have an assessed value in 2005. As such, the county argues it had no choice but to assign 2006 as the base year. While a Cobb County Superior Court judge decided in favor of the county last year, the Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the plaintiff's case in January. The appeals court upheld one part of the Superior Court's ruling, which restricted the plaintiffs from seeking refunds on taxes paid outside of the three years before and after the case was filed, as stipulated by state law. Both the county and Roberts appealed to the Georgia Supreme Court to hear the case. The county asked to have the appeals court's ruling overturned, and Roberts asked to have the three-year window restriction removed. Due to the large sum at stake, county officials asked State Rep. Don Hogan, R-St. Simons Island, to look into passing legislation at the state level to prevent future lawsuits of this nature from being brought against counties and municipalities. Such protections already exist for the state. County officials have said such legislation likely wouldn't help them with the three class-action suits they're fighting now. County commissioners said, should the plaintiffs win the case, the county and Glynn County Schools would be significantly impacted. The school system would likely be hit harder, as it collected a larger portion of property taxes than the county does, according to county staff. Mr. Hogan ultimately shelved the bill due to lack of support, but said the issue is too important to drop it for good. He plans to do some more investigation before bringing it back up, he said. [GN] BUCKS COUNTY, PA: Water Contamination Lawsuits Continue ------------------------------------------------------- Kyle Bagentose, writing for Bucks County Courier Times, reports that eighteen months after a slew of lawsuits were filed over drinking water contamination in Bucks and Montgomery counties, the cases still are in limbo in county and federal courts. The suits represent more than a thousand area residents who were presumably exposed to unregulated perfluorinated chemicals in their drinking water, which are believed to have originated from firefighting foam used at military bases near the counties' shared border. The suits seek myriad remedies, including blood testing, health screenings, and monetary damages related to health conditions, property values and other related costs. "We're still in the infancy," said Donald Soutar, Esq. an associate attorney of New York City law firm Weitz & Luxenberg and lead counsel of the largest area lawsuit. "It's fair to say (it'll be) a matter of years." In total, eight significant lawsuits have been filed on behalf of residents affected by the contamination since 2016, although several have since been consolidated. Soutar, whose firm is associated with consumer advocate Erin Brockovich, is lead counsel on a consolidated class-action lawsuit, joined by attorneys from Creedon & Feliciani of Norristown, as well as attorneys from three Philadelphia-based firms: Anapol Weiss, Levin Sedran & Berman and Napoli Shkolnik. More than a thousand residents have signed on to the suit, filed in September 2016, Soutar said. However, if successful, its class-action status means that any of the tens of thousands of residents meeting certain criteria for their exposure to the chemicals would be eligible for awards, including a medical monitoring program to screen for potential illnesses, a blood testing program and certain monetary damages. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for Eastern Pennsylvania, located in Philadelphia. It lists as defendants five companies that manufactured firefighting foam: 3M, the Buckeye Fire Protection Co., Chemguard, National Foam Inc. and Tyco Fire Products. "We want to hold the companies responsible," Soutar said. "Our opinion is they manufactured a dangerous product, that they knew it was dangerous, and that they sold it without providing proper warnings." This news organization reached out to several defense attorneys court records show as being the most active in cases involving the foam manufacturers, but did not receive a response by press time. Court records show the defendants filed motions to dismiss the case last April, but that Judge Petrese Tucker ultimately dismissed them in December. She then put a stay on the case as two other suits related to the contamination work their way through the court system. One of those cases is the first lawsuit to be filed in the area, brought by the Philadelphia-based Cuker Law Firm, on behalf of the Giovannis, a Warrington family allegedly affected by the contamination. That case, filed in August 2016, is suing the U.S. Navy for blood testing for the family and other area residents affected by water contamination, as well as medical monitoring and attorney fees. A second case, filed in February 2017 by Weir & Partners, also of Philadelphia, is also suing the Navy on behalf of Ivyland resident Dorothy Palmer and her son. Court records show the elder Palmer allegedly has a PFOA blood level of 31 parts per billion, which is about 15 times the national average. Both the Giovanni and Palmer cases have followed a similar track, first being successfully pulled out of county court by the Navy, which then successfully had the suits dismissed in federal court by arguing that the military is immune due to area bases' status as federal Superfund sites. "The judge said that under the Superfund law, you can't sue for blood testing or a health study until clean-up is complete," Cuker said. "Our argument was that Pennsylvania gives residents affected by contamination a right to sue ... federal law doesn't block it." Steven Angstreich, Esq. -- sangstreich@weirpartners.com -- a partner at Weir and lead attorney on the Palmer case, said he made a similar argument. "Medical monitoring does not interfere with the (clean-up) work that's being undertaken by the Navy, as required by the Environmental Protection Agency," Angstreich said. "Therefore we believe the . . . judge got it wrong in his analysis, and that we should be permitted to proceed." This news organization reached out to defense attorneys for the federal government for comment but did not receive a response by press time. Both Cuker and Angstreich appealed the dismissals of their cases to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in Philadelphia. The cases have been consolidated and a hearing is set for late April. Meanwhile, Tucker, the eastern district judge overseeing the large class-action case, is holding off until the appeals are resolved. Attorneys for all three cases said they were surprised at the decision, noting that the appealed cases are suing the U.S. government, while the class-action suit seeks damages from private companies. "I don't necessarily agree with Judge Tucker," Soutar said. "(But she) believes that some of the issues that are up on appeal overlap some of the issues in our case." Soutar said a teleconference was held with Tucker and defense attorneys in February, in which both sides laid out their arguments about why the case should be stayed or not. Soutar said the judge sided with the defendants, prompting the plaintiffs to file a motion asking her to reconsider. That request has not yet received a ruling. Soutar added he believes the speed of litigation is important. "My clients were exposed to these chemicals. They're fearful for what's going to happen to their health," he said. "And we'll be two years in to it and nothing will have moved forward at all." However, other cases are not yet bogged down in legal proceedings. The five firms involved in the class-action suit have also filed a mass-tort case representing more than 500 area residents who believe the chemicals may have impacted their health. Some studies have linked the chemicals to a variety of health effects including high cholesterol, ulcerative colitis, developmental delays, low birth weight and some cancers. Soutar said the tort case, which was filed in February 2017 and is also suing foam manufacturers, is still in early stages. Counsels are getting organized and strategizing on the best way forward. "We're trying to put a model on top of this so we're not trying to litigate all 500 cases all at once," Soutar said. "Where we can pick some cases to go forward as test cases." Similar mass-tort cases litigated elsewhere in the country have led to lump-sum settlements from defendants. In 2017, chemical company DuPont agreed to a $670 million settlement with 3,500 plaintiffs along the Ohio River who allegedly were exposed to PFOA from a nearby plant. The settlement came after the plaintiffs won several "test" cases in which juries returned multi-million dollar awards. Also working their way through the system are three additional cases filed by Cuker: one in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims on behalf of Horsham's Penna family, another in the eastern district on behalf of Warminster's Menkes family, and a third filed in Montgomery County Court on behalf of two former Warminster residents who have bladder cancer. In the first case, Cuker said he's arguing that the U.S. government essentially "took" the Horsham family's property illegally due to contaminated runoff and groundwater from the nearby NASJRB Willow Grove. Cuker said judge is scheduled to visit the property this spring to get the "lay of the land." "It's fascinating, I've never had that happen," Cuker said. "I think it's to her credit that she takes it that seriously." The Menkes case, which sues the foam manufacturers, has been met with a motion to dismiss by the defendants, who are arguing the claim is invalid under products liability law, Cuker said. The judge in that case has yet to rule because he is waiting to see the outcome of a similar case in New York state, Cuker said. The third case is still in the earliest stages. Plaintiff attorneys on each case said they believe the ongoing litigation is important, despite the lengthy legal process. "If you contaminate someone's water supply, you ought to be responsible for any health problems you cause," Angstreich said. [GN] BUFFALO WILD: Borenkoff Appeals S.D.N.Y. Order to Second Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Alexa Borenkoff filed an appeal from the District Court's opinion and order entered on January 19, 2018, in her lawsuit entitled Borenkoff v. Buffalo Wild Wings, Inc., Case No. 16-cv-8532, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City). As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 8, 2018, the District Court ruled that vegetarians cannot sue Buffalo Wild Wings for failing to disclose that its french fries, mozzarella sticks and other fried non-meat items are cooked in beef tallow. Alexa Borenkoff, a vegetarian, says she visited Buffalo Wild Wings on multiple occasions and ordered non-meat items off the menu but was never informed that the restaurant fries its food using rendered beef fat. In a class-action complaint filed in Manhattan federal court, she claimed that it is industry standard to fry non-meat items in vegetarian-friendly cooking oil, and "a reasonable consumer would not expect non-meat items to be fried in beef tallow." But on January 19, U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest said Ms. Borenkoff could not show she was injured by Buffalo Wild Wings' non-disclosure of its cooking methods. "Borenkoff does not allege how the use of beef tallow affects the objective economic value of the food items she received," Judge Forrest said in her 12-page opinion. The complaint does not allege that Ms. Borenkoff's fries were defective in any way, that she was harmed by eating them, or that the menu prices for fried foods were inflated because the restaurant used beef tallow. "Borenkoff paid for french fries and mozzarella sticks, and that is ultimately what she received," Judge Forrest said. The appellate case is captioned as Borenkoff v. Buffalo Wild Wings, Inc., Case No. 18-615, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant Alexa Borenkoff, On behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Michael Louis Braunstein, Esq. KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN P.C. 747 Chestnut Ridge Road Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977 Telephone: (845) 356-2570 E-mail: mbraunstein@kgglaw.com Defendants-Appellees Buffalo Wild Wings, Inc., and Blazin Wings, Inc., are represented by: Francis X. Riley, III, Esq. SAUL EWING ARNSTEIN & LEHR, LLP 650 College Road East Princeton, NJ 08540 Telephone: (609) 452-3150 E-mail: friley@saul.com BUILDZOOM INC: Innovative Design Sues for Trademark infringement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Innovative Design Build, Inc. individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Buildzoom, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-01330 (N.D. Cal., February 28, 2018), seeks damages, restitution, and injunctive relief for violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, common law trademark infringement, contributory trademark infringement, vicarious trademark infringement, violation of California Business and Professions Code. San Francisco-based BuildZoom, owns and operates the website "www.buildzoom.com" to assist homeowners with finding licensed contractors for home remodeling and construction projects. However, only a small percentage of the 3.5 million profiles are BuildZoom Preferred Contractors. If a customer searches for contractors in a particular location, and then seeks to contact one of the many listed non-Preferred Contractors, Defendant will only connect the customer to a Preferred Contractor -- and only after leveraging the non-preferred contractor's trademark and reputation to obtain the customer's valuable personal information and project details for passing off to its preferred contractor. Defendant profits from such infringement because it gets paid for each referral it makes that culminates in a contract for one of its Preferred Contractors, says the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: David A. Straite, Esq. Ralph E. Labaton, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 850 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 687-1980 Facsimile: (212) 687-7714 Email: dstraite@kaplanfox.com rlabaton@kaplanfox.com - and - Marc A. Wites, Esq. WITES LAW FIRM 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point, FL 33064 Telephone: (954) 933-4400 Facsimile: (954) 354-0205 Email: mwites@witeslaw.com CABOT INVESTMENT: Court Certifies Class & 6 Subclasses ------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit styled Cabot East Broward 2 LLC, and Cabot East Broward 34 LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Carlton P. Cabot, Timothy J. Kroll, Cabot Investment Properties, LLC, Cabot East Broward LeaseCo, LLC, Cabot North Orange LeaseCo, LLC, Cabot Oak Grove Asset Manager, LLC, Cabot Trafalgar/Avion LeaseCo, LLC, Cabot Cypress Creek LeaseCo, LLC, Cabot North University LeaseCo, LLC, CBRE, Inc., Gloria Hernandez, and Harry L. Silverman, the Defendants, Case No. 0:16-cv-61218-WPD (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge William P. Dimitrouleas entered an order 1. certifying a class of: "179 limited liability companies, each of which held a fractional ownership interest in one of the following six commercial office buildings in Florida (collectively, the "Florida Properties"): (i) East Broward Corporate Center (100 and 110 East Broward Blvd, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301); (ii) Cypress Creek Tower (800 West Cypress Creek Road, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33309); (iii) Trafalgar / Avion (5300 N.W. 33rd Avenue and 2200 N.W. 50th Street, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33309); (iv) North University Preferred Exchange (3111 North University Drive, Coral Springs, FL 33065); (v) North Orange Wachovia Tower (20 North Orange Avenue, Orlando, FL 32801); and (vi) Oak Grove (7575, 7585, and 7595 Baymeadows Way, Jacksonville, FL 32256)". Excluded from the Class are any limited liability company which is currently owned and/or controlled in whole or part by: (i) any employee of the Court; (ii) any of the Defendants in this action or any of their respective subsidiaries, affiliates, directors, or officers; and (iii) the legal representatives, heirs, successors, assigns, and family members of any such excluded party.; 2. certifying six management Subclasses under Rule 23(d)(1), for management purposes on the issue of damages, with each Subclass consisting of: "the limited liability companies which invested in a particular Florida Property"; 3. certifying Donald Hauptman (member of Plaintiff Cabot East Broward 34, LLC) and Stephen Souza (member of Plaintiff Cabot East Broward 2, LLC) as representatives of the Class; 4. certifying law firm of Stearns Weaver Miller Weissler Alhadeff & Sitterson, P.A., as Class Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g)(1); 5. directing the to jointly file for approval by the Court a proposed notice to Class members on or before March 30, 2018; A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=TyK2VIJA CALLIDUS SOFTWARE: "Stein" Class Suit Challenges Merger With SAP ---------------------------------------------------------------- SHIVA STEIN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. CALLIDUS SOFTWARE INC., CHARLES M. BOESENBERG, LESLIE J. STRETCH, MARK A. CULHANE, KEVIN M. KLAUSMEYER, NINA L. RICHARDSON, MURRAY D. RODE, JAMES D. WHITE, Case No. 5:18-cv- 01453-EJD (N.D. Cal., March 6, 2018), is brought on behalf of public holders of the common stock of Callidus against the Defendants for their alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in connection with the proposed merger between Callidus and SAP America, Inc. On January 29, 2018, the Board caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger, pursuant to which the Company's shareholders stand to receive $36 in cash for each share of Callidus stock they own (the "Merger Consideration"), comprising a total enterprise value of $2.4 billion. Callidus is incorporated in Delaware and maintains its principal executive offices in Dublin, California. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. Callidus is a provider of cloud-based sales, marketing, learning and customer experience solutions. The Company, which does business as CallidusCloud, enables its customers to manage their Lead to Money process with a suite of solutions that identifies leads, trains personnel, implements territory and quota plans, enables sales forces, automates configuration pricing and quoting, manages contracts, streamlines sales compensation, captures customer feedback and provides predictive analytics for competitive advantage.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin Heikali, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (424) 256-2884 Facsimile: (424) 256-2885 E-mail: bheikali@faruqilaw.com - and - James M. Wilson, Jr. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 Third Ave., 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-9330 E-mail: jwilson@faruqilaw.com - and - Gloria Kui Melwani, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 545-4600 Facsimile: (212) 686-0114 E-mail: melwani@whafh.com CENTENE MANAGEMENT: Certification of Employees Class Sought ----------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled JODY GUDGER AND RHONDA KING, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CENTENE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, a Foreign Limited Liability Company, and SUNSHINE STATE HEALTH PLAN, INC., Florida Profit Corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-14281-JEM (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an Order permitting, under court supervision, notice to following class of similarly situated employees: "any and all salaried employees who worked for Defendants, anywhere in Florida, from August 7, 2014, through current, in any of the following positions: - Case Manager, Long Term Care; or - Nursing Home Transition Specialist; or - Medical Necessity Specialist; and who worked 40 or more hours in one or more workweeks, were misclassified as exempt under the FLSA by Defendants, and were not paid time and one-half overtime compensation for their overtime hours worked. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=poiLOqOf The Plaintiff is represented by: Noah E. Storch, Esq. Richard Celler, Esq. RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A. 7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230 Davie, FL 33314 Telephone: (866) 344 9243 Facsimile: (954) 337 2771 E-mail: noah@floridaovertimelawyer.com CHEEVER DEV'T: Finishing Workers File Suit Over RICO Breach ----------------------------------------------------------- Joel Nunez Jimenez, Efrain Lopez, Jonathan Vega, Leandro Calvo, Alfredo Villanueva, Ruben Correa, Carlos Sanchez, Jilber Norales, Fernando Osorio, Angel Colon, Noel Castillo, Ezequiel Nunez, Jorge Olvera (a/k/a Franciso Olvera), Juan Salas, Jesus Castillo, Efrain Lebron, Joseph Laubriel and Jose A. Palacios, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Cheever Development Corp., Sheer Taping, Matthew Lonuzzi and Eric Graves, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-01806, (S.D. N.Y., February 28, 2018), seeks to recover minimum wages and overtime compensation as required under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law, remuneration for unlawful deductions and liquidated damages and actual damages, treble damages and punitive damages for violations of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations. Cheever is a general contractor that performs construction work for various projects in the New York City area while Sheer Taping conducts business as a finish subcontractor for construction projects where Plaintiffs were employed as finishers. Defendants allegedly demanded "kick-backs" from Plaintiffs in exchange for continuing employment and their submission of falsified business records and willfully false certifications to public agencies. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Marc A. Rapaport, Esq. RAPAPORT LAW FIRM, PLLC One Penn Plaza, Suite 2430 New York, NY 10119 Telephone: (212) 382-1600 info@rapaportlaw.com CHICAGO, IL: Proceedings and Discovery in "Campbell" Stayed ----------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled Immanuel Campbell, et al., the Plaintiff, v. City of Chicago, et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-04467 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge John Z. Lee entered an order granting parties' joint motion to stay proceedings and discovery relating to claims asserted against the City of Chicago, including the Monell claims brought by individual Plaintiffs. According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on March 21, 2018, the Parties informed the Court that they have entered into a memorandum of understanding allowing them to participate in the ongoing discussions between the State of Illinois and the City in the separately filed action State of Illinois v. City of Chicago, No. 17-cv-6260. The Motion to Stay is granted. Pursuant to the motion, the City's pending motion to dismiss and motion to strike are stricken without prejudice with leave to refile at a later date, if necessary. In light of the stay, Plaintiffs' motion for class certification also is stricken without prejudice and with leave to refile. The case is stayed, except for the claims asserted by the individual plaintiffs' for money damages against individual defendant officers. A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=kfQuCuyo CLARENCE DAVIDS: Notice of "Balderrama-Baca" Class Action Okayed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pursuant to the Court's March 10, 2017 order granting Plaintiffs' Rule 23 Motion for Class Certification in the case styled, RAMIRO BALDERRAMA-BACA, A/K/A ROMAN BALDERRAMA-BACA, SALVADOR MATEOS SR., AND PEDRO ESCUTIA, on behalf of themselves, and all other similarly situated plaintiffs known and unknown, the Plaintiffs, v. CLARENCE DAVIDS AND COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv- 05873 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs are prepared to forward Notice Of Class Action to the members of the three subclasses identified in the Court's Certification Order. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs asked the Court for an order granting their Unopposed Motion for Approval of Class Notice. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=05C8HqK0 The Hon. Judge John Z. Lee has entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' Motion. According to the docket entry made by the Clerk, a hearing on the Motion was held March 15. The Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for approval of class action notice was granted with the revisions ordered by the Court. A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=cwvSxDs5 Attorney for Plaintiffs: John W. Billhorn, Esq. BILLHORN LAW FIRM 53 W. Jackson Blvd., Ste. 840 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 853 1450 E-mail: jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com COMMONWEALTH BANK: May Face Credit Card Insurance Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Simone Ziaziaris, writing for The Australian Associated Press, reports that the big banks could face a class action over the sale of millions of dollars of "worthless" credit card insurance. Commonwealth Bank admitted selling insurance to customers who were not eligible to make claims, and law firm Slater and Gordon is now investigating potential class actions on behalf of short- changed consumers. Slater and Gordon class actions senior associate Andrew Paull said consumer credit insurance -- which is often sold alongside financial products to provide coverage if a person is unable to meet repayments -- is "notorious for being unsuitable and consistently poor value". "We have found substantial evidence to suggest that a large number of Australian credit card holders are paying hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars a year for essentially worthless insurance," Mr Paull said on March 12. "Many policyholders are ineligible to claim some or all of the available benefits, and others are either completely unaware they have the insurance or incorrectly believe it is a requirement for obtaining a credit card." CBA said it was refunding $16 million to about 140,000 credit card and loan insurance customers after finding more people were sold policies they would not be able to claim on. Australia's biggest bank said it would also stop selling its Credit Card Plus and Personal Loan Protection products and contact customers whose employment status at the time they bought their policies may have made them ineligible for payouts. The refund came on top of $10 million it last year agreed to pay back after the same credit card insurance was sold to 65,000 students and unemployed people who were ineligible to claim on it. "The banks should know when this insurance is likely to be of no or limited value to their customers, however the evidence suggests that they have continued to push these products widely and have collected millions in premiums while doing so," Mr Paull said. [GN] CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Accused by "Brown" of Violating FDCPA ------------------------------------------------------------- Lovena Brown, n/k/a Turner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Convergent Outsourcing, Inc., a Washington corporation, and Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC, a Georgia limited liability company, Case No. 3:18-cv-00085 (E.D. Tenn., March 5, 2018), is brought under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act for a finding that the Defendants' debt collection letter violated the FDCPA, and to recover damages. Convergent Outsourcing, Inc., is a Washington corporation that acts as a debt collector because it regularly uses the mails and/or the telephone to collect, or attempt to collect, directly or indirectly, defaulted consumer debts. Convergent operates a nationwide debt collection business and attempts to collect debts from consumers in virtually every state, including consumers in the state of Tennessee. Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC, is a Georgia limited liability company that acts as a debt collector because it regularly uses the mails and/or the telephone to collect, or attempt to collect, directly or indirectly, defaulted consumer debts that it did not originate. Jefferson operates a nationwide debt collection business and attempts to collect debts from consumers in virtually every state, including consumers in the State of Tennessee.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David J. Philipps, Esq. Mary E. Philipps, Esq. PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD. 9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One Palos Hills, IL 60465 Telephone: (708) 974-2900 Facsimile: (708) 974-2907 E-mail: davephilipps@aol.com mephilipps@aol.com - and - Cynthia T. Lawson, Esq. Heather Banks, Esq. BOND, BOTES & LAWSON, P.C. 6704 Watermour Way Knoxville, TN 37912 Telephone: (865) 938-0733 Facsimile: (865) 938-7931 E-mail: cynthialawson@bbllawgroup.com heatherbanks@bbllawgroup.com COOK COUNTY, IL: Class Certification Bid in "Shyne" Continued ------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled Martenia Shyne, et al., the Plaintiff, v. Cook County Sheriff's Merit Board, et al., the Defendant, Case No.: 1:18-cv-01231 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Andrea R. Wood entered an order continuing Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction and motion for class certification to April 3, 2018. According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on March 14, 2018, Defendants' motion for extension of time to answer is granted. Defendants shall answer or otherwise plead by April 11, 2018. Status hearing set for March 20, 2018, has been stricken and reset for April 3, 2018 at 12:30 p.m. A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=GDk0nrEn CRAFTMASTER PAINTING: Certification of Opt-Out Class Sought ----------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled Anthony Boutell et al., On behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. raftmaster Painting, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00317- bbc (W.D., Wisc.), the Plaintiffs move the Court pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to certify Anthony Boutell and Brian Stout as the class representatives of the following opt-out class: "all hourly employees of Craftmaster Who Worked on Jobsites for Craftmaster on or after April 28, 2015". A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=QSdUaK6x Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Yingtao Ho, Esq. THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM, S.C. 310 W. Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 100MW Milwaukee, WI 53203 Telephone (414) 271 4500 Facsimile (414) 271 6308 E-mail: yh@previant.com EASTAR JET: Faces KYW1.5MM Class Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------- Kim Hyun-bin, writing for The Korean Times, reports that Eastar Jet has been hit with a class action lawsuit from passengers forced to remain onboard a plane for nearly 15 hours last December. Law firm Yeyul said March 9 177 passengers filed a class lawsuit against Eastar Jet, a low-cost airline, demanding 1.5 million won ($1,400) compensation per person. The passengers onboard flight ZE605, departing from Incheon International Airport headed to Narita International Airport in Japan on Dec. 23, were trapped inside for 14 hours and 20 minutes after takeoff was delayed due to bad weather. The passengers were not briefed on the situation and were only notified after being onboard for more than 14 hours. Many passengers suffered financial losses because they could not get refunds for their accommodation. Some passengers showed panic attack symptoms from being trapped in an enclosed area for such a long time. According to aviation law, a delayed flight cannot exceed three hours with passengers onboard for domestic flights and four hours for an international flight. The airline is obligated to inform passengers every 30 minutes about what is happening. In the U.S., all passengers are given an option to leave a plane if there is any delay during takeoff. It is mandatory to serve water and food to passengers on a postponed flight. If there is any violation, the airline will be fined $27,500 for each person onboard. "Classifying the bad weather delay as a force majeure is not sufficient," the law firm said. "Eastar Jet's cancellation rate is seven times higher than that of other airlines on the same day. This is not acceptable." [GN] FARMERS RESTAURANT: Stephens, et al. Seek Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled SHAYN STEPHENS, et al., the Plaintiffs, v. FARMERS RESTAURANT GROUP, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:17- cv-01087-TJK (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order: 1. granting Rule 23 class certification for Counts II-III of plaintiffs' amended complaint, covering claims brought pursuant to the District of Columbia Minimum Wage Act and D.C. Sick Leave Act; 2. granting Rule 23 class certification for Counts IV-V of plaintiffs' Amended Complaint, covering claims brought pursuant to the Maryland Wage and Hour Law, and Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law; 3. appointing Molly A. Elkin of Woodley & McGillivary LLP to serve as class counsel; and 4. direct the parties to submit a joint proposed class notice within 14 calendar days. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=9RIBiHA2 The Plaintiff is represented by: Molly A. Elkin, Esq. Gregory K. McGillivary, Esq. Molly Elkin, Esq. T. Reid Coploff, Esq. Sarah M. Block, Esq. WOODLEY & McGILLIVARY LLP 1101 Vermont Ave., N.W., Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 833 8855 E-mail: gkm@wmlaborlaw.com mae@wmlaborlaw.com trc@wmlaborlaw.com smb@wmlaborlaw.com FAST ADVANCE: Fabricant Seeks Certification of Classes ------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit styled TERRY FABRICANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FAST ADVANCE FUNDING, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-05753-AB-JC (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on February 22, 2019, for an order granting Plaintiff's motion for class certification and appointment as class Counsel against the Defendant pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(B)(2) and (B)(3), concerning violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff will move the Court to certify two classes pursuant to 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) consisting of: "all persons within the United States who received any collection telephone calls from Defendant to said person's cellular telephone made through the use of any automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice and such person had not previously consented to receiving such calls within the four years prior to the filing of this Complaint"; and "all persons within the United States who received any solicitation/telemarketing telephone calls from Defendant to said person's cellular telephone made through the use of any automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice and such person had revoked any prior express consent to receive such calls prior to the calls within the four years prior to the filing of this Complaint". The Plaintiff will additionally move the Court to certify two classes under 47 U.S.C. section 227(c) consisting of: "all persons within the United States registered on the National Do-Not-Call Registry for at least 30 days, who had not granted Defendant prior express consent nor had a prior established business relationship, who received more than one call made by or on behalf of Defendant that promoted Defendant's products or services, within any twelve-month period, within four years prior to the filing of the complaint"; and "all persons within the United States registered on the National Do-Not-Call Registry for at least 30 days, who received more than one call made by or on behalf of Defendant that promoted Defendant's products or services, after having revoked consent and any prior established business relationship, within any twelve-month period, within four years prior to the filing of the complaint". The Plaintiff will also move the Court for appointment of Plaintiff as Class Representative, and for appointment of Plaintiff's attorneys as Class Counsel. A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=QStSJygV Attorneys for Plaintiff: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. Thomas E. Wheeler, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St. Suite 780, Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (877) 206 4741 Facsimile: (866) 633 0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com twheeler@toddflaw.com FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Rehman Seeks Certification of 2 Classes ----------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled NAJIB REHMAN, the Plaintiff, v. FINANCIAL RECOVERY SERVICES OF MINNESOTA, INC.'s, the Defendants, Case No. 9:17-cv-81395-DMM (S.D. Fla.), Mr. Rehman moves the Court to certify two classes. The FDCPA class is defined as: "(i) all persons with Florida addresses (ii) who was mailed2 a letter (iii) between December 25, 2016 and December 25, 2017 (iv) from Defendant (v) in an attempt to collect a debt incurred for personal, family, or household purposes, (vi) of which Defendant was not the original-creditor, (vii) and, in said letter, Defendant does not identify itself as "Financial Recovery Services of Minnesota, Inc."" The FCCPA class is defined as: "(i) all persons with Florida addresses (ii) who received a collection letter (iii) from Defendant (iv) between December 25, 2015 and December 25, 2017 (v) that was an unlawful attempt to collect a debt (vi) in violation of Fla. Stat. section 559.72(9)." A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Dobmz2gC The Plaintiff is represented by: Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Telephone: 954-907-1136 Facsimile: 855-529-9540 E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com - and - Thomas J. Patti, Esq. THOMAS-JOHN LAW, P.A. 1451 W. Cypress Creek Road, Suite 300 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309 Telephone: (954) 543 1325 Facsimile: (954) 507 9975 E-mail: tpatti@thomasjohnlaw.com FLOWERS FOODS: Distributors Class Conditionally Certified --------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled DANIEL MARTINS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FLOWERS FOODS, INC., FLOWERS BAKING CO. OF BRADENTON, LLC, and FLOWERS BAKING CO. OF VILLA RICA, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 8:16-cv-03145- MSS-JSS (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Mary S. Soriven entered an order on March, 28 2018: 1. granting Plaintiff's amended motion for conditional certification; 2. conditionally certifying collective action for the following class: "all Independent Distributors who distribute fresh bakery products for Flowers Foods, Inc., Flowers Baking Co. of Bradenton, LLC, Flowers Baking Company of Villa Rica, LLC, and any other bakeries, affiliates or subsidiaries of Flowers Foods, Inc. within the state of Florida or Georgia, excluding Independent Distributors who worked for Flowers Foods, Inc. through Derst Baking Company, LLC"; 3. denying without prejudice Defendants' motion to dismiss, or, in the alternative, to compel individual arbitration; 4. granting Plaintiff's Motion to toll statute of limitations; 5. directing Defendants within 14 days of the date of this Order, to produce to Plaintiff's counsel a list, in an electronic readable format, containing the names, warehouse/bakery locations, and last known mailing addresses of all persons falling within the certification granted; and 6. directing Plaintiff shall, within 21 days from the date of this Order, file a revised proposed notice to be sent to potential opt-in plaintiffs BY mail is consistent with this Order and accurately reflects the current posture of the case. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=8rAz3Xpl FOOT LOCKER: May 8 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline ---------------------------------------------- Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that they have until May 8, 2018 to file lead plaintiff applications in a securities class action lawsuit against Foot Locker, Inc. (NYSE:FL), if they purchased the Company's shares between August 19, 2016 and August 17, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period"). This action is pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. What You May Do If you purchased shares of Foot Locker and would like to discuss your legal rights and how this case might affect you and your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or via email (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-fl/ to learn more. If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you must petition the Court by May 8, 2018. About the Lawsuit Foot Locker and certain of its executives are charged with failing to disclose material information during the Class Period, violating federal securities laws. On August 18, 2017, the Company revealed negative financial results for the second quarter of fiscal year 2017, including revenue significantly below expectations, attributed in part to lower same-store sales, that many more stores were being closed than previously announced, and that weaker sales were expected for the rest of the fiscal year. On this news, the price of Foot Locker's shares plummeted. About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC KSF, whose partners include the former Louisiana Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., is a law firm focused on securities, antitrust and consumer class actions, along with merger & acquisition and breach of fiduciary litigation against publicly traded companies on behalf of shareholders. The firm has offices in New York, California and Louisiana. To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com. Lewis Kahn, Esq. Managing Partner Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC Tel: 1-877-515-1850 206 Covington St. Madisonville, LA 70447 Email: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com [GN] FRANCESCA'S HOLDINGS: Conditional Certification Sought in "Magee" ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled MEGHAN MAGEE, SAMANTHA BAILEY and ROBERT BLOOMINGER JR., Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. FRANCESCA'S HOLDINGS CORP. and FRANCESCA'S COLLECTIONS, INC., the Defendants, Case No.: 1:17-cv-00565-RBK-JS (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs move the Court, for conditional certification, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). The Defendants' answering papers, if any, are due to be served and filed on April 5, 2018, and Plaintiff's Reply papers are due to be served and filed on April 19. A copy of the Notice Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=EeqI3eDt Attorneys for Plaintiffs, the FLSA Collective, and Classes: Marc S. Hepworth, Esq. Charles Gershbaum, Esq. David A. Roth, Esq. Rebecca S. Predovan, Esq. Joshua P. Cittadino, Esq. HEPWORTH GERSHBAUM & ROTH PLLC 192 Lexington Avenue, Suite 802 New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 545 1199 Facsimile: (212) 532 3801 - and - Paolo C. Meireles, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 1515 S. Federal Highway, Suite 404 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 447 8888 Facsimile: (561) 447 8831 - and - Michael Palitz, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 830 3rd Avenue, 5th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (800) 616-4000 Facsimile: (561) 447-8831 FYRE MEDIA: Founder Pleads Guilty to Fraud Amid Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Complex's Sajae Elder, citing Billboard, reports that the disaster that was Fyre Festival kept getting hit with lawsuits after it was all said and done, and its founder Billy McFarland has been ordered to pay back millions in investor funds after he pled guilty to two counts of wire fraud. Showing up in Manhattan federal court on March 9, Mr. McFarland admitted he lied to obtain upwards of $26 million from investors in a bid to pull off the festival in the Bahamas last year. Using fake documents detailing financial holdings he didn't actually have, Mr. McFarland was able to funnel funds from investors and ticket outlets for the festival. Fyre Fest was set to feature luxury accommodations, catered food, and artists like Major Lazer and Migos, but the festival grounds were an unfinished collection of haphazard tents, with no food and complete chaos. Food was eventually provided in the form of prepackaged sandwiches, and a band of local musicians performed before the festival was postponed indefinitely -- after it had technically already started. Return flights were fraught with delays and rescheduling, dragging the debacle out even more, and many of the employees didn't get paid for their work on the festival. Mr. McFarland was arrested last summer after an FBI investigation into the festival, and according to the U.S. Attorney's Office, accepted a plea deal. In addition to paying back the money, he faces eight to 10 years in prison, but he isn't scheduled for sentencing until June 21. The aftermath saw many lawsuits against McFarland, including a $100 million class-action lawsuit, and the LLC that owns Fyre has been forced to file for bankruptcy. In court, Mr. McFarland seemed remorseful. "I deeply regret my actions, and I apologize to my investors, team, family, and supporters who I let down," he said. [GN] GC SERVICES: "Ocampo" Suit Seeks to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled JOSE LUIS OCAMPO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the PLAINTIFF, v. GC SERVICES INTERNATIONAL, LLC, and GC SERVICES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-09388 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff, Jose Luis Ocampo, brings this action individually and as a class action on behalf of a class defined as: "(1) all persons with addresses in the State of Illinois (2) from whom Defendant attempted to collect a delinquent consumer debt, (3) upon which Defendants sent a form letter, which contained the following paragraphs: (a) While we have not reported this account to any consumer reporting agency as of the date of this letter, our client has authorized us to report your account to the three major consumer reporting agencies unless we are able to resolve your account; and (b) Please read the following message provided by DISH Network: The balance that has been placed in collections may include the cost of your leased DISH Network equipment. If you choose to return the equipment to DISH Network they will reverse the leased equipment fees and/or refund any payments made that were applied to equipment charges. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=BEzDbv4w The Plaintiff is represented by: Celetha C. Chatman, Esq. Michael J. Wood, Esq. COMMUNITY LAWYERS GROUP, LTD. 73 W. Monroe Street, Suite 514 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 757 1880 Facsimile: (312) 265 3227 E-mail: cchatman@communitylawyersgroup.com mwood@communitylawyersgroup.com * * * The Hon. Judge Robert M. Dow Jr. entered an order terminating Plaintiff's motion for class certification as moot as it is superseded by Plaintiff's renewed motion for class certification which is taken under advisement. According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on March 21, 2018, by agreement of the parties, the status hearing set for March 26, 2018 is cancelled and reset to April 12, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Ddoasejb GC SERVICES: Green Asks Court to Certify FDCPA Class ---------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled Kayla Green, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. GC Services Limited Partnership, a Delaware limited partnership, Owners Resource Group, GC GP Buyer, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00314-CLC-DCP (E.D. Tenn.), Ms. Green asks the Court to certify a class consisting of: "all persons similarly situated in the State of Tennessee from whom Defendants attempted to collect a delinquent consumer debt allegedly owed for a Synchrony Bank credit card account, via the same form collection letter that Defendants sent to Ms. Green, from one year before the date of the Complaint to the present." This action seeks a finding that Defendant's form letter violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Acts, and asks that the Court award damages as authorized by section 1692k(a)(2) of the FDCPA. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=3Tdci8Dm The Plaintiff is represented by: David J. Philipps, Esq. Mary E. Philipps, Esq. PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD. 9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One Palos Hills, IL 60465 Telephone: (708) 974 2900 Facsimile: (708) 974 2907 E-mail: davephilipps@aol.com mephilipps@aol.com - and - Cynthia T. Lawson, Esq. Heather Banks, Esq. BOND, BOTES & LAWSON, P.C. 6704 Watermour Way Knoxville, TN 37912 Telephone: (865) 938 0733 Facsimile: (865) 938 7931 E-mail: cynthialawson@bbllawgroup.com heatherbanks@bbllawgroup.com The Defendants are represented by: Seth M. Friedman, Esq. William S. Helfand, Esq. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH, LLP 1180 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 2900 Atlanta, GA 30309 E-mail: seth.friedman@lewisbrisbois.com bill.helfand@lewisbrisbois.com - and - Cynthia T. Lawson, Esq. Heather Banks, Esq. BOND, BOTES & LAWSON, P.C. 6704 Watermour Way Knoxville, TN 37912 E-mail: cynthialawson@bbllawgroup.com heatherbanks@bbllawgroup.com GENESCO INC: "Chen" Class Suit Moved From Illinois to Indiana ------------------------------------------------------------- The putative class action lawsuit styled MELISSA CHEN and DARIO SALAS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. GENESCO, INC. and HAT WORLD, INC. d/b/a LIDS, Case No. 1:17- cv-03767, was transferred on March 7, 2018, from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana (Indianapolis). The Indiana District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-00690-SEB-TAB to the proceeding. The lawsuit seeks to recover alleged unpaid overtime compensation for the Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals, who worked for the Defendants as Store Managers and were subject to the Defendants' policy of misclassifying them as "exempt" from federal and/or state overtime protections. The Plaintiffs bring the action to recover unpaid overtime compensation for themselves and similarly situated SMs as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Juno E. Turner, Esq. Justin Mitchell Swartz, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 245-1000 E-mail: jturner@outtengolden.com jms@outtengolden.com - and - Paul William Mollica, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 161 N. Clark St., Suite 1600 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 809-7010 E-mail: pwmollica@outtengolden.com The Defendants are represented by: Bonnie Keane DelGobbo, Esq. Joel Griswold, Esq. BAKER HOSTETLER LLP 191 N. Wacker Dr., Suite 3100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 416-6200 Facsimile: (312) 461-6201 E-mail: bdelgobbo@bakerlaw.com jcgriswold@bakerlaw.com GILBERT ENTERPRISES: Walsh Seeks to Certify Exotic Dancers Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled ARIELLE WALSH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. GILBERT ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a CLUB FANTASIES, and FRANCIS DELUCA, the Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-00472-WES-PAS (D.R.I.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to: 1. certify a class for the Plaintiff's state law claims (Counts III, IV, and V) pursuant to R.I. Gen. Laws section 28-14-19.2(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, consisting of: "all individuals who have worked as exotic dancers at Club Fantasies at any time since November 6, 2012"; 2. appoint Plaintiff Arielle Walsh as a Rule 23 class representative; 3. appoint as counsel for the class Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C., and Citadel Consumer Litigation, P.C.; 4. direct parties to meet and confer and present this Court, within 15 days of an Order granting class certification, a proposed notice to the class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3); and 5. direct Order that Defendant produce a list of the names, last-known mailing and e-mail addresses, and telephone numbers for all individuals who currently work and/or previously worked at Club Fantasies as an exotic dancer at any time in the last three years. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=PoK6IfqR Arielle Walsh, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated: Peter Delano, Esq. Harold Lichten, Esq. Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994 5800 E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com sliss@llrlaw.com pdelano@llrlaw.com - and - John T. Longo, Esq. CITADEL CONSUMER LITIGATION, P.C. 996 Smith Street Providence, RI 02098 Telephone: (401) 383 7550 E-mail: jtlongo@citadelpc.com GLYNN COUNTY, GA: ACLU Sues Officials Over Cash Bail ---------------------------------------------------- Wes Wolfe, The Brunswick News, reports that the American Civil Liberties Union filed a federal lawsuit March 9 morning accusing Glynn County, Sheriff Neal Jump, Magistrate Judge Alex Atwood and attorney Reid Zeh, Esq. for the parts they play in what the group alleges is "an unconstitutional cash bail system that discriminates against people who are financially strapped." The class-action lawsuit is brought on behalf of Margery Mock and Scott Ogden -- both of whom were in the Glynn County Detention Center after arrests for criminal trespassing March 7 -- and other people detained in Glynn County for misdemeanor offenses because they cannot come up with the money to bond out of jail. At 5 p.m. March 9, ACLU of Georgia Legal Director Sean Young announced Mock and Ogden are to be released. "We have just learned that a court has ordered our clients' release, though we still await news of actual release from our clients," Young said in a statement. "And we will continue to push forward with this class action. Every single day, Glynn County throws people like Ms. Mock into jail simply because they cannot afford the predetermined cash bail required. "We are moving forward with this case to ensure equal justice for all." Mock was jailed under a $1,256 bond and Ogden faced the same amount. The complaint lays out the process. "A person arrested in Glynn County who can afford to pay the predetermined monetary amount is immediately eligible for release from jail upon payment (except those facing Family Violence Act charges)," according to the complaint. "Those arrestees who cannot afford their release may remain in jail for weeks, even months, without being afforded any hearing to meaningfully argue for their release. "Moreover, persons accused of misdemeanors who cannot afford to pay bail or hire a private attorney are deprived of the opportunity to request an adversarial preliminary hearing to seek their release, either by challenging probable cause for their arrest or requesting lower bail. They are further denied the ability to bring subsequent motions or habeas petitions to modify or reduce bail through counsel. "In fact, the only process available in Glynn County for misdemeanor arrestees who cannot afford their monetary bail or to hire private counsel is a hearing to enter a guilty plea and face sentencing." The complaint then points to Zeh, who serves as the state court public defender. State court usually handles cases that involve misdemeanors only. "None of these plaintiffs can afford to hire a criminal defense attorney," according to the complaint. "They are therefore eligible for representation only be defendant Zeh as a public defender. However, plaintiffs have never met with Zeh, who has a policy of not visiting public defense clients in the detention center, representing clients at their bail-setting hearing or requesting a preliminary hearing or bail-modification hearing on their behalf." A message left for Zeh was not returned as of press time. Jump did not return a phone call March 9. Atwood said the processes for setting bail were already in place when he took the bench in 2017. As a state legislator, lawyer and judge, he said has always striven to follow the constitution and due process. In all, the county, Atwood and Jump are alleged, by administering the cash bond procedure, to have violated the 14th Amendment regarding equal protection and due process, and the county and Zeh are accused of violating indigent misdemeanor arrestees' 6th Amendment right to counsel and equal protection through counsel. James Yancey, Esq. -- jykerr@southernco.com -- is representing the plaintiffs in U.S. District Court in Brunswick, along with Young, Kosha Tucker, Andrea Woods, Twyla Carter and Brandon Buskey. Yancey filed the class certification motion March 9, along with a temporary restraining order motion and motion for preliminary injunction on behalf of similarly situated detained defendants who face only misdemeanor charges and cannot afford to bond out. U.S. District Court Judge Lisa Godbey Wood set a hearing for March 15 at 9:30 a.m. for the TRO and injunction motions. [GN] GOLD STANDARD: Certification of Laborers Class Sought ----------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled JAMES ZOLLICOFFER, ANTWOIN HUNT and NORMAN GREEN, on behalf of themselves and similarly situated laborers, Plaintiffs, v. GOLD STANDARD BAKING, INC., PERSONNEL STAFFING GROUP, LLC d/b/a MOST VALUABLE PERSONNEL d/b/a MVP, the Defendants, Case No. 1:13-cv-01524 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to: a. certify a class for all issues under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3); "African-American laborers who sought work assignments through MVP and were otherwise eligible to work at GSB, but on one or more occasions were not assigned to work at GSB when a position for which they were otherwise qualified was available during the period of four years prior to the filing of the Plaintiffs' Original Complaint for the Sec. 1981 claims and three hundred days prior to the filing of Plaintiffs' EEOC charges for the Title VII claims up through and including December 31, 2015"; b. appoint Named Plaintiffs Norman Green, James Zollicoffer and Antwoin Hunt as class representatives; c. appoint Plaintiffs' counsel to serve as counsel for the class; and d. authorize notice to the class of the action and their right to opt out. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=MfYDvO26 The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph M. Sellers, Esq. Shaylyn Cochran, Esq. Miriam R. Nemeth, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. Suite 500 Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 408 4600 - and - Christopher J. Williams, Esq. Alvar Ayala, Esq. WORKERS' LAW OFFICE, P.C. 53 W. Jackson Blvd, Suite 701 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 795 9121 HARVARD COLLECTION: Debt Collection Violates FDCPA, "Bond" Says --------------------------------------------------------------- BROOKE BOND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HARVARD COLLECTION SERVICES, INC. and JOHN DOES 1-25, Case No. 2:18-cv-00149-UA-MRM (M.D. Fla., March 7, 2018), alleges that the Defendants' debt collection efforts directed towards the Plaintiff violated various provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, including use of false and misleading representation. Harvard Collection Services, Inc., is a debt collector with an address at 4839 N. Elston Ave., in Chicago, Illinois. The Defendant is a company that uses the mail, telephone, and facsimile and regularly engages in business the principal purpose of which is to attempt to collect debts alleged to be due another. The identities of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Zeig, Esq. ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC 3475 Sheridan Street, Suite 310 Hollywood, FL 33021 Telephone: (754) 217-3084 Facsimile: (954) 272-7807 E-mail: Justin@zeiglawfirm.com HCA HEALTH: Sued by Clark for Not Paying Minimum Wage Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- ALISA CLARK, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HCA HEALTH SERVICES OF FLORIDA, INC. d/b/a BLAKE MEDICAL CENTER, Case No. 8:18-cv-00553-VMC-CPT (M.D. Fla., March 7, 2018), is an action for damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act arising from the Defendant's alleged failure to pay a minimum wage and unpaid wages under Florida common law. HCA Health Services of Florida, Inc., doing business as Blake Medical Center, operates a hospital in Bradenton, in Manatee County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Donna V. Smith, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A. 1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 224-0431 Facsimile: (813) 229-8712 E-mail: dsmith@wfclaw.com rcooke@wfclaw.com HIDAY & RICKE: "McCray" Disputes Vague Collection Letter -------------------------------------------------------- Desseri McCray, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Hiday & Ricke, P.A., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00458 (M.D. Fla., February 26, 2018), seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest and costs, including reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act. McCray obtained a personal vehicle loan with Fidelity Bank but in 2016, she became permanently disabled and could no longer work causing her to fall behind in her monthly payments. Said vehicle was then repossessed and subsequently sold it at auction. Defendant sent McCray a collection letter pertaining to the balance of the said loan but is unclear as to who the current creditor and who the original creditor is. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Alex D. Weisberg WEISBERG CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PA 5846 S. Flamingo Rd, Ste. 290 Cooper City, FL 33330 Tel: (954) 212-2184 Fax: (866) 577-0963 Email: aweisberg@afclaw.com HOME DEPOT: Court Terminates Bid to Certify Class in "Manopla" -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled Manopla et al., the Plaintiffs, v. Home Depot USA, Inc., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-01120- PGS-TJB (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni entered an order directing the Clerk of the Court to administratively terminate Plaintiff's motion to certify class. The Court said, "In light of the schedule set in the Court's Letter Order of March 19, 2018 for expert discovery and the briefing on Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class, the oral argument currently scheduled for April 23, 2018 is adjourned with no new date. The Clerk of the Court is directed to administratively terminate Plaintiff's motion to certify class. The motion shall be reactivated and given the next available return date after expert discovery and briefing on the motion is complete." A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=QzJ5nxUg HOSPITALITY VENTURES: Certification of FLSA Collective Sought ------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled WAI MAN TOM, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. HOSPITALITY VENTURES LLC, d/b/a UMSTEAD HOTEL AND SPA, NC CULINARY VENTURES LLC, d/b/a AN ASIAN CUISINE, and SAS INSTITUTE INC., the Defendants, Case No. 5:17-CV-00098-FL (E.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff moves the Court for an order: 1. conditional certifying the action as a representative collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act; 2. approving proposed FLSA notice of this action and the consent form; 3. directing production of names, last known mailing addresses, alternate addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, dates of employment, and job titles for all putative class members; 4. directing ability to email and/or text message the proposed Notice, along with utilizing regular U.S. Mail; 5. certifying this action as a class action under Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) for the claims pursuant to the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act; and 6. appointing Plaintiff Tom as class representative, and the Law Offices of Gilda A. Hernandez, PLLC, as class counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=NOjdJB10 The Plaintiff is represented by: Gilda Adriana Hernandez, Esq. Michael B. Cohen, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A. HERNANDEZ, PLLC 1020 Southhill Dr. Ste. 130 Cary, NC 27513 Telephone: (919) 741 8693 Facsimile: (919) 869 1853 E-mail: ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com mcohen@gildahernandezlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Arch Y. Stokes, Esq. John R. Hunt, Esq. Jordan A. Fishman, Esq. STOKES WAGNER, ALC One Atlantic Center, Suite 2400 1201 West Peachtree Street Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 766 0076 Facsimile: (404) 766 8823 E-mail: astokes@stokeswagner.com jhunt@stokeswagner.com jfishman@stokeswagner.com - and - Kevin M. Ceglowski, Esq. POYNER SPRUILL LLP 301 Fayetteville Street, Suite 1900 Raleigh, NC 27602-01801 Telephone: (919) 783 6400 Facsimile: (919) 783 1075 E-mail: kceglowski@poynerspruill.com HRHH HOTEL/CASINO: "Mason" Sues Over Internet Tax in Resort Fee --------------------------------------------------------------- Jeffery Mason and Eric Serrano, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. HRHH Hotel/Casino, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company d/b/a Hard Rock Hotel & Casino, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00366, (D. Nev., February 28, 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. 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. Both Mason and Serrano were guests at the Hard Rock Hotel and were charged the Clark County Combined Transient Lodging Tax in Resort Fees charged by Hard Rock Hotel for goods and services that included Internet access. HRHH Hotel/Casino, LLC operates as Hard Rock Hotel & Casino located at 4455 Paradise Road, Las Vegas, Nevada. [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 - Mark R. Suter, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: (215) 875-3000 Fax: (215) 875-4604 Email: msuter@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 HSBC BANK: Royal Park Appeals Denial of Cert. Bid to 2nd Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Royal Park Investments SA/NV filed an appeal from the District Court's order denying its motion for class certification entered on February 1, 2018, in its lawsuit styled ROYAL PARK INVESTMENTS SA/NV, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee, Case No. 14-cv-08175, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City). The appellate case is captioned as ROYAL PARK INVESTMENTS SA/NV, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee, Case No. 18-455, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Royal Park presented these questions to the Second Circuit: 1. Is Rule 23(f) review warranted when a district court fails to engage in the mandatory comparative inquiry required to determine whether common questions predominate over individual questions? 2. Is Rule 23(f) review warranted when a district court finds that speculative individual questions predominate over common questions which that court leaves undefined and unexamined? and 3. Is there a compelling need for immediate resolution when recent district court opinions manifestly misinterpret evolving Second Circuit precedent in a manner that impacts claims for hundreds of billions of dollars in losses? In its complaint, Royal Park alleges that HSBC violated its contractual and common law obligations as Trustee for three residential mortgage-backed securities ("RMBS") trusts. Royal Park contends that HSBC is granted certain rights that it is obligated to exercise for the benefit of the Class. If HSBC discovers that loans underlying the Covered Trusts (the "Loans") breach one of the representations and warranties ("R&Ws") made by a "Depositor," "Loan Sellers/Sponsors" and/or an originator or Other Transferor of the Loans (i.e., one of the "Warrantors") concerning the Loan's characteristics, HSBC is required to notify the Warrantor of the violation and to enforce the breaching Warrantor's obligation to either substitute or repurchase the defective Loan.[BN] Plaintiff-Petitioner Royal Park Investments SA/NA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Christopher Martin Wood, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 414 Union Street Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 244-2203 Facsimile: (615) 252-3798 E-mail: cwood@rgrdlaw.com - and - Joseph D. Daley, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101-8498 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Facsimile: (619) 231-7423 E-mail: jdaley@rgrdlaw.com Defendant-Respondent HSBC Bank USA, N.A., is represented by: Andrew W. Rudge, Esq. George A. Borden, Esq. Kevin M. Hodges, Esq. Vidya Atre Mirmira, Esq. Edward Reddington, Esq. Eric C. Wiener, Esq. WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP 725 Twelfth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 434-5000 Facsimile: (202) 434-5029 E-mail: arudge@wc.com gborden@wc.com khodges@wc.com vmirmira@wc.com ereddington@wc.com ewiener@wc.com HSBC BANK: BlackRock Appeals Denial of Bid to Certify Class ----------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs BlackRock Balanced Capital Portfolio (FI) and Royal Park Investments SA/NA filed an appeal from the District Court's order denying their motion for class certification and appointment of class representatives and class counsel entered on February 1, 2018, in their lawsuit entitled BLACKROCK BALANCED CAPITAL PORTFOLIO (FI), ET AL., v. HSBC BANK USA, N.A., Case No. 14-cv-9366, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs are investors suing HSBC Bank over its handling of more than 200 residential mortgage-backed securities trusts. The appellate case is captioned as BLACKROCK BALANCED CAPITAL PORTFOLIO (FI), ET AL., v. HSBC BANK USA, N.A., Case No. 18-450, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Plaintiffs-Petitioners want the Appellate Court to determine whether: 1. it should review the District Court's denial of class certification where, in ruling that Plaintiffs failed to meet Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance requirement, the District Court erred by failing to conduct a rigorous, comparative analysis of the material legal and factual questions at issue in the action, including whether Defendant's liability can be determined on a classwide basis; 2. it should review the District Court's erroneous determination that individualized questions as to whether some class members have standing to sue predominate over common liability questions, where Plaintiffs offered common and uncontroverted evidence establishing that New York law, including New York General Obligations Law Section 13-107, governs all transfers of the RMBS at issue and establishes Class members' standing; and 3. it should review the District Court's denial of class certification, where the District Court's ruling departs from well-established law that an affirmative defense must first be shown to be meritorious to defeat predominance.[BN] The Plaintiffs-Petitioners are represented by: Timothy A. Delange, Esq. Benjamin Galdston, Esq. Lucas E. Gilmore, Esq. Richard D. Gluck, Esq. Brett M. Middleton, Esq. Robert S. Trisotto, Esq. Jacob T. Spaid, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 12481 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92130-3582 Telephone: (858) 793-0070 Facsimile: (858) 793-0323 E-mail: timothyd@blbglaw.com beng@blbglaw.com Lucas.Gilmore@blbglaw.com richard.gluck@blbglaw.com brettm@blbglaw.com robert.trisotto@blbglaw.com jacob.spaid@blbglaw.com Plaintiff-Petitioner Royal Park Investments SA/NA is represented by: Christopher Martin Wood, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 414 Union Street Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 244-2203 E-mail: cwood@rgrdlaw.com - and - Arthur C. Leahy, Esq. Steven W. Pepich, Esq. Cody R. Lejeune, Esq. Ashley M. Robinson, Esq. Hillary B. Stakem, Esq. Jennifer N. Caringal, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101-8498 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Facsimile: (619) 231-7423 E-mail: artl@rgrdlaw.com stevep@rgrdlaw.com clejeune@rgrdlaw.com arobinson@rgrdlaw.com hstakem@rgrdlaw.com jcaringal@rgrdlaw.com Defendant-Respondent HSBC Bank USA, N.A., is represented by: George A. Borden, Esq. Kevin M. Hodges, Esq. Andrew W. Rudge, Esq. Edward C. Reddington, Esq. Vidya Atre Mirmira, Esq. Eric C. Wiener, Esq. Noah M. Weiss, Esq. Meghan A. Ferguson, Esq. Matthew B. Underwood, Esq. Jonah E. Perlin, Esq. Eric A. Kuhl, Esq. William P. Ashworth, Esq. Tanya M. Abrams, Esq. Lauren H. Uhlig, Esq. WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP 725 Twelfth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 434-5000 Facsimile: (202) 434-5029 E-mail: gborden@wc.com khodges@wc.com arudge@wc.com ereddington@wc.com vmirmira@wc.com ewiener@wc.com nweiss@wc.com mferguson@wc.com munderwood@wc.com jperlin@wc.com ekuhl@wc.com washworth@wc.com tabrams@wc.com luhlig@wc.com HUNTER WARFIELD: Faces "Troutt" Suit in Tenn. for Violating FDCPA ----------------------------------------------------------------- Latamara Troutt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hunter Warfield and John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:18-cv-00261 (M.D. Tenn., March 6, 2018), seeks damages and declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act on behalf of a class of Tennessee consumers. Based in Tampa, Florida, the Defendant is a company that uses the mail, telephone, and facsimile, and regularly engages in business the principal purpose of which is to attempt to collect debts alleged to be due another. John Does l-25, are fictitious names of individuals and businesses alleged for the purpose of substituting names of Defendants whose identities will be disclosed in discovery and should be made parties to this action.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Susan S. Lafferty, Esq. LAFFERTY LAW FIRM, P.C. 555 Marriott Drive, Suite 315 Nashville, TN 37214 Telephone: (615) 878-1926 E-mail: susanl@laffertylawonline.com ILLINOIS: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in "Kolton" ---------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled ANTHONY D. KOLTON, S. DAVID GOLDBERG, and JEFFREY S. SCULLEY, individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. MICHAEL W. FRERICHS, Treasurer of the State of Illinois, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-03792 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Charles P. Kocoras entered an order denying Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of a provision of the Illinois Uniform Disposition of Unclaimed Property Act, 765 ILCS Sec. 1025/1, et seq. The Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint claims that the Act authorizes the State to take certain private property for public use without just compensation. The Act is not an escheat statute; it is purely custodial in nature. While Frerichs retains custody of the property, title to the property remains with the owner. The owner may reclaim his or her property from the State at any time. An owner who makes a claim on such property, however, is entitled only to the property that the holder submitted to the State (or the proceeds from the sale thereof) -- "the owner is not entitled to receive income or other increments accruing thereafter." Plaintiffs allege the Act prohibits owners from receiving interest, dividends, or other income or increments earned on their property while in the State's custody. Plaintiffs allege that the Act, by allowing the State to retain interest and other income on unclaimed property, as well as beneficially use the property without paying the owner, constitutes a taking without just compensation. The Court held that, "by focusing on the form of the property now that it is in the State's custody, Plaintiffs neglect the case law that makes explicit that property owners are only entitled to the interest on their property if they were already earning interest on it before the State took custody. It would be difficult to apply this law across-the-board to the proposed class because it would first require a determination of whose property was previously earning interest and whose was not. 'Dissimilarities within the proposed class are what have the potential to impede the generation of common answers.'" The Court added, "Plaintiffs' proposed class may include members whose property was previously earning interest and those whose property was not. This precludes commonality. Furthermore, typicality does not exist where class representatives have to rely on a different legal theory than the rest of the class. See Chi. Teachers Union, Local No. 1 v. Bd. of Educ. of City of Chi., 307 F.R.D. 475, 482 (N.D. Ill. 2015)." The Court also held that, "As Frerichs points out, even the named Plaintiffs' claims may be atypical, as the Complaint specifically describes only Kolton's property, an interest-bearing account, which very well may be different than Goldberg's or Sculley's. Plaintiffs' proposed class thus does not satisfy the commonality and typicality requirements of Rule 41(a), and their Motion is denied. Finally, Frerichs raises a point that is worthy of short discussion in case Plaintiffs desire to reframe their class and seek certification again. Frerichs argues that any injunctive relief sought by the proposed class must be prospective, not retrospective. Plaintiffs seem to agree with Frerichs, pointing out that the class is defined in such a way that only persons who are still property owners under the program, i.e., those who have not yet claimed their property or whose claims are still pending, will benefit from declaratory and injunctive relief. Thus, Frerichs' concern about retrospective relief should be relieved. Frerichs further contends that the proposed class' right to interest should begin from the date of the injunction going forward. Such a determination is beyond the scope of class certification and is not yet ripe for consideration." A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=rUVO04OM INTELLICHECK LLC: Cunha Seeks to Certify Background Check Class --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled JAMES CUNHA, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. INTELLICHECK, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; CHICO PRODUCE, INC., d/b/a PROPACIFIC FRESH, INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00597-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on May 10, 2018 for an order: 1. certifying a Background Check Class: "all persons employed by ProPacific or who applied for a job with ProPacific who, on or after December 20, 2014 through and including March 1, 2018, were the subject of a consumer report that was obtained by ProPacific; 2. appointing Plaintiff James Cunha as the class representative for the Background Check Class; and 3. appointing Patrick N. Keegan of the law firm of Keegan & Baker, LLP, and Walter Haines of The United Employees Law Group as Co-Lead Counsel for the Background Check Class. A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=LTvIgKl6 The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick N. Keegan, Esq. (SBN 167698) James M. Treglio, Esq. (SBN 228077) KEEGAN & BAKER, LLP 6156 Innovation Way Carlsbad, CA 92009 Telephone: (760) 929 9303 Facsimile: (760) 929 9260 E-mail: pkeegan@keeganbaker.com jtreglio@keeganbaker.com - and - Walter Haines, Esq. THE UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP 5500 Bolsa Avenue, Ste 201 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Telephone: (310) 234 5678 Facsimile: (562) 256 1006 E-mail: walter@whaines.com IOOF: In Whistle-blower Dispute with Maurice Blackburn ------------------------------------------------------ Mike Taylor, writing for Money Management, reports that IOOF has had its recent brush with a whistle-blower squarely taken before a Parliamentary Committee with plaintiff law firm, Maurice Blackburn, citing the matter as a reason for amendments to whistle-blowing legislation. In doing so, the law firm has argued that further legislative amendments should be implemented to protect both the whistle- blowers and their lawyers, in circumstances where it alleged IOOF had used legal tactics to restrain the law firm. It said that alleged wrongdoers should be prevented from suing whistle-blowers or their lawyers in circumstances where the whistle-blower had provided incriminating confidential information to lawyers in litigation against the alleged wrongdoer. "In AG Australia Holdings v Burton and Anor (2002), a whistle- blower was sued for talking to class action lawyers for shareholders in breach of a confidentiality agreement," the Maurice Blackburn submission said. "Burton has had a chilling effect on whistle-blowers in the context of civil litigation, with lawyers understandably now very reticent to talk to whistle- blowers." "It is contrary to the interests of justice for wrongdoers to be protected from the consequences of unlawful behaviour in this way, and the recent IOOF matter illustrates how Burton is being abused," the submission claimed. "In this case, the whistle-blower sent incriminating documents to [the Australian Securities and Investments Commission] ASIC, Senators and Fairfax Media and subsequently provided these documents to Maurice Blackburn at the time when our lawyers were investigating a potential class action on behalf of shareholders in IOOF against the company for breaches of the Corporations Act," it said. "IOOF sued Maurice Blackburn to restrain it from acting in the class action but did not pursue the whistle-blower or Fairfax Media. It seems clear that the true purpose of the suit was to avoid the class action, or at least to frustrate it, and to increase the costs involved in its pursuit, in an attempt to mitigate IOOF's liabilities to its shareholders." [GN] JONATHAN SWEENEY: Class Certification Bid in "Bragg" Suit Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled ROBERT BRAGG, the Plaintiff, v. JONATHAN SWEENEY, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-03693 (S.D. W.Va.), the Hon. Judge Joseph Goodwin entered an order: 1. dismissing Bragg's complaint; 2. denying Bragg's motion for appointment of counsel and motion for certification of class; and 3. denying Bragg's application to proceed without prepayment of fees and costs, but the filing fee is waived. The Court said, "Bragg correctly recognizes that, even were his claim to survive the preliminary screening stage, there is no right to appointment of counsel in a civil matter such as this and that a class action may not be brought by a pro se plaintiff. Additionally, Rule 23 provides that "a court that certifies a class must appoint class counsel." Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g). Thus, Bragg requests that the court exercise its discretion to appoint an attorney to represent the putative class, with Bragg serving as the class representative. However, as the Fourth Circuit has instructed, courts should "exercise this power 'only in exceptional circumstances.' Whether the circumstances are exceptional depends on 'the type and complexity of the case, and the abilities of the individual bringing it.'" In the matter, Bragg has not demonstrated a colorable individual claim or any actionable claim on behalf of the putative class. Consequently, even if Bragg had stated a claim upon which relief could be granted, appointment of counsel would not be warranted. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=v3EfZatJ KISWANI TRUCKING: Haggerty Asks Court to Join as Party-Plaintiffs ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled BRIAN HAGGERTY, on behalf of himself, and all other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown, the Plaintiffs, v. KISWANI TRUCKING INC., AND JEHAD MOHAMMAD, INDIVIDUALLY, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-06662 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an Order granting his motion for leave to file additional consents and to join as Party-Plaintiffs. The parties have agreed to this scope of past and present employees who will receive Notice and Consent forms as approved by the Court: "all current employees and all former employees who performed services for Defendants between September 15, 2014 to the present and who were paid either hourly or salary, worked hours in excess of 40 in a week, and who did not receive time and one half their regular rate of pay for those overtime hours." On or about September 15, 2017, on behalf himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff filed his claim for back overtime wages and other relief against Defendants, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=3S8PCQ2p The Plaintiff is represented by: John W. Billhorn, Esq. BILLHORN LAW FIRM 53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 840 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 853 1450 KROGER CO: Court Denies as Moot Bid for Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled DELORES REID, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v, THE KROGER CO., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00815-TS (S.D, Ohio), the Hon. Judge Timothy S. Black entered an order: 1. granting motion of Defendants The Kroger Company and Kroger Limited Partnership I for summary judgment; 2. denying as moot Plaintiff's motion for class certification; and 3. directing Clerk to enter judgment accordingly, whereupon this case is terminated on the docket of the Court. The Court said, "Ms. Reid argues that she was not provided a "meaningful opportunity" to dispute the Initial Background Check. She asserts two arguments in support of this contention; both lack merit. First, Ms. Reid argues that, immediately after she received the Initial Background Check, she called Ms. Austin to challenge her report, and Ms. Austin informed her there was "nothing [Ms. Austin] could do." Ms. Reid argues this statement demonstrates that her employment opportunity was lost as of June 27, 2017, when Ms. Burgess ratified GIS's initial classification of "Not Clear for Hire." This argument fails for two reasons. First, Ms. Austin was right -- there was nothing she could do, because she was not in a position to make any decisions regarding the grading of Ms. Reid's background check. While the Court is required to make all reasonable inferences in favor of the non- movant, it is unreasonable to infer that this out-of-context, factually accurate statement from Ms. Austin actually meant something completely different -- that Ms. Reid's opportunity was lost forever -- in light of the undisputed evidence that her job offer was conditioned upon passing a background check and that she remained eligible for employment while she disputed the Initial Background Check. Second, the FCRA does not require users of consumer reports, like Kroger, to make individual employees, like Ms. Austin, available to assist applicants, like Ms. Reid, with their disputes. The FCRA required Kroger to provide Ms. Reid a copy of the Initial Background Check and a summary of her FCRA rights prior to concluding she was ineligible for employment; the undisputed evidence is that it did. Ms. Reid argues further that Kroger's "preliminary grade" was itself an "adverse action" because Kroger's adjudication process is "illusory." Specifically, Ms. Reid argues that Kroger does not "hold" jobs for applicants while they dispute their reports, and speculates that her job as a deli clerk would not have been available to her had the revised background check resulted in her grade being changed to eligible for hire (which, she admits, it did not). This argument fails for three reasons. First, the evidence is that Ms. Reid's job offer was conditioned upon her passing a background check, and she remained under consideration for employment pending the resolution of her dispute. Second, while Ms. Reid argues that Kroger does not "hold" positions open, she has not pointed to any evidence that her opportunity was "lost;" i.e., that the job for which she was conditionally offered employment was filled, or otherwise became unavailable, while she disputed the contents of the Initial Background Check. Third -- and relatedly -- Ms. Reid cannot show that her opportunity was "lost" because, as she admits, she remained ineligible for hire at Kroger even after she successfully disputed the information in the Initial Background Check. Ms. Reid's hypothetical argument that if she passed the background check, Kroger would not have hired her, is not supported by any evidence and cannot create an issue of fact precluding summary judgment." A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=JY4lJtav LANDAU UNIFORMS: Parker Seeks OT Pay for Off-the-Clock Work ----------------------------------------------------------- Tamra Parker, Individually, and on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Landau Uniforms, Inc. and Nathaniel Landau, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-02138 (W.D. Tenn., February 28, 2018), seeks unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid agreed upon wages, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or injunctive relief and/or any such other relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Landau designs, manufactures and sells healthcare uniforms, among other healthcare related accessories and items, throughout the United States and internationally under the brand names, Landau, Urbane Scrubs and Smitten. Parker worked as an hourly-paid worker who claims to have worked in excess of 40 hours per work week without overtime pay. She was also required to work off-the-clock and worked through meal breaks despite having 30 minutes automatically deducted. [BN] Plaintiffs are represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. James L. Holt, Jr., Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. Paula R. Jackson, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Tel: (901) 754-8001 Fax: (901) 759-1745 Email: gjackson@jsyc.com jholt@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com pjackson@jsyc.com LORALI BUILDING: "Stein" Sues Over Substandard Living Conditions ---------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Stein, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, The Lorali Building, LLC, The Lorali Company, LLC and James Stoller, individually, Defendants, Case No. 2018-CH-02632, (Ill. Cir., February 27, 2018), seeks damages and declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to the Chicago Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance. Defendants operate "Lorali," a single Room Occupancy building at 1039-1045 West Lawrence Avenue in downtown Chicago. Stein is a tenant in this building who claims to be subjected to unsafe, unsanitary and uninhabitable conditions. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Berton N. Ring, Esq. Sheryl Ring, Esq. BERTON N. RING, P.C. #12735 123 West Madison Street 15th Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Tel: (312) 781-0290 LOUISIANA: Sued Over Inadequate Medical Care at Angola Prison ------------------------------------------------------------- BJ Hetherington, writing for Medical Daily Times, reports that a class action lawsuit has been launched for the inmates at the Angola prison in Louisiana due to Francis Brauner. The suit states the medical care caused needless suffering and pain. According to NPR, the situation began in 2005 when Francis Brauner had an accident at the Dixon Correctional Institute in Louisiana. He had been imprisoned for rape and claims the charge was wrongful and instigated by a corrupt judge. He was sentenced to hard labor and was cutting grass. He bent over to pick something up and had a sharp pain in his back. The pain continued to get worse and he could barely stand. He was sent to Charity Hospital in New Orleans but re-routed to Angola prison due to Hurricane Katrina. There was a surgery that might have helped but he was denied. He was left for a month in bed and developed wounds that became infected on his backside. These sores ate at his muscle tissue and he nearly died. He was paralyzed from the waist down. Angora prison has more than 6,000 men and most are there for a life sentence. The prison is in a remote area so it has a medical staff living on the grounds. The staff were so careless regarding treatments Mr. Brauner began keeping a journal. He shared this information with attorney Nick Trenticosta during a visit regarding another case. Mr. Trenticosta has been to the prison monthly for the last thirty years but never saw the hospital ward. He saw everything from fly tape filled with dead flies handing over beds where the patients had open bedsores to open containers of garbage. A lawsuit was filed in 2015 due to the increasing complaints from the inmates. Judge Shelly Dick agreed the case could proceed as a class action lawsuit. The prison claims the medical staff is small and trying to care for 6,000 inmates. Mr. Trenticosta said the prison lacked proper equipment and medication and compared it to a MASH unit. The only group in the United States entitled to health care under the constitution are the prisoners. The question became the quality of the health care they are entitled to. The lawsuit is demanding a bigger budget, reforms and additional oversight. Mr. Brauner is one of few survivors from the chronic care ward at the prison. He is currently at a medical facility awaiting the surgery necessary to heal his wounds. [GN] MDL 2804: Lowell, Billerica Join Opioid Crisis Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Rick Sobey, writing for Lowell Sun, reports that it's time for Big Pharma to pony up and take responsibility for flooding cities and towns with opioids. That's the message from lawyers with Massachusetts Opioid Litigation Attorneys, a group representing communities in a class-action lawsuit against prescription opioid manufacturers and distributors. The MOLA lawsuit seeks monetary damages for past and future costs of emergency response, emergency services training, law- enforcement actions, Narcan, workers' compensation, education campaigns, treatment and more. Lowell and Billerica have recently signed on to the effort, which officials hope will bring about meaningful change in the pharmaceutical industry. The litigation has already resulted in positive movement, according to Richard Sandman, a lawyer with MOLA. He pointed to one of the major pharmaceutical companies, Purdue Pharma, announcing recently that the company slashed its sales force by more than 50 percent. The company will no longer promote opioids to prescribers. "It's from the pressure of all these lawsuits," said Mr. Sandman, of the firm Rodman, Rodman & Sandman in Malden. "You get the sense that we're going to see a significant response at how we administer or prescribe painkillers," added Sandman, who was set to brief the Lowell City Council on the lawsuit on March 13. The lawsuits are not limited to Massachusetts. It has been a nationwide movement to sue Big Pharma for costs resulting from the opioid crisis. The pharmaceutical companies committed fraud by marketing opioids as a treatment for chronic pain, according to the lawsuits. It has resulted in opioids pouring into cities and towns, causing this public-health crisis, MOLA states. In addition, the distributors failed to detect and report suspicious opioid orders to authorities as required under the Controlled Substances Act, Mr. Sandman said. Instead, they shipped large amounts of pills to pharmacies, he said. "You had millions of pills going to a community of fewer than 1,000 people in two years," Mr. Sandman said. "That's what you would call a suspicious order." Since the litigation started, there has been an incredible difference in the number of suspicious orders getting reported, he added. In addition to Purdue Pharma, the pharmaceutical companies involved in these lawsuits are Endo Health Solutions, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries and subsidiary Cephalon, Johnson & Johnson and subsidiary Janssen Pharmaceuticals and Allergan. The distributors connected to these lawsuits are McKesson Corp., AmerisourceBergen Drug Corp., and Cardinal Health Inc. "We are deeply troubled by the prescription and illicit opioid abuse crisis, and we are dedicated to being part of the solution," Purdue Pharma said in a statement. "As a company grounded in science, we must balance patient access to FDA- approved medicines, while working collaboratively to solve this public health challenge. "Although our products account for less than 2 percent of the total opioid prescriptions, as a company, we've distributed the CDC Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain, developed three of the first four FDA-approved opioid medications with abuse-deterrent properties and partner with law enforcement to ensure access to naloxone," the company added. "We vigorously deny these allegations and look forward to the opportunity to present our defense." Some have compared these lawsuits to the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement in 1998. Tobacco companies ended up reimbursing states for Medicaid funds they spent on treating patients with lung cancer and emphysema. With these opioid lawsuits, the money would directly help out cities and towns, Sandman pointed out. "Certainly it worked well with the cigarette lawsuits, with a lot of prevention money to help in the battle against smoking," Lowell House CEO Bill Garr said. "Any resources we can get in this community in our battle against the opioid crisis would be more than welcome." Billerica officials signed on to the lawsuit. Selectmen Chairman Andrew Deslaurier said it was an "obligation" to join. "We have to do something. We need to take our own action," he said. "There's no one not touched by this." [GN] MECTA CO: Class Certification Denied in ECT Shock Treatment Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled RIERAM, ET AL., the Plaintiffs, v. MECTA, CO., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-06686-RGK-PJW (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge R. Gary Klausner entered an order denying Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification of: 1. "all individuals in the United States who received ECT shock treatment in California after May 28, 1982, administered by an ECT shock device that was manufactured, sold, and/or distributed by Defendants after May 28, 1982, and who suffered an injury as a result thereof, with the exception of [government entities, and all judges assigned to hear any aspect of this litigation, as well as their immediate family members]; and 2. "all spouses of such individuals that have suffered related loss of consortium damages". A copy of the Civil Minutes is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ysuKELEt MERCHANTS & PROFESSIONAL: "Patterson" Disputes Collection Letter ---------------------------------------------------------------- Erica Patterson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Merchants & Professional Credit Bureau, Inc. and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv- 00183, (W.D. Tex., February 28, 2018), seeks damages and declaratory and injunctive relief under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act. Merchants & Professional Credit Bureau, Inc. is a debt collection agency located at 5508 Parkcrest Drive, Suite 210, Austin, TX 78731. Merchants attempted to collect an obligation incurred by Patterson involving a medical debt Austin Regional CL-TCMS via a collection letter that threatened to write it up on her credit report. [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 MERCK & CO: Rigged Cholesterol Meds Price Claims Painters' Fund --------------------------------------------------------------- Painters District Council No. 30 Health and Welfare Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Merck & Co., Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., MSP Singapore Co. LLC, Glenmark Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. and Glenmark Generics Inc., USA, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00116 (E.D. Va., February 28, 2018), seeks damages plus interest, including reasonable attorneys' fees and such other and further relief resulting from unjust enrichment, conspiracy and combination in restraint of trade and in violation of various state consumer protection laws. Merck and Glenmark allegedly connived for Glenmark not to compete in the Zetia market. Zetia is a cholesterol drug that counteracts plaque development in arteries. Merck avoided patent invalidation and retained its lucrative Zetia monopoly until Glenmark entered with its generic product. Merck allegedly gained from Glenmark's agreement to postpone generic entry during the six months in which Glenmark enjoyed generic exclusivity due to Merck's agreement not to launch an authorized generic version of Zetia. Such anticompetitive agreement monopolized the price of Zetia, says the complaint. Painters District Council No. 30 Health and Welfare Fund is an employee welfare benefit plan providing benefits to active and retired painters, drywall finishers, and glaziers in the construction trade and to their dependents. Merck & Company, Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation, Schering- Plough Corporation, Schering Corporation and MSP Singapore Company LLC are pharmaceuticals companies that operate under the Merck brand. Glenmark is an Indian pharmaceutical company with US presence. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Cales, III, Esq. Alan Brody Rashkind, Esq. FURNISS, DAVIS, RASHKIND AND SAUNDERS, PC 6160 Kempsville Circle, Suite 341B Norfolk, VA 23502 Tel: (757) 461-7100 Fax: (757) 461-0083 Email: ARashkind@furnissdavis.com JCales@furnissdavis.com - and - Marvin A. Miller, Esq. Lori A. Fanning, Esq. MILLER LAW LLC 115 South LaSalle Street, Suite 2910 Chicago, IL 60603 Tel: (312) 332-3400 Email: MMiller@millerlawllc.com LFanning@millerlawllc.com - and - Joseph M. Burns, Esq. Brandon Anderson, Esq. JACOBS, BURNS, ORLOVE, & HERNANDEZ 150 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 1000 Chicago, IL 60601 Tel: (312) 327-3431 Email: JBurns@jbosh.com BAnderson@jbosh.com - and - Marvin A. Miller, Esq. Lori A. Fanning, Esq. MILLER LAW LLC 115 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 2910 Chicago, IL 60603 Tel: 312.332.3400 Fax: 312.676.2676 E-mail: mmiller@millerlawllc.com LFanning@millerlawllc.com MESSERLI & KRAMER: Proceedings in "Kleczewski" Suit Stayed ---------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled MATTHEW G. KLECZEWSKI, the Plaintiff, v. MESSERLI & KRAMER P.A., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv- 00422-WED (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge William E. Duffin entered an order granting Plaintiff's motion to stay further proceedings is granted. The Court said, "The parties are relieved from the automatic briefing schedule set forth in Civil Local Rule 7(b) and (c). Moreover, for administrative purposes, it is necessary that the Clerk terminate the plaintiff's motion for class certification. However, this motion will be regarded as pending to serve its protective purpose under Damasco." In Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011), the court suggested that class-action plaintiffs "move to certify the class at the same time that they file their complaint." "The pendency of that motion protects a putative class from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs." However, because parties are generally unprepared to proceed with a motion for class certification at the beginning of a case, the Damasco court suggested that the parties "ask the district court to delay its ruling to provide time for additional discovery or investigation." A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=OkHKyFr7 MIDLAND CREDIT: Hernandez Amended Class Certification Bid Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled DANIEL HERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-11179 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Joan B. Gottschall entered an order denying Plaintiff's amended motion for class certification. The Court said, "This lawsuit has been plagued with problems from the outset. Initially, the court denied class certification on ascertainability grounds. In a July 24, 2017 order, the court ruled that plaintiff's proposal that the class received "one or more letters or other communications similarly in the form of the October 5th Letter" encompasses an amorphous group of people who may have received telephone communications as well as letters, as well as providing no way to tell whether a communication other than one of the two letters was or was not "substantially similar." Moreover, the class definition proposed by plaintiff had no time limitation other than the conclusion of the litigation, a problem noted by numerous cases. Now, the court is faced with two different letters, which the plaintiff claims are materially identical, but which, as far as the court is concerned, raise the real problem of class members who understood, or misunderstood, very different language. At this point, skeptical about the viability of plaintiff's cause of action, but even more skeptical about the propriety of class certification when two very different letters are involved, not to speak of the fact that the court has no relevant information or analysis given that it has found the two letters materially different, the court is forced to conclude that it has done enough work on class certification on its own, and the issue has dragged on for too long. Plaintiff's amended motion for class certification is denied. A status hearing is set for April 20, 2018 at 9:30 a.m." A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=OAq0WKdA MILWAUKEE, WI: Collins, et al. Seek to Certify Class & Subclass --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled Charles Collins, et al., the Plaintiffs, v. The City of Milwaukee, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv- 00234-JPS-DEJ (E.D. Wisc.), Charles Collins, Tracy Adams, Jeremy Brown, Gregory Chambers, Caleb Roberts, David Crowley, Stephen Jansen, and Alicia Silvestre ask the Court for an order: a. certifying Main Class of: "all persons who, since January 7, 2008, have been or will be stopped and/or stopped and frisked by MPD officers"; b. certifying Subclass of Black and Latino members of the Main Class: c. appointing themselves as representatives of the Main Class and Subclass; and d. appointing American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, the American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin Foundation, and Covington & Burling LLP as Class counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=M5fYg7wo Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Nusrat J. Choudhury, Esq. Jason D. Williamson, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, INC. 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 549 2500 E-mail: nchoudhury@aclu.org jwilliamson@aclu.org - and - Anthony Herman, Esq. Shanya Dingle, Esq. Jon-Michael Dougherty, Esq. Justin Golart, Esq. Kerrel Murray, Esq. Jessica Jensen, Esq. Hwa Young Jin, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP One City Center 850 Tenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 662 5615 E-mail: sdingle@cov.com jdougherty@cov.com jgolart@cov.com kmurray@cov.com jjensen@cov.com hjin@cov.com - and - Karyn L. Rotker, Esq. Laurence J. Dupuis, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF WISCONSIN FOUNDATION 207 East Buffalo Street, Suite 325 Milwaukee, WI 53202 Telephone: (414) 272 4032 E-mail: krotker@aclu-wi.org ldupuis@aclu-wi.org MIMEDX GROUP: "Gordon" Sues Over Share Price Drop ------------------------------------------------- Kenneth Gordon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Mimedx Group, Inc., Parker H. Petit, And Michael J. Senken, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-01831 (S.D. N.Y., February 28, 2018), seeks damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, as well as reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs and such other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. MiMedx Group Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company that focuses on biomaterials for soft tissue repair, such as tendons, ligaments, and cartilage, as well as other biomaterial based products for other medical applications. Defendants failed to disclose that MiMedx engaged in a "channel-stuffing" scheme designed to inappropriately recognize revenue that had not yet been realized and failed to disclose its financial ties to physicians, as required by federal law. The company allegedly lacked adequate internal controls over financial reporting and its shares traded at artificially inflated prices. MiMedx's share price fell $5.72, or 39.53%, to close at $8.75 on February 20, 2018. Gordon acquired MiMedx securities at artificially inflated prices and lost upon the revelation of the alleged corrective disclosures. Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com MODERNIZE INC: Morris Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass ------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled SYLVIA MORRIS, on Behalf of Herself and all Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. MODERNIZE INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00963-SS (W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. certifying a class of: "all persons in the United States who: (a) received more than one telephone solicitation calls, initiated by Defendant to promote products or services; (b) in a 12-month period; (c) on their cellular telephone line or residential telephone line; (d) more than 30 days after registering their telephone number(s) on the National Do Not Call Registry; (e) at any time in the period that begins four years before the filing of the complaint in this action to the date that class notice is disseminated, (f) and where Defendant obtained the lead for that person through findsolarrebates.com"; alternatively, 2. certifying a subclass of: "all persons in the United States who: (a) received more than one telephone solicitation calls, initiated by Defendant to promote products or services; (b) in a 12- month period; (c) on their cellular telephone line or residential telephone line; (d) more than 30 days after registering their telephone number(s) on the National Do Not Call Registry; (e) at any time in the period that begins four years before the filing of the complaint in this action to the date that class notice is disseminated, (f) and where the lead for the class member was obtained through findsolarrebates.com between June 1, 2015 and December 31, 2016"; 3. appointing Plaintiff as Class Representative for the class and subclass; 4. appointing Bursor & Fisher, P.A. and Hughes Ellzey LLP as Class Counsel; and 5. granting any such further relief as this Court deems reasonable and just. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=kyMHp8CE Attorneys for Plaintiff: Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq. Scott A. Bursor, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 989 9113 Facsimile: (212) 989 9163 E-Mail: scott@bursor.com jarisohn@bursor.com - and - W. Craft Hughes, Esq. Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq. HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP 2700 Post Oak Blvd., Ste. 1120 Galleria Tower I Houston, TX 77056 Telephone: (713) 554 2377 Facsimile: (888) 995 3335 E-mail: craft@hughesellzey.com jarrett@hughesellzey.com MONARCH RECOVERY: Hartman Seeks to Certify Consumers Class ---------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled MELISSA HARTMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MONARCH RECOVERY MANAGEMENT, INC., and DOES 1 - 25, the Defendants, Case No. 2:15- cv-01364-CB (W.D. Pa.), the Parties will jointly move the Court on April 17, 2018, for an Order certifying the case to proceed as a class action, and granting final approval of the settlement, on behalf of the following class: "all Pennsylvania consumers who were sent collection letters from Defendant in an attempt to collect an obligation owed to Synchrony Bank, similar to the Collection Letter annexed to the complaint as Exhibit A, where Monarch's File Number was visible through the lower glassine window of the enclosing envelope, during the time period spanning October 20, 2014 to the present." A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=9zFXnlu9 The Plaintiff is represented by: Ari H. Marcus, Esq. MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC 1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101 Ocean, NJ 07712 Telephone: (732) 695 3282 Facsimile: (732) 298 6256 E-Mail: Ari@MarcusZelman.com Attorneys for MRM Recovery Management, Inc.: Andrew M. Schwartz, Esq. MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN AND GOGGIN, P.C. 2000 Market Street, Suite 2300 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 575 2765 Facsimile: (215) 575 0856 E-mail: Amschwartz@mdwcg.com MONAT: Faces Consumer Claims Over Hair Product Line --------------------------------------------------- Darcy Spears, writing for KTNV, reports that scalp sores, breakage and hair falling out in chunks. It's a hair care nightmare and some women are blaming it on the Monat hair care product line. "I took a picture of my hair, compared it to a picture of before I stared Monat, and my eyes just filled up with tears. It was so thin and it was stringy and I was just sick," said Erin Ostby, a military spouse who used and sold Monat products. Women like Ostby say they watched their hopes for beautiful, healthy hair wash down the drain after using Monat. "It's devastating!" said Heather Fox, a customer in Phoenix. "I had bald spots in the back of my hair," reported Amber Alabaster of Oklahoma City. Autumn Thomas, a mother in Canada, sent us pictures of her 2- year-old son's abrupt and acute hair loss. She included a doctor's diagnosis tying it, as well as pain and redness on the scalp, directly to Monat shampoo. Heather Fox used it on her son too. "And right away he had a reaction to his scalp. He had big, red, open sores throughout his scalp. It was really itchy." As a salesperson, Erin is what the company calls a Market Partner. "I have over 100 people in my downline, customers and Market Partners. I reached up to five figures in those eight months in additional income. So realizing what was happening was a hard pill to swallow." Her decision to stop selling Monat didn't come easily. "I was crying to my husband," she recalls. "I was vacuuming every day because I was losing so much hair. And I think I was in denial. I didn't want to believe it was the product." All three women say their Market Partners told them that it was a problem with them and they needed to go to their doctor. "So I did go to the doctor," said Amber. "I had a full panel done, blood work, everything," Heather explained. "And there was nothing that pointed to a reason -- besides product use -- of why I lost my hair," Erin said. They and consumers who complained online were told it was normal and part of a detox process documented in the company's own sales literature. "We no longer do that. We don't do it," said Monat spokesperson Gene Grabowski regarding using the term "detox." Monat would only agree to a phone interview where they told us all the complaints just don't add up. "To have this happen in such a short period of time, statistically is impossible," Mr. Grabowski said. They question consumer claims about their products. "It's been a real challenge because we have seen the pictures online and we've heard the complaints but we haven't seen any documentation of accuracy of a single one." There's a lot more to this story including FDA adverse event reports, class action lawsuits and more. [GN] NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Court Denies "Long" Class Certification Bid ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled ANTHONY D. LONG, the Plaintiff, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-01202 (S.D. W.Va.), the Hon Judge Thomas Johnston entered an order: 1. granting in part and denying in part Defendant's motion for partial summary judgment; and 2. denying Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment and Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Court said, "This action will proceed against Nationstar on Long's second individual claim, insofar as it is related to phone calls allegedly made after the Effective Date, and Long's fourth individual claim insofar as it is related to the request or charging for attorneys' fees after the Effective Date." A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=6c3LkyK5 NEW MEXICO: Wage Theft Settlement Approved ------------------------------------------ Andy Stiny, writing for Sta. Fe New Mexican, reports that they exchanged hugs, handshakes and congratulations in Spanish and English, both inside and outside the Santa Fe courtroom March 9 afternoon. They came from the Navajo Nation, Santa Fe, Albuquerque, Farmington and Gallup, but they all had one thing in common. They were low-wage workers who charged in a lawsuit against the New Mexico Department of Workforce Solutions that they were victims of wage theft. Their employers didn't pay or underpaid them, they said, but when they filed complaints, the state did not investigate and failed to enforce wage payment laws. State District Judge David Thomson gave final approval March 9 to an agreement worked out last year and commended the plaintiffs and the state agency. "It was a good resolution to a difficult issue," Thomson told the courtroom where about 30 plaintiffs and their battery of attorneys and supporters were present. Under the agreement, Workforce Solutions will now reopen investigations into cases that were previously closed and will begin to investigate cases with wage theft claims over $10,000, which it had declined to investigate in the past. After spelling out what plaintiffs' attorneys and attorneys for Workforce had cooperatively agreed on, lead attorney Elizabeth Wagoner with the New Mexico Center on Law and Poverty said a key reason for the hearing was to hear any objections to the agreement. There were none, but four people who alleged they were victims of wage theft, including Jose "Pancho" Olivas, who was the lead plaintiff in the case when it was filed in 2017, addressed the court. The litigation had been joined by several workers' rights organizations including Somos Un Pueblo Unido and the Center on Law and Poverty. Olivas, a member of Somos Gallup, said he moved his family to Farmington in 2014 to help remodel a restaurant and get it operating. He and his wife worked there for six months. "I would work between 65 and 100 hours per week, but the owner would always pay me far fewer hours than I worked," Olivas told the court. "And my wife would not get paid at all." Olivas tried to file a complaint with Workforce Solutions shortly after he left the job in 2015. "But they [Workforce] sent me a letter saying they could not take my case because I was owed more than $10,000." That cap has been eliminated under the agreement, lead attorney Elizabeth Wagoner, Esq. told the court, and Olivas' case will now be reopened. Olivas said he joined the class-action lawsuit because he "thought it was wrong the department would not investigate my case because my ex-boss had stolen too much of my hard-earned money." Another party to the lawsuit, Madeline Cadman of Tohlakai on the Navajo Reservation, also addressed the court. She said she worked for a home care service provider for 12 years and in 2009 became a field coordinator and would get paid an extra $15 per week for 16 hours of work. "I estimated close to 3,000 hours in unpaid wages and overtime," Cadman told the judge. "I am looking forward to my case moving forward and finally getting the justice and the wages that I deserve." Attorney Wagoner told the court the state agency had sent out 2,50o notices to class-action members and had received no objections to the settlement. No money was sought in the lawsuit, only "injunctive relief," she said. The settlement requires that the department "vacate prior practices" including not investigating claims over $10,000; abandon prior procedures on investigating wage theft claims; stop the practice of requiring that claimants make their claims in English; and use a new "investigative manual," which is almost 200 pages, in future investigations. "We are close to a final version now," Wagoner told the court. There also will be radio ads to inform claimants of the right to reopen claims for one year after March 9's settlement approval. Gabriela Ibanez Guzman, Esq. staff attorney for Somos Un Pueblo Unido, told the court, "We look forward to seeing it help recoup their unpaid wages." Workforce Solutions attorney Daniel Apodaca said they had worked closely with the plaintiff's attorneys on the settlement. "We are very much in favor of the settlement," he told the court. After the hearing, five Somos clients -- three former and two current employees of the Santa Fe Bar and Grill -- announced that they have filed wage theft complaints unrelated to March 9's settlement. "I don't think there is any validity to it," business owner Robbie Day said March 9. Day said he received a letter from the National Labor Relations Board. He said the lead complainant is a disgruntled former employee. He noted that he has about two dozen kitchen workers who have not joined the complaint. Day said the National Labor Relations Board told him they would look into it "to see if it will go forward." [GN] NEW POWER INC: "Calderon" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT, Wage Statements --------------------------------------------------------------- Fernando Calderon, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. New Power, Inc., a California corporation, and Does 1 to 100, Inclusive,, Defendants, Case No. 695542 (Cal. Super., February 27, 2018), seeks redress for Defendants' failure to provide meal periods, rest periods, minimum wages, overtime, complete and accurate wage statements, reimbursement of business-related expenses resulting from unfair business practices; waiting time penalties for unpaid wages due upon termination in violation of the California Labor Code, California Business and Professions Code; and declaratory relief, damages, penalties, equitable relief, costs and attorneys' fees. New Power Inc. -- www.newpower.company.com -- is a solar energy company in Los Angeles where Calderon worked as an installer. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Michael R. Crosner, Esq. Zachary M. Crosner, Esq. Alfredo Nava, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, PC 433 N. Camden Dr., Ste. 400 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Tel: (310) 496-4818 Fax: (310)510-6429 Email: mike@crosnerlegal.com zach@crosnerlegal.com alfredo@crosnerlegal.com NEW YORK: NYCHA Fails to Address Mold Issues After Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- Khristina Narizhnaya and Emily Saul, writing for New York Post, report that an elderly Bronx woman who told The Post that her home's mold infestation has been ignored by the city Housing Authority even after she sued was finally paid a visit by the agency over the weekend. "I guess they got some word from somebody," 83-year-old Albertha Fernandez said on March 11 from her Forest Houses apartment. The female NYCHA worker "came here on a Saturday, and they never do no business on a Saturday," Ms. Fernandez said. The worker said "she knew about" the mold, according to the senior, adding the worker swore other staffers would be to address the issue. Ms. Fernandez, who has lived in the complex since 1956, said she first started reporting the uninhabitable conditions in 2015 and filed a lawsuit against NYCHA in December. NYCHA is required to address most mold repairs within a week, as per a 2013 settlement following a class-action lawsuit. The law allows them 15 days to resolve more complicated cases. The city has not met either requirement, according to Fernandez. "They think they can do this in two days, but they can't do this in no two days," she said, gesturing to the mold-coated structure. "My feelings haven't changed, they ain't done nothing yet." NYCHA did not respond to a request for comment on March 11. Ms. Fernandez said she plans to file another suit against the department once she gets her hospital records -- claiming she broke her hip moving items for NYCHA inspectors who never showed. [GN] NFL: Patriots Report Brain Injuries, Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------ Bob Hohler, writing for Boston Globe, reports that three times between 2002 and 2005, convoys of duck boats carried New England's Super Bowl champions through cascading confetti and adoring crowds to Boston City Hall during the infancy of the Patriots dynasty. Of all the men on the boats, only three -- 40-year-old Tom Brady, 45-year-old Adam Vinatieri of the Colts, and 37-year-old Ben Watson of the Ravens -- remained active last season in the National Football League. They are the fortunate few. Dozens of their teammates who rode those boats and shared their championship glory are now coping with the consequences of football head injuries, their memories in some cases wilting. Some 42 of about 100 Patriots who were members of New England's first three Super Bowl title teams have alleged in a landmark class-action concussion suit against the NFL and the helmet maker Riddell that they have experienced symptoms of brain injuries caused by the repetitive head impacts they absorbed in games and practices. [GN] NORTHSHORE UNIVERSITY: Barrett Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled SAKEENA BARRETT, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. NORTHSHORE UNIVERSITY HEALTHSYSTEM, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-09088 (N.D. Ill.), Ms. Sakeena Barrett, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated individuals, moves the Court pursuant to Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, for entry of an order: 1. conditionally certifying a FLSA Collective, defined as: "all current and former hourly Patient Access Representatives employed by Northshore University Health System at any time from December 19, 2014 through the date of judgment in this case; 2. requiring Defendant to identify all putative members of the proposed Collective by providing a list of their names, last known addresses, dates of employment, phone numbers, and e-mail addresses in electronic and importable format, e.g., a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, within 14 days of the entry of the order; 3. permitting Plaintiff's counsel to send Court-approved Notice of this action to putative members of the proposed Collective via US Mail and email; 4. permitting Plaintiff's counsel to send the shortened reminder Notice to putative members of the Collective via text message 30 days into the opt-in period; and 5. approving a 60 day opt-in period from the date the Court- approved Notice is sent during which putative members of the Collective may join this case by returning their written consents. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=zyNbYOHr Attorneys for Plaintiff: Jason T. Brown, Esq. Nicholas Conlon, Esq. Zijian Guan, Esq. JTB LAW GROUP, LLC 500 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 600 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (877) 561 0000 Facsimile: (855) 582 5297 E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com cocozguan@jtblawgroup.com - and - Matthew L. Turner, Esq. Charles R. Ash, IV, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, Suite 1700 Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355 0300 E-mail: MTurner@sommerspc.com crash@sommerspc.com ONTARIO: Suit Accuses Gov't of Leaving Foreign-Born Crown Wards --------------------------------------------------------------- Jacques Gallant, writing for The Star, reports that Kiwayne Jones was 21, when, after having spent about a decade moving around foster homes as a Crown ward, he was given some of his documentation by the Children's Aid Society. Among the papers was a nearly-expired permanent residency card and a Jamaican birth certificate no longer considered valid in that country. Despite having lived here since he arrived with his parents at age 10, Jones was not a Canadian citizen. And he still isn't today. He's now the representative plaintiff of a proposed $200-million class-action lawsuit brought against the Ontario government by individuals, who, as non-citizen children, were taken into the care of CAS and made Crown wards. The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the government failed in its duties "to take all reasonable steps to maintain permanent residency status and pursue and obtain Canadian citizenship for the non-citizen Crown wards in its care," according to a statement of claim filed in Superior Court. Genevieve Oger, spokesperson for the Ministry of Children and Youth Services, said the ministry "is committed to supporting the highest quality services for children and youth who are in need of protection. "We are committed to protecting the best interests of Crown wards. The Government of Ontario is currently reviewing the claim, but, as this matter is subject to litigation, it would be inappropriate to comment further," she said. Jones, now 29, was born in Jamaica and became a permanent resident of Canada in 1999, having arrived here with his parents. Within less than a year after their arrival, Jones was apprehended by the Toronto CAS and he was made a permanent Crown ward in 2000, according to the statement of claim. "I kind of felt disowned. I felt confused. I couldn't understand what happened," Jones said in an interview with the Star, talking about the confusion over his status in Canada after he was no longer a Crown ward. "When you're in your teenage years, you're trying to just be comfortable in your skin, and here I was now at 21 and just not knowing what my status is. I was disappointed. "In theory, being a Crown ward, the likelihood of me returning to my parents is less than one per cent, so the Crown has decided they're going to be my parents, and all the circumstances around that would mean I'm adopted as a Canadian, but that's not the reality of it." None of the allegations in the lawsuit have been proven in court; it hasn't yet been certified by a judge as a class-action. The proposed class members would include anyone who became a Crown ward in Ontario after Jan. 1, 1966, and who was not a Canadian citizen when he or she ceased to be a Crown ward. It's unclear at this point just how many people could qualify to be class members. "The government is the legal parent of the children that it takes into its permanent care. This action asserts that the government has the parental duty to take steps to secure the immigration status, permanent residency, and Canadian citizenship of its Crown wards. Where that legal duty is ignored, the impact is obviously very significant, both for the individual and for society as a whole," said one of Jones' lawyers, Julie Kirkpatrick, Esq. -- juliekirkpatrick@me.com The proposed class-action comes as a 24-year-old Nova Scotia man who arrived in Canada as a Somali child refugee, and who never received Canadian citizenship while in foster care, fights to remain in the country. The case of Abdoul Abdi , who faces a deportation hearing after serving five years in prison for offences including aggravated assault, has sparked protests across the country, and drawn attention to the issue of provincial governments failing to put the children in their care on the path to citizenship. Abdi was moved 31 times between foster homes. He lost his native language and developed behavioural problems that advocates say were not adequately treated. Those issues led to problems with the justice system and his non-citizenship put him at risk of deportation. The Immigration and Refugee Board will decide on March 21 if the deportation hearing should proceed; Abdi's lawyer has argued it should be put on hold pending the outcome of a judicial review of the case, which will be heard May 29 in Federal Court. "In a way, (Abdi) is an extreme example of what happens when children's aid societies don't fulfil their responsibilities," said Nova Scotia-based lawyer Mike Dull, Esq. who is co-counsel on the Ontario class-action. "And so Kiwayne's story is similar to what happened here in Nova Scotia, but to, perhaps, a less pronounced degree. I think what we've learned in preparing this class-action is that the issues and affairs of children's aid societies in Ontario aren't unique in Ontario." Jones said he now has all of his documentation and is ready to apply to become a citizen. He hopes the lawsuit will lead to action and concrete policies on ensuring children's aid societies stay on top of the immigration status of the children in their care. After he ceased being a Crown ward, Jones pursued post-secondary education, studying construction and engineering. He now works as a project co-ordinator in Toronto, and wants to pursue his dream of building community centres. "I felt I should dedicate a path of my life, working with CAS and the government, to ensure that these facilities exist," he said. "I want to consider myself a success story." [GN] OPTIMUM OUTCOMES: Class Cert. Proceedings in "Dunn" Suit Stayed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled KEVIN DUNN, the Plaintiff, v. OPTIMUM OUTCOMES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 18-CV-369 (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge William E. Duffin entered an order granting Plaintiff's motion to stay further proceedings on class certification. On March 9, 2018, the plaintiff filed a class action complaint. At the same time, the plaintiff filed what the court commonly refers to as a "protective" motion for class certification. In this motion the plaintiff moved to certify the class described in the complaint but also moved the court to stay further proceedings on that motion. In Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011), the court suggested that class-action plaintiffs "move to certify the class at the same time that they file their complaint." Id. "The pendency of that motion protects a putative class from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs." However, because parties are generally unprepared to proceed with a motion for class certification at the beginning of a case, the Damasco court suggested that the parties "ask the district court to delay its ruling to provide time for additional discovery or investigation." The parties are relieved from the automatic briefing schedule set forth in Civil Local Rule 7(b) and (c). Moreover, for administrative purposes, it is necessary that the Clerk terminate the plaintiff's motion for class certification. However, this motion will be regarded as pending to serve its protective purpose under Damasco. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=x63YDMUw PLY GEM: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Delaware --------------------------------------------------- Andrews & Springer LLC, a boutique securities class action law firm focused on representing shareholders nationwide, on March 12 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed by another law firm on behalf of shareholders of Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. (NYSE:PGEM) ("Ply Gem" or the "Company") for possible corporate misconduct and breach of fiduciary duty. A copy of the complaint is available from the Court or from Andrews & Springer LLC. If you currently own shares of Ply Gem and want to receive additional information and protect your investments free of charge, please visit us at http://www.andrewsspringer.com/cases-investigations/ply-gem- class-action-investigation/ or contact Craig J. Springer, Esq. at cspringer@andrewsspringer.com, or call toll free at 1-800-423- 6013. 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. On January 31, 2018, Ply Gem and Clayton, Dubilier & Rice ("CD&R"), a private equity firm, announced the signing of a definitive merger agreement pursuant to which CD&R will acquire Ply Gem in a merger worth $2.4 billion (the "Merger"). As a result of the merger, Ply Gem's shareholders are only anticipated to receive $21.64 per share in cash in exchange for each share of Ply Gem. A Ply Gem shareholder represented by another law firm has filed a class action complaint against Ply Gem for breach of fiduciary duty. The complaint was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, Case No. 2018-0151-AGB. According to the lawsuit, on February 14, 2018, defendants filed a preliminary information statement (the "Proxy") with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") in connection with the Merger. The Proxy omits material information with respect to the Merger, which renders the Proxy false and misleading. Accordingly, plaintiff seeks that the Merger should be enjoined until defendants disclose more information to stockholders. If you own shares of Ply Gem and want to receive additional information and protect your investments free of charge, please visit us at http://www.andrewsspringer.com/cases- investigations/ply-gem-class-action-investigation/ or contact Craig J. Springer, Esq. at cspringer@andrewsspringer.com, or call toll free at 1-800-423-6013. You may also follow us on: LinkedIn -- www.linkedin.com/company/andrews-&-springer-llc Twitter -- www.twitter.com/AndrewsSpringer Facebook -- www.facebook.com/AndrewsSpringer for future updates. Andrews & Springer -- http://www.andrewsspringer.com-- is a boutique securities class action law firm representing shareholders nationwide who are victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty or corporate misconduct. [GN] PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: "O'Brien" Case Settlement Has Initial OK ------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit styled MICHAEL O'BRIEN, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC; and JOHN DOES 1-25, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-04634-SCM (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Steve Mannion entered an order: 1. granting preliminary approval to a proposed settlement within the range of fairness and reasonableness; and 2. provisionally certifying a class solely for settlement purposes: "all persons in the State of New Jersey to whom PRA sent a written communication to Plaintiffs Complaint, in an attempt to collect a debt, which originated with Washington Mutual Bank and/or Providian National Bank, and was not returned as undeliverable by the United States Post Service, during the period beginning August 1, 2015 to August 1, 2016". The Class described above includes approximately 421 persons. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=hAUrGzQJ PURDUE PHARMA: Lynnfield Hopes to File Opioid Crisis Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Itemlive.com reports that Lynnfield is a little town hoping to bring pharmaceutical companies manufacturing opioid-based drugs to court with a class-action lawsuit. The town isn't undertaking its David versus Goliath routine alone: By definition, class-action suits against opioid manufacturers bring together communities intent on fighting the addiction and drug overdose scourge sweeping the nation with a number of goals in mind. The most obvious goal is to help through legal action to minimize, if not eliminate, the opportunities for high-powered opioid painkillers to lead people down the road to addiction. Another goal is to recover, on the behalf of communities, the municipal costs related to fighting the war against addiction. The Board of Selectmen gave Lynnfield's town counsel the green light to retain a Connecticut firm in connection with the class action suit. The board's interest stems in no small part from the Healthy Lynnfield anti-substance abuse initiative wholeheartedly supported by board members. Town Counsel Thomas Mullen told selectmen the town has nothing to lose financially-speaking with its decision to challenge drug companies. But what is the so-called upside for Lynnfield and any other community using the courts to fight addiction? As in any other community across America, compassionate people in Lynnfield know other people -- young and old from all ethnic and socioeconomic classes -- who are in addiction's grips. These people are trying to steer addicts, in some cases, family members, to treatment. The people trying to fight addiction locally are police officers, school employees -- people in the private and the public sector. Some of their efforts save lives, but lives continue to be lost to addiction. Viewed from a cynical perspective, class-action suits against drug companies are just another tactic generating mountains of legal documents and billable hours for attorneys. Viewed from a progressive perspective, the suits are another weapon in the arsenal assembled to fight addiction and battle it until no one dies as a result of an overdose, or walks through life like a zombie, stealing from family members and forfeiting ties with family and society. No one can deny every weapon in the arsenal needs to be in action to defeat addiction. It is an epidemic filling obituary pages in newspapers and leaving behind broken families. Again, cynics will say class-action suits against drug companies are high-profile stunts signifying nothing and producing no tangible results, even after years of legal maneuvering. On the other hand, maybe a high profile is exactly what is needed to start scoring major wins in the fight against addiction. [GN] REVOLUTION MOTORSPORTS: Billings Sues over Robocalls ---------------------------------------------------- FOSTER BILLINGS II, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. REVOLUTION MOTORSPORTS d/b/a HARLEY-DAVIDSON OF COOL SPRINGS, a Louisiana company, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00277 (M.D. Tenn., March 9, 2018), seeks to stop Defendant's practice of placing calls using an automatic telephone dialing system and/or using an artificial or prerecorded voice to the cellular telephones of consumers nationwide without their prior express written consent; enjoin Defendant from continuing to place prerecorded telephone calls to consumers who did not provide their prior express written consent to receive them -- and to those on the National Do Not Call Registry; and obtain redress for all persons injured by its conduct. According to the complaint, the Defendant is a company that sells new and used Harley-Davidsons to consumers. The Defendant has turned to unsolicited telemarketing as a way to increase its customer base, sell more motorcycles, and ultimately increase its bottom line. Accordingly, Defendant makes prerecorded telemarketing calls and/or has hired agents to make its prerecorded telemarketing calls on its behalf.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian T. Boyd, Esq. Bennett J. Wills, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF BRIAN T. BOYD 750 Old Hickory Blvd Bldg. 2, Ste. 150 Brentwood, TN 37027 Telephone: (615) 371 6119 Facsimile: (615) 523 2595 E-mail: brian@boydlegal.co bennett@boydlegal.co - and - Manuel Hiraldo, Esq. HIRLADO P.A. Hirladolaw.com 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Ste 1400 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: Phone: (954) 400 4713 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Stefan Coleman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, LLC 201 South Biscayne Boulevard, 28th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (877) 333 9427 Facsimile: (888) 498 8946 E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com RIVMAR CORP: Delgado Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA & IMWL ---------------------------------------------------------------- ARMANDO DELGADO, on behalf of himself and all other plaintiffs similarly situated v. RIVMAR CORPORATION and JESUS MARTINEZ, Case No. 1:18-cv-01616 (N.D. Ill., March 5, 2018), seeks to recover overtime pay pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. Rivmar Corporation is incorporated in Illinois. Rivmar offers a complete and diverse range of construction services. Jose Martinez is the owner and president of Rivmar.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David J. Fish, Esq. Kim Hilton, Esq. John Kunze, Esq. THE FISH LAW FIRM 200 E 5th Ave., Suite 123 Naperville, IL 60563 Telephone: (630) 355-7590 Facsimile: (630) 778-0400 E-mail: dfish@fishlawfirm.com khilton@fishlawfirm.com ROWDY FARMS: Faces "Smith" Suit in Western Dist. of Texas --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rowdy Farms, L.L.C. The case is captioned as Timothy Smith, Individually and On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. Rowdy Farms, L.L.C., doing business as: 1845 Oil Field Transport; Spotted Lakes, L.L.C., doing business as: 1845 Oil Field Services; and Professional Drivers of Georgia, Inc., doing business as: ProDrivers, the Defendants, Case No. 7:18-cv-00043- DC (W.D. Tex., March 9, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge David Counts. Rowdy Farms is a licensed and bonded freight shipping and trucking company running freight hauling business from Colleyville, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua C. Borsellino, Esq. BORSELLINO, P.C. 1020 Macon St., Suite 15 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Telephone: (817) 908 9861 E-mail: josh@dfwcounsel.com SCI DIRECT: Motion to Certify Class in "Romano" Underway -------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled Nicole Romano, the Plaintiff, v. SCI Direct, Inc., et al., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-03537-ODW- JEM (C.D. Cal.), the Court has heard oral argument from counsel as stated on record for motion to certification class. The matter stands submitted. An order will issue, the Court said. A copy of the Civil Minutes is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=7mXOXoCq The Plaintiff is represented by: Adrian Robert Bacon, Esq. Thomas Edward Wheeler, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St Ste 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 7104 Telephone: (888) 595 9111 Facsimile: (866) 633 0228 E-mail: abacon@toddflaw.com twheeler@toddflaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Lonnie J Williams, Jr. Christopher P Leyel Quarles & Brady LLP Tucson Office One South Church Avenue, Suite 1700 Tucson, AZ 85701 Telephone: (520) 770 8700 Facsimile: (520) 623 2418 SEVENTY SEVEN: Sudarsan Appeals Order and Judgment to 2nd Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Garud Sudarsan filed an appeal from the District Court's memorandum decision and order dated February 6, 2018, and judgment dated February 7, 2018, entered in the lawsuit entitled Sudarsan v. Seventy Seven Energy, Inc., et al., Case No. 17-cv- 2342, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City). The nature of suit is stated as other contract action. The appellate case is captioned as Sudarsan v. Seventy Seven Energy, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-637, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant Garud Sudarsan, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Olimpio Lee Squitieri, Esq. SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP 32 East 57th Street New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 421-6492 E-mail: Lee@sfclasslaw.com Defendants-Appellees Seventy Seven Energy, Inc., Patterson - UTI Energy, Inc., and Pyramid Merger Sub, Inc., are represented by: Marisa Antos-Fallon, Esq. VINSON & ELKINS LLP 666 5th Avenue New York, NY 10103 Telephone: (212) 237-0104 E-mail: mantosfallon@velaw.com SK BEAUTY: Underpays Cashiers, "Jeon" Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------- KYEONG HO JEON and JIN RANG JEON, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. SK BEAUTY SUPPLY aka SASSY BEUATY MART and SON CHON, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv- 01020-TCB (N.D. Ga., March 9, 2018), seeks to recover overtime wages, liquidated damages, interest, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. This action challenges Defendants' misclassification of Plaintiffs and similarly situated Cashiers as exempt from the overtime provisions of the FLSA. The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of himself and similarly situated Cashiers in the United States who worked for Defendants but were not paid properly in accordance with the FLSA. The Plaintiffs worked 57.5 hours per week for Defendants. The Defendants failed to provide Plaintiffs with one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for his work in excess of forty hours in a workweek.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian G Kim, Esq. LEON & KIM LLC 1815 Satellite Blvd. #303 Duluth, GA 30097 Telephone: (678) 878 4200 Facsimile: (404) 878 4208 E-mail: brian@leonandkim.com SKYLINE METRICS: Sued by Shainsky for Illegally Contacting Phone ---------------------------------------------------------------- VICTOR SHAINSKY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SKYLINE METRICS, LLC DBA ONCEDRIVEN.COM; BRYANT CASS; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 2:18-cv-01867 (C.D. Cal., March 6, 2018), arises from the Defendants' alleged illegal actions in negligently, knowingly and willfully contacting the Plaintiff on his cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Skyline Metrics, LLC, doing business as oncedriven.com, is a business engaged in marketing and selling automobiles of others. Bryant Cass is the president, chief executive officer and founding partner of Skyline. The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown to the Plaintiff.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com SOS INTERNATIONAL: Certification of Interpreters Class Sought ------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled JOANNGUTIERREZ-BEJAR, MARIA PORTILLO, ANDSTEPHANY MAGANA, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiffs, v. SOSINTERNATIONAL, LLC and DOES 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-09000-JAK-JEM (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on June 11, 2018, to certify Plaintiffs' Third through Eighth Cause of Action as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, and defining the Class as: "all California interpreters "contracted" with SOSi from December 2015 to the present". The Plaintiffs will also ask the Court to: a. require Defendant SOS International to disclose the names and contact information for all members of the putative Class who do not opt out pursuant to the parties' Belaire notice; b. certify the Plaintiffs Jo Ann Gutierrez-Bejar, Maria Portillo, and Stephany Magana as Class representatives; c. certify Plaintiffs' counsel Costa Kerestenzis and Lorrie Bradley as Class Counsel; and d. require Defendant SOSi or a third party administrator to send the Court-approved Notice of Class Action by U.S. Mail to all Class members. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=0uibUdqq The Plaintiffs are represented by: Costa Kerestenzis, Esq. Lorrie E. Bradley, Esq. BEESON, TAYER & BODINE, APC 483 9th St, Oakland, CA 94607 E-mail: ckerestenzis@beesontayer.com lbradley@beesontayer.com SPRINT CORPORATION: "Rubio" Case Settlement Wins Final Approval --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled SAMUEL RUBIO, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated employees, and on behalf of the general public, the Plaintiff, v. SPRINT CORPORATION, a SPRINT COMMUNICATION COMPANY, L.P., a Delaware Corporation, SPRINT/UNITED MANAGEMENT CO., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-02231- SVW-GJS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Stephen V. Wilson entered an order granting Plaintiff's unopposed motion for final approval of class settlement. The following Settlement Class remains properly certified as a class action for settlement purposes only: "All persons who are or who have been employed by Defendant as anon-exempt employee in one of Defendant's California retail stores from December 9, 2012 to March 4, 2018 who were employed as Lead Technical Consultant during the Class Period. The Plaintiff shall continue in his role as Class Representatives and Class Counsel shall continue in its role as class counsel with respect to all acts of consents required by, or which may be given pursuant, the Settlement Class, and which are reasonably necessary to consummate the Settlement. The amounts agreed to be paid by Defendants, including the Settlement Payments to be paid to Class Members as provided for by the Settlement, are fair and reasonable under the facts of this case. A copy of the order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=HUyJFuC7 STARJEM RESTAURANT: "Mera" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wage under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ DANILO MERA, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, the Plaintiff, v. STARJEM RESTAURANT CORP. d/b/a FRESCO BY SCOTTO, STARJEM LLC d/b/a FRESCO ON THE GO, MARION SCOTTO, ANTHONY SCOTTO, ELAINA SCOTTO and ROSANNA SCOTTO, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02152-GHW (S.D.N.Y., March 9, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage, unpaid wages due to time shaving, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, throughout his employment with Defendants, the Plaintiff worked five hours per week with a regular work schedule as follows: (i) 4:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. on Mondays and Tuesdays, (ii) 5:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. on Wednesdays, (iii) 10:30 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. with a one-hour lunch break Fridays, and (iv) 3:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on Saturdays. Based on Plaintiff's observations and conversations with other employees, all FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and Class members had similar work hours. The Defendants knowingly and willfully violated the rights of Plaintiff and Class members by failing to pay them minimum wages in the lawful amount for hours worked. Defendants were not entitled to take any tip credits because they failed to meet the statutory requirements under the NYLL. As a result of Defendants' unlawful employment practice, Plaintiff sustained injury, including economic damages, the past and future emotional distress, and the costs of bringing this action.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, Second Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 465 1188 Facsimile: (212) 465 1181 STEINHOFF: Veldhuizen Discusses Possibility of Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Biz Community reports that the abrupt and devastating wipe-out of 80% market value in the multi-national retailer, Steinhoff, has without any doubt brought about more questions than answers in the area of corporate law. Naturally, the question on investors' lips was whether Steinhoff can be held accountable for the massive damages they suffered. The mutual sentiment shared between individual and institutional investors alike, naturally leads one's thoughts to the possibility of instituting a class action lawsuit in which all parties can claim their damages against a single scapegoat. Veldhuizen Attorneys, explains: "In basic terms, a 'class action' is merely multi-party litigation which can also be referred to as a collective lawsuit. A class action concerns a group or class of persons who share a sufficient common right or interest that is being infringed by a common perpetrator. By grouping these individual interests, one has a single lawsuit on the same merits." The dramatized class action which we have become accustomed to thanks to Hollywood seems far-fetched and is not intrinsic to our Common Law. According to our South African case law, a party or parties have 'standing' (loci standi) if the matter relates to a direct and substantive interest in the right of a person or persons who institute legal proceedings that concern the subject matter and outcome of litigation. Despite our common law following a rather restricted approach to locus standi, enter the Constitution. Section 38(c) relaxed the position by giving anyone, including a group or class, standing in instances concerning the infringement of a right set out in the Bill of Rights. It must, however, be noted that this acknowledgement of class action is confined to circumstances in which Constitutional rights are infringed. Locus standi in the case of Steinhoff: Stephan Haynes of Gillan and Veldhuizen Inc. suggests that "one must first establish whether the recent developments regarding Steinhoff influenced or infringed either (i) a direct or substantive right or sufficient interest, or (ii) a right as provided for in the Bill of Rights. The latter seems to be unlikely, at face value, even in the most generous terms. Therefore, we would need to look at The Companies Act*, The Consumer Protection Act* and Common Law* for Clarity." Application to the case of Steinhoff: Since Steinhoff is a multi-national company registered in South Africa, has its primary listing in Frankfurt, and registered office in Amsterdam, its liability is not restricted to a single jurisdiction. Consequentially, class action has been initiated in the Netherlands for the recovery of damages caused by Steinhoff's actions misleading investors by providing incomplete market information. Recent reports have pointed to South African investors approaching European law firms in the hope of joining their class action suits. Given the unestablished status of class action law suits in South Africa, this option might be preferable to testing the willingness of our courts to firstly allow such action and secondly award large-scale damages on such grounds. Summing up the plausibility of a successful class action, Mr. Haynes says: "The information currently available to the public leaves one to speculate and consider far-reaching legal remedies. It is important to be mindful of the fact that the actions of the free-market trade caused share prices and investor values to plummet. It is therefore difficult to determine the significance of the damage that was truly caused by the actions of Steinhoff. As stocks are still trading, investors' so-called 'damages' may be temporary. It is important to consider that a company cannot be held liable for harm suffered by investors who sold their shareholding at a reduced price, as that is how the exchange works. It nevertheless seems evident that Steinhoff has committed corporate governance contraventions, specifically with regard to its accounting practices, and may have contravened the Companies Act in various ways. These causes of action will indeed provide legal standing against the company or its directors, and could very well be dealt with by means of collective litigation." [GN] STONEHOUSE REST: Refuses to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Sanchez Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- CARLOS SANCHEZ, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. THE STONEHOUSE REST LLC and PETER BOTROS, in his individual and professional capacities, Case No. 1:18-cv-01397- ERK-ST (E.D.N.Y., March 6, 2018), alleges that the Defendants engage in a company-wide pattern and practice of deliberately denying their restaurant employees minimum and overtime wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law and the New York City Human Rights Law. The StoneHouse Rest LLC is a domestic limited liability company with its principal place of business located at 1150 Clove Road, in Staten Island, New York. Peter Botros is the owner of Stone House and a resident of the state of New York. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant and party venue in Staten Island called the Stone House at Clove Lakes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Innessa Melamed Huot, Esq. Alex J. Hartzband, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-9330 Facsimile: (212) 983-9331 E-mail: ihuot@faruqilaw.com ahartzband@faruqilaw.com SUNRISE FAMILY: "Mendez" Action to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jorge Mendez on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiff, v. Sunrise Family Restaurant of Loves Park, Inc. and Gani Jao, Individually, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-50074, (N.D. Ill., February 28, 2018), seeks to recover all back wages owed, prejudgment interest on the back wages owed, punitive damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in the filing and prosecution of this action and such other and further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. Plaintiff worked at Defendant's restaurant as a cook from approximately 2008 until approximately August 29, 2017. He claims to have worked more than forty hours per work week without being paid overtime. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher J. Williams, Esq. Alvar Ayala, Esq. WORKERS' LAW OFFICE, PC 53 W. Jackson Blvd, Suite 701 Chicago, IL 60604 Tel: (312) 795-9121 Email: cwilliams@wagetheftlaw.com aayala@wagetheftlaw.com - and - Douglas M. Werman, Esq. Maureen A. Salas, Esq. Sarah J. Arendt, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 West Washington, Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Tel: (312) 419-1008 Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com msalas@flsalaw.com sarendt@flsalaw.com SURETEMPS LLC: Court Certifies Hoppers Employees Class ------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit styled TERRY CATHERINE AND JAMIL LEE, the Plaintiffs, v. SURETEMPS, LLC; FULL FORCE STAFFING, LLC; AND METRO SERVICE GROUP, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv- 07561-SM-JVM (E.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Susie Morgan entered an order: 1. certifying a class of: "all persons employed by Defendants as hoppers since March 2015 who were paid on a daily flat rate of basis but were not paid at a rate equal to or higher than the federal minimum wage rate and/or who were not paid at an overtime rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 per week"; 2. directing Defendants to provide the names, addresses, and e-mail addresses (if known) for the Putative Class Members no later than 14 days following the date of this Order. This information will be provided in a usable electronic format, such as Excel.; 3. directing Plaintiffs' counsel, 14 days from receipt of the Putative Class Members' contact information, to distribute the notice and consent forms to the Putative Class Members; 4. directing Plaintiffs' counsel to send the Putative Class Members an initial Notice and Consent form by (a) regular First Class Mail and (b) e-mail. In the event that more than 25% of the Notices are returned as Undeliverable via First Class Mail within 30 days of the beginning of the Notice Period, Defendants will provide telephone numbers for the Putative Class Members whose Notices were returned Undeliverable within seven days of being provided with the names of Putative Class Members whose Notices were returned Undeliverable. The telephone numbers shall be used only to text a mutually agreeable text message to individuals whose Notice was returned containing of a picture of the Notice and a link to the Opt-In Form; 5. directing Putative Class Members, within 90 days from the initial mailing of the Notice and Consent form to file the Consent form; 6. directing Plaintiff's Counsel to provide Defendant's Counsel with copies of the signed consent forms on a regular, rolling basis as they are received and Plaintiff's Counsel to file signed consent forms with the Court within 14 days of receipt; 7. directing Plaintiffs' counsel to maintain the physical addresses, and e-mail addresses as confidential records and shall not share the information with any third-party. At the conclusion of the opt-in period, Plaintiffs' counsel must destroy/delete all copies of the information pertaining to any Putative Class Member who did not timely file a Consent form; and 8. directing Plaintiffs' counsel to avoid using the e-mail addresses for any purpose other than to send an electronic copy of the Court-approved Notice and Consent Form to the Putative Class Members. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=iWvq8WCn TECH MAHINDRA: Kumar Seeks to Certify 2 Classes of Engineers ------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit styled PANKAJ KUMAR, MUSTAFA BAIG, DANIEL KLOSOWSKI, and IVAN CRADDOCK, on behalf of themselves, those similarly situated, and the proposed Rule 23 Class, the Plaintiff, v. TECH MAHINDRA (AMERICAS), INC., the Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-00905-JAR (E.D. Mo.), the Plaintiffs move the Court for an Order: 1. certifying Missouri and Washington classes of: "U3 IT Delivery Engineers whose job it was to provide hands-on client-facing IT services during the final stages (testing and production support) of the SDLC"; 2. appointing Counsel for Plaintiffs as Class Counsel; 3. appointing Plaintiffs Pankaj Kumar and Ivan Craddock as Class Representatives; and 4. directing parties to meet and confer and submit to the Court the notice to be sent to all members of the proposed Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 classes within fourteen (14) days of the Court's order granting the instant motion. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ZIjzp8cW The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachhana T. Srey, Esq. Brittany B. Skemp, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 80 South 8th Street, Suite 4600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 256 3239 Facsimile: (612) 215 6870 E-mail: srey@nka.com bskemp@nka.com - and - Benjamin F. Westhoff, Esq. Jessica M. Scales, Esq. SEDEY HARPER WESTHOFF, P.C. 2711 Clifton Ave. St. Louis, MO 63139 Telephone: (314) 773 3566 Facsimile: (314) 773 3615 E-mail: bwesthoff@sedeyharper.com jscales@sedeyharper.com The Defendant is represented by: Robert A. Kaiser, Esq. Jovita M. Foster, Esq. Jeremy M. Brenner, Esq. Ida Shafaie, Esq. Armstrong Teasdale, Esq. 7700 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 1800 St. Louis, MO 63105 TEXAS CES: Debord Seeks to Certify Class of Employees ----------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled JERRY DEBORD, Individually and on behalf of Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. TEXAS CES INC., and TEXAS CES INC. d/b/a FELDERHOFF BROTHERS DRILLING SERVICES, Case No. 7:17-cv-00215-DC (W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. conditionally certifying a class of: "all persons employed by Defendants as Salaried Supervisors and/or Salaried Coordinators at any time since November 1, 2014"; and 2. directing approval and distribution of notice and for disclosure of contact information. The Plaintiff brought this suit to recover overtime wages and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=dJXP9c4k The Plaintiff is represented by: Lawrence D. Smith, Esq. Mark A. McNitzky, Esq. Andrew P. Burnside, Esq. William H. Payne, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 2700 Weston Centre 112 East Pecan Street San Antonio, TX 78205 Telephone: (210) 354 1300 Facsimile: (210) 277 2702 E-mail: larry.smith@ogletreedeakins.com mark.mcnitzky@ogletreedeakins.com drew.burnside@ogletreedeakins.com bill.payne@ogletreedeakins.com THE NOW: "Richards" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages, Reimbursements -------------------------------------------------------------- Copeland Richards as an individual, and on behalf of all similarly situated employees, Plaintiff, v. The Now LLC and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. BC695628 (Cal. Super., February 27, 2018), seeks redress for Defendants' failure to provide meal periods, rest periods, minimum wages, overtime, complete and accurate wage statements, reimbursement of business- related expenses resulting from unfair business practices. The Plaintiff also seeks waiting time penalties for unpaid wages due upon termination pursuant to the California Labor Code, California Business and Professions Code, plus declaratory relief, damages, penalties, equitable relief, costs and attorneys' fees. The Now owns and operates massage boutiques in at least four locations in Los Angeles, and its principal place of business is located at 8419 Santa Monica Boulevard #269, Los Angeles, California 90046. Richards worked as a masseuse at their Silver Lake location. Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Mahoney, Esq. Alina B. Mazeika, Esq. MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC 249 E. Ocean Blvd.,Ste. 814 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 590-5550 Facsimile: (562) 590-8400 Email: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net amazeika@mahoney-law.net THOMAS DART: Class Certification Denied in "Polletta" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled Nicholas Polletta, the Plaintiff, v. Thomas Dart, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-09492 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge John Z. Lee entered an order denying Plaintiff's motion for class certification. According to the docket made by the Clerk on March 28, 2018, Plaintiff Polletta's motion for class certification is denied. A written order will be issued shortly. A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Rp7BS4SM THOMAS DART: Class Certification Denied in "Hacker" Suit -------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled Gerald Hacker, the Plaintiff, v. Thomas Dart, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-04282 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge John Z. Lee entered an order denying Plaintiff's motion for class certification. According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on March 28, 2018, Plaintiff Hacker's motion for class certification is denied. A written order will be issued shortly. A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Ezki9FK4 TIGER BRANDS: Richard Spoor Attorneys, Marler Clark Hit with Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Koketso Motau, writing for Eyewitness News, reports that Richard Spoor Incorporated Attorneys and the US food safety firm Marler Clark have teamed up to file a class action lawsuit against Tiger Brands. The lawsuit is filed on behalf of the families of people who died after eating processed meat contaminated with listeria produced and distributed by the company. This comes after the Health Minister Aaron Motsoaledi's announcement that the source of the listeriosis outbreak is two brands of polony by Tiger Brands of Enterprise Foods and Rainbow Chicken. The company has already recalled the processed meat products. Richard Spoor, Esq. says the class action lawsuit is aimed at bringing justice to the victims. "We've looked very closely at the work that was done by the National Institute of Communicable Disease, it's research that they've done over many months and together we're absolutely convinced and satisfied that we have a very strong case against Tiger Brands." [GN] TIGER BRANDS: Richard Spoor to Launch Listeriosis Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Burkhardt, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that victims of the world's biggest listeriosis outbreak in South Africa plan to file a class-action case against Tiger Brands Ltd. within the next two weeks, according to a lawyer involved in the case. Richard Spoor, known in South Africa for his work for mineworkers seeking compensation for lung damage, is teaming up with Seattle- based firm Marler Clark on the listeriosis case, he said on March 12. Tiger Brands's Enterprise unit has closed two factories and recalled ready-to-eat meat products after government tests linked one of its facilities to the outbreak. "We have instructions from a large enough group of victims and a representative group of victims" to file a suit, Mr. Spoor said by phone. Tiger Brands hasn't received notification of any class action, said Nevashnee Naicker, a company spokeswoman. The Department of Health traced the outbreak, in which more than 180 people have died, to Tiger Brands' Enterprise factory in Polokwane, in Limpopo province, and said it would support anyone intending legal action. While the department showed Tiger Brands confirmation that the ST6 strain of listeria, which has been linked to the deaths, was found at the facility, tests haven't shown the strain in the company's products, Mr. Naicker said. Consumer protection rules state that harm caused by a defective product can hold the distributor strictly liable, Mr. Spoor said. "I can't see how it would be in Tiger Brands' interest to contest this aggressively," he said. [GN] TIGER BRANDS: CEO Comments on Possible Listeriosis Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Chronicle reports that as calls mount for the families of the 183 people who died from the listeriosis outbreak to launch a class action, Tiger Brands CEO Lawrence MacDougall believes it's still too early to make that decision. However, he said, the company would face each case on "its merits". The dominant outbreak strain of the food-borne disease, ST6, was officially confirmed to be present at the company's Enterprise Foods Polokwane factory. "We'll have to deal with [the class action] when we get to it, right now our focus is on food safety. Our immediate priority has been to shut our facilities, stop deliveries and withdraw our products from the shelves," Mr. MacDougall said on March 9. The day before, Health Minister Aaron Motsoaledi had assured South Africans in a parliamentary debate that his department would help any family with the necessary information and data on the outbreak and disease should they want to sue the company. "We are prepared to help families in whatever way, including giving them information and data, even advice if they so wish to litigate," he said. Mr. MacDougall, however, maintained that no direct link had been established yet between its products and the deaths resulting from the listeriosis outbreak. "It is premature to speculate," Mr. MacDougall said. The World Health Organisation labelled the country's outbreak as the largest recorded in the world. A total of 967 cases had been reported since January last year, with a rising death toll of 183 - 79 of which were newborn babies. On March 11 law firm Richard Spoor Incorporated announced it had teamed up with top US food safety firm Marler Clark to file a class action against Tiger Brands on behalf of the victims' families. Economic Freedom Fighters leader Julius Malema said his party would instruct its lawyers to file court papers instituting legal action this coming week. Tiger Brands closed its Enterprise facilities in Polokwane and Germiston and said it had withdrawn 3 500 tonnes of ready-to-eat processed meat, which would be incinerated according to guidelines set out by the National Consumer Commission. Enterprise reportedly produces 60 000 tonnes of processed meat every year at the two plants. Polony products from Rainbow Chicken's Wolwehoek facility also tested positive for the bacterium, but the sequence type hadn't been confirmed yet as the deadly ST6 strain. The polony products were recalled by the company, as the health department continued its investigation into the facility. During a visit to the Enterprise facility in Polokwane, several workers confirmed they were deep-cleaning the machinery and had been told they would be continuing with cleaning operations. They did not know when they would return to their regular food- processing jobs. The company still maintained at the weekend that, through its testing, it had been "well within" the Listeria guidelines as per the SA National Standard for Processed Meat Products. According to regulations, a certain level of Listeria bacteria is allowed - - less than 100 colony forming units (CFUs) Tiger Brands said its swabs measured 10 CFUs. "The industry has not been guided on what the infectious dose of ST6 is in products -- in other words, while the government standard for Listeria is below 100 CFU, the industry has not been informed about the level of ST6 that could make you sick. Enterprise Foods is [now] applying a measured standard of "not detected'," company spokesperson Nevashnee Naicker said. Asked if any of the employees at either Enterprise facilities had contracted the disease, Mr. Naicker said: "None that we are aware of. We have, however, begun health monitoring and screening employees at the two facilities, in consultation with the union." [GN] TIGER BRANDS: Products Implicated in Listeriosis Still Being Sold ----------------------------------------------------------------- Bulelwa Payi, writing for Weekend Argus, reports that the listeriosis outbreak has not deterred some Cape Town retailers from continuing to sell food products similar to those implicated in at least 183 deaths across South Africa, as their suppliers have not advised them to remove the items. The Department of Health issued a recall notice of processed meat products after the killer bacterium was traced to Enterprise factories in Polokwane and Germiston and advised the public to avoid all processed meat products that were sold as ready-to-eat. The department said that while polony was definitely implicated, there was a risk of cross-contamination of other ready-to-eat processed meat products, either at production, distribution or retail. This was because listeria on the exterior casing of polony could be transferred to other products it comes into contact with, including viennas, Russians, frankfurters, other sausages and other "cold meat" products that are typically not cooked before eating. A human rights lawyer plans to launch a class action lawsuit against South African food producer Tiger Brands on behalf of the families of people who died and those affected by the listeria outbreak. The planned class action is being prepared by Richard Spoor, who has spearheaded legal action against gold producers over the fatal lung disease silicosis for which the companies have made R5 billion in provisions. "I expect to launch it in two to three weeks," Spoor told Reuters. Major retailers have removed products from their shelves following the recall, but other small businesses claimed their products were safe to eat as they were "not from the implicated manufacturers", Enterprise and Rainbow. In Wynberg, an owner of three businesses that continues to sell viennas and other ready-to-eat meat products said their supplier, Britos, had not advised them not to. Delores Melim said the business had, however, taken a knock over the past few days as there was a decline in the demand for those products. "People are aware of the recall. We queried with our suppliers and we were told that the products were safe to eat. But customers are clever, they're not buying. We've not discarded any products yet. The stock is sitting there, but it's in small quantities. This week, I didn't place any orders," she said. Ms. Melim said she would now assess the situation and her decision on the products would be guided by the customers. Atlantic Meat, which has several stores across the city, put up a notice inside the Wynberg store and on the shelves, informing customers that their products were safe to eat as they were not from the implicated factories. According to food technologist for Anchor Foods, which supplies Atlantic Meat, tests done at its facilities showed no trace of the killer bacterium as the company took food safety seriously. Melanie Britow said the company had heightened its staff training on how to handle food in the wake of the outbreak. "If there is a safety risk, we will initiate a recall," she added. Some of the street vendors who sell vetkoek had stopped selling processed meat products and replaced these with other protein sources such as liver and burger patties. "The replacements are not selling as fast as the polony and Russian sausages, even though they cost the same price. Customers love their vetkoek with polony and sausages," one of the sellers said. However, others continued to sell the products as they claimed they were not aware of the recall of the products. The Cape Chamber of Commerce said it had no idea at this stage what financial impact the recall has had on local businesses. The Muslim Judicial Council Halal Trust cautioned Muslim consumers to heed the advice of the health minister. "I encourage Muslims to abstain and steer clear of all processed meats, whether from Muslim butchers or other outlets until the listeriosis issue is contained and the root cause actually determined. "Even though the processed chicken is halal, because of the listeriosis bacterial infection, it is unsafe to eat, therefore we are discouraging anyone to eat it and declaring it as unfit for Muslim consumption," trust director, Shaykh Sedick said. A large catering service said it had moved swiftly to act on the recall. Roy van der Zwan, marketing director of Fedics which supplies services businesses, schools, colleges, hospitals and care facilities, said the company had isolated the implicated suppliers from its procurement chain. "We've stopped ordering from the category of products from them and have found other suppliers. We've also disposed of stock in our system and sterilised our kitchens and equipment throughout the country," he added. The Western Cape Department of Education said it had alerted schools about the outbreak, although its school nutrition programme did not include processed meat. In a circular it sent to the schools it advised caution when buying food from merchants who might be selling food near schools. The School Governing Bodies Foundation warned governing bodies to be vigilant about any processed foods being sold in tuck shops, at fàtes or at sporting fixtures. Meanwhile, Tiger Brands said it had withdrawn about 3500 tons of the products and its partners would manage the safe disposal of all the returned products. [GN] TOKYO ELECTRIC: Class Actions Over Fukushima Disaster Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------- Shizume Saiji, writing for Nippon, reports that legal fallout from the March 2011 accident at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station continues, as dozens of lawsuits and injunctions make their way through Japan's judicial system. The final rulings could have a profound impact on the government's energy policy and approach to risk mitigation. Court cases stemming from the meltdown at Fukushima Daiichi can be divided broadly into two categories. In the first are efforts to assign responsibility for the accident, including one high- profile criminal case and numerous civil suits by victims seeking damages from the government and owner-operator Tokyo Electric Power Company. The second group consists of lawsuits and injunctions aimed at blocking or shutting down operations at plants other than Fukushima Daiichi (whose reactors have been decommissioned) on the grounds that they pose a grave safety threat. In the following, we briefly survey these cases and their implications. A Foreseeable Danger? According to lawyer Managi Izutaro, who is handling the largest class-action suit against TEPCO and the government, about 30 such cases are currently moving through courts around the nation. Most of the plaintiffs are Fukushima evacuees who filed suit in the districts to which they fled after the accident. Meanwhile, TEPCO's former chairman and two former vice-presidents are facing charges of professional negligence resulting in death and injury in a criminal case currently before the Tokyo District Court. Tokyo prosecutors initially declined to bring charges, but in an unusual reversal, they were overruled by a prosecutorial review panel composed of ordinary citizens. In all of these cases, the pivotal issues facing the court are (1) whether TEPCO and the state could have foreseen the danger posed to the Fukushima plant by a tsunami on the order of that triggered by the Great East Japan Earthquake, and (2) whether they could realistically have prevented a serious accident through risk-mitigation measures. The "state" in this case is the defunct Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA), the regulatory body formerly in charge of the inspection and licensing of nuclear power facilities. Construction of Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station began in 1967, when the government's ambitious nuclear energy development program was shifting into high gear. Seismology and tsunami simulation have advanced considerably since those days, but at the time, the maximum height of any potential tsunami relevant to the Fukushima Daiichi site was estimated at a little more than 3 meters. When the facility was built, in other words, there was no way for TEPCO or the government to foresee that waves 10-15 meters in height could one day inundate the plant. However, as scientists continued to collect and analyze data on earthquake and tsunami activity around Japan, their thinking evolved. In July 2002, a government panel of seismologists issued a report estimating a 20% chance that a magnitude-8 earthquake would trigger a dangerous tsunami off the coast of northeastern Japan within the next three decades. That August, NISA asked TEPCO to conduct a tsunami simulation for Fukushima Daiichi and other plants on the basis of that report, but TEPCO refused, and NISA did not press the matter. When TEPCO finally did conduct such a simulation in 2008, it concluded that a major earthquake could trigger a tsunami as high as 15.7 meters, tall enough to flood the Fukushima Daiichi plant. However, the utility took no action to mitigate the risk (as by building up the facility's seawalls or taking other measures to protect backup generators), and it failed to report the findings to NISA until early 2011, just weeks before the disaster. Complacency and Opacity In the wake of the Fukushima accident, NISA (since replaced by the Nuclear Regulation Authority) was faulted for its lack of independence. The agency was under the authority of the Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry, which promotes the use of nuclear power, and officials maintain that its regulatory powers were limited. In addition, a closed, inbred environment encouraged unhealthy ties between NISA and the electric power industry. As a consequence, NISA had fallen into the habit of accommodating and supporting the utilities instead of overseeing them. TEPCO, for its part, had developed a deeply rooted culture of denial, habitually concealing information that might supply ammunition to anti-nuclear activists or fuel fears among the local citizenry. The company brushed off the warnings, convincing itself that the danger from a giant tsunami was purely hypothetical. So far, district courts have reached decisions on three major class-action suits, and in each case they have agreed with the plaintiffs that the state and TEPCO could have foreseen the danger from a major tsunami once the 2002 report on earthquake risks was released. Two of the district courts, Maebashi and Fukushima, found both the state and TEPCO negligent for failing to prevent the meltdowns. The Chiba District Court, on the other hand, dismissed claims against the state on the grounds that the government was focusing on earthquake safety at the time and may not have been able to formulate effective measures in time to protect Fukushima Daiichi against the March 2011 tsunami. With the government and TEPCO girding up to appeal the lower courts' decisions, the cases could drag on for years. The final verdicts could have important ramifications in a country prone to natural disasters. Despite the scientific advances of the last few decades, our ability to predict major earthquakes, tsunami, and volcanic eruptions remains extremely limited. How can we ensure that the design and operation of existing nuclear power plants reflect the latest scientific assessments of long-term risks? Are the government and industry responsible for guarding against catastrophic events, however low their probability? A Tsunami of Lawsuits Attorney Managi Izutaro estimates that more than 10,000 plaintiffs are currently involved in class-action suits against TEPCO and the state. He represents 4,200 victims in the largest of these cases so far. Managi argues that allowing TEPCO to keep Fukushima Daiichi operating after learning of the risks from a tsunami was "like giving an airline permission to fly an unsafe jetliner." In its ruling on Managi's case last October, the Fukushima District Court agreed that both TEPCO and the state were negligent and ordered damages paid to a majority of the plaintiffs. But the victims and their lawyers deemed the amount and scope of the damages inadequate and opted to appeal. TEPCO and the state have appealed the ruling as well. The case now moves to the Sendai High Court. "Ultimately, we're demanding that Fukushima Prefecture be restored to the way it was before the nuclear accident," Managi explains. "At the same time, we're fighting to end the use of nuclear power." Managi stresses the importance of mobilizing a large number of victims. "Unless you get together a big group of plaintiffs, their case won't resonate with the judges," says Managi. "The number of people involved in litigation and the intensity of public sentiment are key. I believe the real battle takes place outside the courtroom." In organizing victims into large class-action suits, Managi and others lawyers are following the same playbook that helped turn the tide against big industrial polluters in the 1960s and 1970s, when victims of Minamata disease (mercury poisoning) and itai- itai disease (cadmium poisoning) successfully banded together to seek legal redress. Whether the current movement will have a comparable impact remains to be seen. [GN] TOWNE PROPERTIES: Court Certifies Equitable Remedy Class -------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled Connie J. Duggan, the Plaintiff, v. Towne Properties Group Health Plan, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-00623-MRB (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Michael R. Barrett entered an order: 1. denying Plaintiff's motion for class certification as to Injunction Class (MedBen Only): "all current and past participants in any ERISA-governed employee welfare benefit plan for which MedBen serves as third-party administrator"; and 2. granting certification as to Towne Properties and the Equitable Remedy Class: "all participants in any ERISA-governed employee welfare benefit plan for which Defendant Medical Benefits Administrators, Inc. acted to adjudicate claims for benefits and issued at least one notification of an "adverse benefit determination" during the class period, September 25, 2009 to present. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=gTTKBcQL TRANSGLOBAL SERVICES: "Bradbury" Seeks to Recover OT Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- JOSH BRADBURY; SHELDON SIDES; TRACY EVERETT; JEREMY BERRY; CYNTHIA BROADWAY; JOSH BROADWAY; Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. TRANSGLOBAL SERVICES, LLC; JEFFERY COLWELL; and JOHN RATLIFF, Case No. 7:18-cv-00036 (W.D. Tex., March 5, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation and all other available remedies under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Transglobal Services, LLC, is a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business in Texas. Transglobal is a full service field service provider in the energy industry and primarily provides surveying, right of way and seismic services to oil and gas producers. Messrs. Colwell and Ratliff are the owners and the primary decision-makers of Transglobal.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Josh Borsellino, Esq. BORSELLINO, P.C. 1020 Macon St., Suite 15 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Telephone: (817) 908-9861 Facsimile: (817) 394-2412 E-mail: josh@dfwcounsel.com U.S. CARGO: Court Certifies FLSA Class in Hall, et al. Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled DAVID HALL, et al., the Plaintiffs, v. U.S. CARGO AND COURIER SERVICE, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv- 00330-EAS-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. entered an order: 1. conditionally certifying class pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act: "all individuals who have performed or currently perform delivery services for the Defendant as independent contract delivery Drivers within the State of Ohio at any time from March 15, 2014 through and including the present and until the final resolution of the case, and who have not been paid the statutory minimum and/or overtime wage during anytime in their employment"; 2. directing Defendants to identify all putative class members within 21 days of the issuance of this Opinion and Order; and 3. approving opt-in notice for distribution to the putative class. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=zzaKUQJ7 UBER TECH: Vehicles not Wheelchair Accessible Claims "Smith" ------------------------------------------------------------ Judith Smith, Julie Fuller, Sascha Bittner, Independent Living Resources Center of San Francisco and Community Resources for Independent Living, on behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiffs, v. Uber Technologies, Inc. and Rasier, LLC, Defendants, Case No. RG18894507 (Cal. Super., February 27, 2018) seeks injunctive and declaratory relief under the Unruh Civil Rights Act. Plaintiffs are wheelchair-ridden individuals who claim that Uber has failed to provide its transportation service to individuals who use wheelchair accessible vehicles. Uber Technologies, Inc., is a ride hailing service that connects drivers with passengers who are looking for a vehicle for hire. Uber markets its ride hailing service to passengers and drivers, including through a website it operates, www.uber.com. Rasier is a subsidiary of Uber Technologies, Inc. Independent Living Resource Center of San Francisco and Community Resources for Independent Living are disability rights advocacy and support organizations. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sidney Wolinsky, Esq. Melissa Riess, Esq. DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 112001 Center Street, Fourth Floor Berkeley, CA 94704-1204 Telephone: (510) 665-8644 Facsimile: (510) 665-8511 Email: swolinsky@dralegal.org mriess@dralegal.org - and - Mark A. Chavez, Esq. Nance F. Becker, Esq. CHAVEZ & GERTLER LLP 42 Miller Avenue Mill Valley, CA 94941 Telephone: (415) 381-5599 Facsimile: (415) 381-5572 Email: mark@chavezgertler.com nance@chavezgertler.com UBER TECHNOLOGIES: "Safe Rides Fee" Class Action Heads to Trial --------------------------------------------------------------- Bloomberg Law reports that Uber Technologies Inc. paid thousands of drivers less than they were entitled to, a federal judge in California ruled. Now the ride-hailing company likely heads to trial to determine how much the drivers are owed. "I believe that this is the first case that they've lost on the merits in a national class action," John Crabtree, an attorney for the 9,602-member class, told Bloomberg Law March 9. They rang up $1.4 million in fares on which the company paid them less than it was supposed to, he said. The dispute arose out of a $1 per trip "Safe Rides Fee" Uber began charging passengers in April 2014 to fund driver background checks and safety campaigns. Uber said it would assess the fee on riders and that it wouldn't affect drivers' pay, which was calculated as a percentage of the fare. The minimum fare was $4 per ride. Under the terms of the company's agreement with drivers, it wasn't clear that minimum fare trips were subject to the safe rides fee, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California said. "By extracting $1.00 from the 'Minimum Fare' before making its remittance to drivers, Uber breached the plain terms of the Agreement," she wrote in a March 8 ruling for the drivers. The ruling decides only the question of liability. The amount of damages drivers are due remains to be determined, Mr. Crabtree said. He anticipated a trial on damages. "We'll do discovery for punitive damages on what they knew and when they knew it," Mr. Crabtree said. "I would think that Uber's going to have to produce evidence to show exactly how much money it took from the class." "We are reviewing the decision," Uber told Bloomberg Law by email March 9. Mr. Crabtree, Charles Auslander, George Baise Jr., and Brian Tackenberg with Crabtree & Auslander, LLC in Key Biscayne, Fla.; Andrew August -- aaugust@bgrfirm.com -- with Browne George Ross LLP in San Francisco; and Mark Morrison -- mark@mpaclassaction.com -- with Morrison and Associates in Seattle represent the class. William Stern -- wstern@mofo.com -- Claudia Vetesi -- cvetesi@mofo.com -- Alexandra Laks -- alaks@mofo.com -- and Lucia Roibal -- lroibal@mofo.com -- with Morrison & Foerster LLP in San Franscisco; and Ariel Ruiz, in-house counsel with Uber in San Francisco represent Uber. The case is Congdon v. Uber Techs., Inc., N.D. Cal., No. 16-cv- 02499, summary judgment, class certified 3/8/18. [GN] UBIQUITI NETWORKS: "Xiya" Sues Over Share Price Drop ---------------------------------------------------- Xiya Qian, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Ubiquiti Networks, Inc., Robert J. Pera, Kevin Radigan, Craig L. Foster and Mark Spragg, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-01841 (S.D. N.Y., February 28, 2018), seeks to recover damages caused by violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Ubiquiti Networks Inc. offers a broad and expanding portfolio of wireless networking products and solutions. Ubiquiti had allegedly overstated the number of members of its purported user community and exaggerated its publicly reported accounts receivable. On this news, Ubiquiti's share price fell $18.76, or 25.34%, to close at $55.28 on February 20, 2018. Xiya acquired Ubiquiti securities at artificially-inflated prices and lost upon the revelation of the alleged corrective disclosures. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697-6484 Facsimile (212) 697-7296 Email: peretz@bgandg.com ULTA BEAUTY: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP announces that a shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against Ulta Beauty, Inc. (Nasdaq: ULTA) ("Ulta" or the "Company") on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities between March 30, 2016 and February 23, 2018 , inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors who purchased Ulta securities during the Class Period may, no later than May 1, 2018 , seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class. For additional information or to learn how to participate in this action please visit https://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/ulta-beauty-inc#join Ulta investors who wish to discuss this action and their legal options are encouraged to contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (Darren J. Check, Esq., D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. or Adrienne Bell, Esq.) at (888) 299-7706 or at info@ktmc.com. Ulta operates a chain of beauty stores. The Company offers cosmetics, fragrance, skin and hair care products, and salon service throughout the United States. The shareholder class action complaint alleges that Ulta and certain of its senior executive officers made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose to investors that: (i) 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; and (ii) that as a result of the foregoing, Ulta's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On February 9, 2018, various media outlets reported that a consumer class action lawsuit had been filed against Ulta alleging that the Company engaged in the "widespread and surreptitious" practice of repacking returned cosmetics and re- shelving them alongside unblemished products to sell at full price. According to the lawsuit, "dozens of other current and former Ulta employees from retail locations all over the country confirmed that substantially similar practices also occurred at the Ulta stores where they worked." Following this news, shares of Ulta's stock fell $9.07, or over 4.1%, to close on February 12, 2018 at $209.48. Then, on February 23, 2018, CBS News ran a story entitled "Former Ulta Beauty employee says she felt pressured to resell used products." That report discussed the consumer class action lawsuit in detail, and reported additional statements made by former Ulta employees supporting the allegations made in the consumer class action lawsuit. Following this additional news, shares of Ulta's stock fell an additional $8.18 per share, or nearly 4%, to close on February 26, 2018 at $198.93. Ulta investors may, no later than May 1, 2018 , seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, or other counsel, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class in the action. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check prosecutes class actions in state and federal courts throughout the country. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check is a driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual investors from the United States and around the world. The firm represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and share in the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check. For more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, please visit www.ktmc.com. Darren J. Check, Esq. D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. Adrienne Bell, Esq. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Tel: (888) 299-7706 Tel: (610) 667-7706 Email: dcheck@ktmc.com skaskela@ktmc.com abell@ktmc.com [GN] UNITED AIRLINES: Class Certification Bid in "Pumputyte" Denied -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled Neringa Pumputyte, et al., the Plaintiff, v. United Airlines, Inc., et al., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16- cv-04868 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon0 Judge Gary Feinerman entered an order denying Plaintiff's class certification motion. According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on March 9, 2018, Defendant United Airlines's summary judgment motion is granted, Plaintiff's class certification motion is denied, and Defendant United Airlines's motion to strike Plaintiff's affidavit is denied as moot. The Defendant United Airlines is awarded summary judgment. Status hearing set for April 10, 2018 is stricken. A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=gztVUZQJ UNITED COLLECTION: Class Action Settlement Has Initial Approval --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit RE: UNITED COLLECTION BUREAU. INC., Case No. 2:15-cv-01306-CLW (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Cathy L. Waldor entered an order: 1. granting motion for preliminary approval of proposed settlement, and directing Parties to comply with the schedule and to comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement; and 2. certifying Settlement Classes for purposes of settlement: Class One: "all natural persons with addresses in Hackensack, New Jersey to whom, from February 19, 2014 to February 19, 2015, Defendant or its letter vendor(s) sent one or more collection letter(s) on behalf of Citibank, N.A., which was not returned by the United States Postal Service as undeliverable, and was sent in a windowed envelope such that Defendant's reference number associated with the debt and/or the barcode containing Defendant's reference number associated with the debt was visible from outside the envelope". Excluded from this Class is Hyun Soon Chung; Class Two: "all natural persons with addresses in the State of New Jersey to whom, from February 4, 2015 to February 20, 2016, Defendant or its letter vendor(s) sent one or more collection letter(s) on behalf of Citibank, N.A., which was not returned by the United States Postal Service as undeliverable, and was sent in a windowed envelope such that the barcode containing Defendant's reference number associated with the debt was visible from outside the envelope"; and Class Three: "all natural persons with addresses in the State of New Jersey to whom, from March 22, 2015 to March 22, 2016, Defendant or its letter vendor(s) sent one or more collection letter(s) on behalf of LVNV Funding LLC, which was not returned by the United States Postal Service as undeliverable, and was sent in a windowed envelope such that the barcode containing the Defendant's reference number associated with the debt was visible from outside the envelope". The Settlement Agreement provides, in part, for Defendant to: a) establish a class settlement fund in the amount of $107,180.00, to be distributed evenly among Settlement Class members; b) separately pay Plaintiffs' reasonable counsel fees, costs and expenses, subject to approval by the Court; c) make payment in the amount of $4,000 to Plaintiff Sungsoo Park, $2500 to Plaintiff Tremaine K. Watkins, $2500 to Plaintiff Georgina Sandoval and $2500 to Plaintiff Elizabeth E. Jun, which amount includes an incentive payment for their efforts on behalf of the Settlement Classes; d) separately pay the costs of administration of the settlement and Notice to the Settlement Class, as specified more fully in the Settlement Agreement; and e) pay a cy pres award to Northeast New Jersey Legal Services, Inc. in the amount of any funds remaining in the settlement fund due to uncashed or undeliverable checks. Atticus Administration, LLC is approved and appointed as the Notice and Settlement Administrator. Plaintiff Park on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, was slated to seek initial court approval of the settlement at a hearing for April 16, 2018, or "as otherwise determined by the Court", according to a Notice of Motion available at no charge at: http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=tNUPBYjg The Court issued the Initial Approval Order on March 19. A copy of the Initial Approval Order is available at no charge at: http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=s04dJHV3 The Plaintiff is represented by: Bharati Sharma Patel, Esq. THE WOLF LAW FIRM, LLC E-mail: bpatel@wolflawfirm.net Attorneys for United Collection Bureau, Inc.: Ethan G. Ostroff, Esq. TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP 222 Central Park Ave., Suite 2000 Virgina Beach, VA 23462 UNITED NORTHERN: Kline Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls ------------------------------------------------------------ Robert D. Kline, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. United Northern Mortgage Bankers Limited, Access Funding, LLC, Access Holding, LLC and Reliance Funding, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00489 (M.D. Pa., February 28, 2018) seeks an injunction requiring Defendants to cease all unsolicited telephone calling activities and an award of statutory damages together with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. United Northern works together with Access Funding, Access Holding, and/or Reliance Funding to market their mortgage, lending, and other financial services to consumers. They placed unsolicited telemarketing calls to cellular telephones of consumers, including that of Kline's, without obtaining their prior express consent, says the complaint. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin F. Johns, Esq. Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. Mark B. DeSanto, Esq. CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP 361 W. Lancaster Avenue Haverford, PA 19041 Telephone: (610) 642-8500 Facsimile: (610) 649-3633 Email: bfj@chimicles.com awf@chimicles.com mbd@chimicles.com - and - Seth M. Lehrman, Esq. EDWARDS POTTINGER, LLC 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: 954-524-2820 Facsimile: 954-524-2822 E-mail: seth@epllc.com UNIVERSAL TRANSPORTATION: Sprague Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT SPRAGUE, on behalf of himself and similarly situated employees v. UNIVERSAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS LLC (d/b/a "UTS") and QUALITY TRANSPORTATION SERVICES LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-00165- MRB (S.D. Ohio, March 6, 2018), accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio's Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act by failing to pay overtime premium to the Plaintiff and other drivers for all hours worked over 40 in a week. Universal Transportation Systems LLC, doing business as UTS, is an Ohio limited liability company headquartered in Fairfield, Ohio (Butler County). Quality Transportation Services LLC is an Ohio limited liability company headquartered in Hamilton, Ohio (Butler County). The Defendants provide transportation services throughout Ohio, including in Butler, Hamilton, Warren, Montgomery, Clinton, Clermont, Franklin, Fairfield, and Preble Counties.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert E. DeRose, Esq. Jason C. Cox, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP 250 E. Broad Street, 10th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 221-4221 Facsimile: (614) 744-2300 E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com jcox@barkanmeizlish.com - and - Peter Winebrake, Esq. R. Andrew Santillo, Esq. Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC 715 Twining Road, Suite 211 Dresher, PA 19025 Telephone: (215) 884-2491 Facsimile: (215) 884-2492 E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com asantillo@winebrakelaw.com mgottesfeld@winebrakelaw.com UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS: Sued Over Embryo Freezer Malfunction ---------------------------------------------------------- Homa Bash, writing for News5 Cleveland, reports that two class action lawsuit has been filed against University Hospitals following a refrigerator malfunction that has left the viability of 2,000 eggs and embryos in question. On March 12, a lawsuit was filed by the Peiffer Rosca Wolf Abdullah Carr & Kane law firm in the names of a Pennsylvania couple on behalf of the estimated 700 patients affected by University Hospital's fertility clinic malfunction. In a formal declaration of the class action lawsuit, Lydia Floyd, a representative of the firm, said the Pennsylvania couple filing the suit called the hospital on March 12, March 5 to set up an appointment to begin the implantation procedure using frozen embryos stored in the clinic's storage bank. Later that evening, the couple, who has been trying to have children through this in vitro fertilization (IVF) process for eight years, received the heartbreaking news that their embryos had been destroyed by a temperature fluctuation. "Those embryos represented their hopes, their promise of having children and a family," Ms. Floyd said. Ms. Floyd said the lawsuit seeks to hold University Hospitals and other defendants in this case responsible. "There is the loss of having a child here, and the pain and tie and expense that many of these victims already had invested in their fertility journey," Ms. Floyd said. The Pennsylvania couple filing the suit had already been subjected to an invasive and technical IVF process, which includes surgical procedures and an intense drug regiment. They are also now much older than when they started this process, and the chances of them producing viable and strong eggs in order to become pregnant have decreased, lessening their chances of having a child. A lawsuit was also filed on March 11 by attorney Robert DiCello - - rjdicello@dicellolaw.com -- of DiCello, Levitt & Casey on behalf of Amber and Elliott Ash, a local couple who had two embryos stored with UH. The couple received notification of the failure on March 9 and over the weekend, were told by physicians that their embryos are no longer viable. "It's heartbreaking. Just heartbreaking," Amber Ash said. "The medical community calls it tissue, I like to think of it as my children. My frozen children." The Ash family welcomed Ethan, now 2-years-old, into their lives through in-vitro fertilization, or IVF, at UH. Elliott was diagnosed with a rare cancer in 2003, and at age 23, decided to bank his sperm before they were destroyed by chemotherapy. The couple have had their embryos stored at UH since 2014, paying about $400 a year for the service. They had hoped to give Ethan a genetic sibling. "You put so much faith into the physicians and the medical team, and like I said, to have this taken away -- your hopes and dreams destroyed. It's a tremendous loss," Amber said. The hope and ultimate goal with the lawsuit, the family said, is to make sure another family doesn't feel the same loss ever again. "I find it very hard to believe that in this day and age, there are not better safeguard and practices that could be put in place," Amber added. Mr. DiCello said he is in talks with other patients to add them to the class-action complaint. "I just urge everyone, before you judge what they've gone through, or what they're going through, or what their motives for doing it, ask yourselves, 'What would it be like if I had my family's treasure lost by a hospital that just didn't care enough to check on it?'" Mr. DiCello said. The Ash family said they still have many unanswered questions regarding the failure, even after speaking with two physicians. UH has not clarified if it was a mechanical or human error at this point. The malfunction occurred sometime between the overnight hours of Saturday, March 3 and Sunday, March 4. "What is most disturbing to me is that everyone I talked to has been informed by UH that their embryos are not viable, they've been destroyed, different from what has been out there publicly which has been that they've been compromised, we don't know. I think this problem is far more serious than has been presented so far," said Team LGM attorney Tom Merriman. "Our intent is to file a lawsuit on behalf of a large group of women and couples who have lost their embryos. We intend to do that within the next couple of days," he said. In a statement regarding the lawsuits, UH officials told News 5 the following: "We understand why some people might feel compelled to take this step. Any lawsuits being filed will have no bearing on the independent review being conducted or our determination to help patients who have suffered this loss." [GN] VALLEY CREDIT: Asks Court to Deny Class Cert. in "Schweinhart" -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled ASHLEY SCHWEINHART, the Plaintiff, v. VALLEY CREDIT SERVICE, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv- 00002-GEC (W.D.Va.), the Defendant moves this Court to deny class certification to Ashley Schweinhart and to strike the class allegations, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=NBXf2ERt Counsel for Ashley Schweinhart: Kenneth McLeod, Esq. 5 N. Bedford Street Arlington, VA 22201 Counsel for Valley Credit Service, Inc. Mark R. Colombell, Esq. Michael G. Matheson, Esq. THOMPSONMCMULLAN, P.C. 100 Shockoe Slip, Third Floor Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 649 7545 Facsimile: (804) 780 1813 E-mail: mcolombell@t-mlaw.com mmatheson@t-mlaw.com VOLKSWAGEN AG: Emissions Higher Than Allowable Australian Limits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ben Packham, writing for The Australian, reports that world-first testing in Australia on recalled VW cars shows they use up to 14 per cent more fuel after an enforced pollution fix, and still emit four times the allowable level of noxious gases. The tests, conducted by the Australian Automobile Association in conjunction with the Paris-based Federation Internationale de l'Automobile, were carried out in real driving conditions -- not laboratories -- before and after the VW recall to rectify performance and pollution problems hidden by illegal "defeat device" software. Almost 100,000 Australians, who believed they had bought clean, high-performance cars, have been caught up in the VW "dieselgate" scandal. The latest revelations will be examined closely by lawyers, both internationally and in Australia, amid ongoing litigation against the carmaking giant. The tests found a 2010 Golf 2.0 turbo diesel wagon used an average 7 per cent more fuel after the recall fix, which is 26 per cent -- higher than the car's stated fuel efficiency level. The higher fuel usage was the result of vehicle software changes. The real-world tests also found the output of poisonous nitrogen oxides remained 4.11 times higher than allowable Australian limits, down from 6.71 times higher before the software fix. "No one has done more than Volkswagen to undermine the credibility of global vehicle emissions standards or the community's faith in regulatory efforts to reduce pollution," AAA chief executive Michael Bradley said. Volkswagen has been under pressure internationally since 2015 when it was revealed that more than 11 million of its diesel vehicles had been sold with "defeat device" software designed to beat laboratory emissions tests. It issued a voluntary recall of affected vehicles, saying the fix would rectify emissions problems without affecting fuel economy or vehicle performance. But the claim had not been subject to independent, real-world tests in any of its markets until now. The AAA-commissioned tests measured emissions, fuel economy and performance before and after the software fix, with the results to be released globally. They were carried out on Melbourne roads last year by ABMARC, a leading transport and engineering consultancy. After the recall, the car used 2 per cent more fuel on urban roads, 7 per cent more on rural roads, and 14 per cent more on highways. The amount of nitrogen oxides emitted by the car fell, but ?remained well above the Australian-adopted Euro 5 standard. The testers noted a slight increase in the car's power and torque after the software fix. An estimated 78,400 VWs purchased in Australia had the "defeat device" software installed, along with 16,000 Audis and 5200 Skodas -- both Volkswagen Group brands. A class action on behalf of Australians who bought the cars resumes in the Federal Court tomorrow. VW rejected the test results, saying recalled vehicles continued to satisfy Australian and European emissions standards. "The KBA (Germany's Federal Motor Transport Authority) approved Volkswagen's software update on the basis that it did not adversely affect the emissions or fuel economy of vehicles in test conditions," the company said in a statement. "Several reputable automobile organisations in Germany, Austria and Switzerland have since tested vehicles and concluded that vehicles continue to perform as expected after the software update." Consumer group Choice said the AAA test results were "deeply concerning". "It seems clear VW has no intention of ending its smoke screen around emissions," Choice campaigns lead Katinka Day said. "Drivers have a right to know their cars are using more fuel and emitting more noxious emissions than Australian-standards allow." The secret software detected when a vehicle was being operated under test conditions, putting the vehicle into a "test mode", which enabled the car to meet laboratory emissions standards. At other times, the car ran in "customer mode", delivering better performance but much higher emissions. Law firm Maurice Blackburn, which is leading the Australian class action, said VW owners had suffered significant financial loss and were entitled to "substantial and appropriate redress". Volkswagen pleaded guilty in the US to criminal conduct in connection with the dieselgate scandal, and has paid fines, compensation and penalties totalling almost $30 billion in the US and Canada. But in Australia the company has refused to admit wrongdoing. It argues it is not responsible for the impact of the "defeat device" scandal on Australian consumers, because Australian authorities accepted the results of European tests. The AAA's international counterpart has been at the forefront of the push to introduce mandatory real-world tests for carmakers internationally. "Motorists around the world must be able to trust that vehicle manufacturers are providing accurate information regarding emissions and fuel use," FIA secretary-general Andrew McKellar said. The real-world test results come as the federal government prepares to release new vehicle emissions standards to meet Australia's Paris Agreement climate change commitments. Mr Bradley said it was crucial the new standards did not rely on flawed laboratory tests that could be cheated by car companies. "The AAA's results underscore the importance of real-world testing, which now must be central to any credible plan to protect consumers or the environment," he said. The new standards will impose fuel-efficiency measures for light vehicles and potentially see Australia move to the more stringent Euro 6 emissions standard. The AAA warned in a submission to the Ministerial Forum on Vehicle Emissions that stringent emissions standards might force consumers to sacrifice engine power and carrying capacity, and could force up car prices. "It is possible that the government has not fully considered the real costs to consumers of CO2 emission standards," the AAA said. A spokeswoman for Urban Infrastructure and Cities Minister Paul Fletcher said the government considered household costs "a matter of priority". She said Australia operated within an international testing system to ensure the lowest costs for consumers. "The Australian government is aware of proposals that there should be additional testing conducted in Australia. In considering whether there is a case to introduce additional testing, the government will weigh up a range of factors, including cost impacts for Australian motorists and whether such testing would offer valuable additional information." Australia relies on "New European Drive Cycle" tests, which run cars through a set procedure on rollers, with slow acceleration and constant cruise speeds, for about 20 minutes. Volkswagen is not the only car company to have tried to beat the tests. It was revealed last year that some Fiat cars were designed to turn off pollution control after 22 minutes -- two minutes after the standard test. Previous real-world testing of 30 Australian-bought vehicles by the AAA revealed average real-world fuel consumption was 23 per cent higher than claimed. [GN] WAGEWORKS INC: Faces Class Action, May 8 Lead Plaintiff Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on March 11 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of WageWorks, Inc. (NYSE:WAGE) from May 6, 2016 through March 1, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for WageWorks investors under the federal securities laws. To join the WageWorks class action, go to https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1302.html or 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 during the Class Period made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) there were material weaknesses in WageWorks' systems of internal controls and that its practices and controls were ineffective; (2) WageWorks failed to adequately manage and assess risk relating to certain complex transactions, including certain government contracts; (3) WageWorks improperly recognized revenue thereby inflating its earnings and related financial metrics; and (4) as a result, WageWorks' financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 8, 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 https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1302.html or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Zachary Halper, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail 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] WAGEWORKS INC: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP disclosed that a shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against WageWorks, Inc. (NYSE: WAGE) ("WageWorks" or the "Company") on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities between May 6, 2016 and March 1, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors who purchased WageWorks securities during the Class Period may, no later than May 8, 2018, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class. For additional information or to learn how to participate in this action please visit: https://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/wageworks-inc#join WageWorks investors who wish to discuss this action and their legal options are encouraged to contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (Darren J. Check, Esq., D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. or Adrienne Bell, Esq.) at (888) 299-7706 or at info@ktmc.com WageWorks provides tax-advantaged programs for consumer-directed health, commuter, and other employee spending account benefits in the United States. The shareholder class action complaint alleges that WageWorks and certain of its senior executive officers made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose to investors that: (i) there were material weaknesses in WageWorks' systems of internal controls and that its practices and controls were ineffective; (ii) WageWorks failed to adequately manage and assess risk relating to certain complex transactions, including certain government contracts; (iii) WageWorks improperly recognized revenue thereby inflating its earnings and related financial metrics; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing, WageWorks' financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. As a result of the issuance of these false and misleading financial statements, throughout the Class Period the common stock of WageWorks traded at artificially inflated prices. On March 1, 2018, WageWorks disclosed that it was delaying the filing of its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2017. Following this news, shares of the Company's common stock declined $9.75 per share, or over 18.5%, to close at $42.70, on heavy trading volume. The following day the Company reported that it "has concluded that it has a material weakness in its internal control over financial reporting . . . . related to managing change and assessing risk in the areas of non-routine and complex transactions." Additionally, the Company disclosed that "[t]he Audit Committee of the Company's Board of Directors is conducting an independent investigation of the Company's internal control over financial reporting in fiscal 2016 and 2017. Among other matters, the investigation consists of a review of certain issues, including revenue recognition, related to the accounting for a government contract during fiscal 2016 and associated issues with whether there was an open flow of information and appropriate tone at the top for an effective control environment." WageWorks investors may, no later than May 8, 2018, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, or other counsel, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class in the action. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check prosecutes class actions in state and federal courts throughout the country. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check is a driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual investors from the United States and around the world. The firm represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and share in the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check. For more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, please visit www.ktmc.com. Darren J. Check, Esq. D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. Adrienne Bell, Esq. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Tel: (888) 299-7706 Tel: (610) 667-7706 Email: dcheck@ktmc.com skaskela@ktmc.com abell@ktmc.com [GN] WALGREEN CO: Faces Lawsuit Over U.S. Generic Drug Pricing --------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal judge on March 9 ordered Walgreen Co to face most of a proposed class action lawsuit accusing the drugstore chain of fraudulently overcharging customers for a decade when they bought generic drugs through private insurance, Medicare or Medicaid. Walgreen was accused of wrongly requiring insured customers to pay more than members of its Prescription Savings Club, who for a low annual fee could buy more than 500 widely prescribed generic drugs for $5, $10 and $15 for 30-day prescriptions, and $10, $20 and $30 for 90-day prescriptions. U.S. District Judge John Lee in Chicago said the plaintiffs plausibly alleged that these prices were Walgreen's "usual and customary" prices, and that the company misled their insurers by reporting higher prices when seeking reimbursement. He also found plausible the plaintiffs' argument that because they had health insurance with prescription benefits coverage, they reasonably believed they would pay "at least the same as and not more than a direct-pay customer." Lee dismissed two of the 29 claims, including many brought under various state laws, against Deerfield, Illinois-based Walgreen, part of Walgreens Boots Alliance Inc. Walgreen did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Lawyers for the plaintiffs did not immediately respond to similar requests. The lawsuit sought damages for insured customers nationwide since 2007, when the Prescription Savings Club began, who said Walgreen collected inflated copayments, coinsurance and deductibles through its improper "dual pricing" scheme. Walgreens Boots has more than 13,200 stores in 11 countries. It is acquiring 1,932 stores from Rite Aid Corp for $4.4 billion, in a process that Rite Aid said should be completed in the spring. The case is Forth et al v Walgreen Co, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, No. 17-00246. [GN] WESTERN EXPRESS: Elmy Seeks Certification of Collective Action -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled JOHN ELMY, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons, the Plaintiffs, v. WESTERN EXPRESS, INC., NEW HORIZONS LEASING, INC., and JOHN DOES 1-5, the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-01199 (M.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an Order: 1. granting the Plaintiff's request to conditionally certify this collective action and to authorize notice to the putative class by first class mail, email and Qualcomm; 2. directing the Defendants to provide in an electronic spreadsheet format such as Excel, the following information, each contained in a separate column: names, addresses, email addresses, and an employee number or unique identifier of the FLSA collective members; 3. approving the Plaintiff's forms of notice, Qualcomm message/reminder and reminder postcard to putative FLSA collective members; 4. directing the Defendants to supply to the Plaintiff the last four digits of the social security numbers of those FLSA collective members whose notice is returned as undeliverable; 5. permitting Plaintiff's counsel to call any individual whose notice is returned as undeliverable for the purpose of obtaining a current address for re-mailing of the notice; 6. authorizing Plaintiff's counsel to re-mail notices that are returned as undeliverable for those individuals counsel can find better addresses; and 7. authorizing Plaintiff's counsel to mail and email reminder postcards and send via Qualcomm a reminder message 21 days before the expiration of the opt-in period to those putative FLSA collective members who have not opted in to the collective action at that point. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=n6XqTTh4 The Plaintiff is represented by: Lesley Tse, Esq. Michael J.D. Sweeney, Esq. GETMAN, SWEENEY & DUNN, PLLC 260 Fair Street Kingston, NY 12401 Telephone: (845) 255 9370 Facsimile: (845) 255 8649 E-mail: ltse@getmansweeney.com - and - Justin L. Swidler, Esq. SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC 1101 Kings Hwy N., Ste 402 Cherry Hill, NJ 08034 Telephone: (856) 685 7420 Facsimile: (856) 685 7417 E-mail: jswidler@swartz-legal.com The Defendant is represented by: Mark E. Hunt, Esq. R. Eddie Wayland, Esq. KING & BALLOW LAW OFFICES 315 Union Street Ste. 1100 Nashville, TN 37201 Telephone: (615) 259 3456 Facsimile: (615) 726 5417 WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION: Schechner, et al. Seek to Certify Class -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled TOBY SCHECHNER, BARBARA BARNES, LAURA BLISS, KATHLEEN JORDAN, KATHRYN LIMPEDE, LOUISE MILJENOVIC, CANDACE OLIARNY, BEVERLY SIMMONS, RICHARD THOME and MARY ELLEN THOME, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-12409-SJM-RSW (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order: a. certifying Plaintiffs' claims as a class action, under Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3); b. appointing Plaintiffs as Class Representatives for the Class and their respective Classes; c. appointing Plaintiffs' counsel, the law firms of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, and the Miller Law Firm, P.C. as Class Counsel under Rule 23(g); and d. ordering Plaintiffs to provide the Court with a proposed form and manner of notice to the certified Classes under Rule 23(c). A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=hpQNGrjD Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class and Classes: E. Powell Miller, Esq. Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C. 950 West University Drive, Suite 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: (248) 841 2200 Facsimile: (248) 652 2852 - and - Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. Marks. Reich, Esq. Jordan D. Mamorsky, Esq. STUART A. DAVIDSON, ESQ. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367 7100 Facsimile: (631) 367 1173 YELP INC: April 19 Hearing on "Sapan" Bid to Certify Class ---------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled JONATHAN SAPAN, individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. YELP, INC., a Delaware Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-03240-JD (N.D. Cal.), Mr. Jonathan Sapan and the putative class will move the Court on April 19, 2018, for an order to certify class. A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=bGhWJhsP Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class: Christopher J. Reichman, Esq. Justin Prato SBN 246968, Esq. PRATO & REICHMAN, APC 8555 Aero Drive, Suite 303 San Diego, CA 92123 Telephone: (619) 886 0252 E-mail: JustinP@prato-reichman.com ZION HEALTH: Bid to Certify Nationwide & California Classes Nixed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled JONG ICK SHIN, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DIANA LEE, ZION HEALTH TECH, INC., ION CO. LTD., and DOES 1 through 10, the Defendants, Case No. 8:16-cv-01225-CJC-DFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Cormac J. Carney entered an order: a. denying Plaintiff's motion for class certification of: Nationwide class: "all persons who purchased the Ionizer [which includes the SMART 3000, SMART 5000, SMART 7000, and SMART 9000] from Defendant Zion throughout the United States from June 1, 2012 to the present"; California class: "all persons who purchased [Defendant Zion's] Ionizers, which includes SMART 3000, SMART 5000, SMART 7000, and SMART 9000, in California, on or after June 1, 2012"; and b. denying as moot Plaintiff's requests that the Court appoint class counsel and approve notice to the class. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=79MdnfZu ********* 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 * * *