/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/180412.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, April 12, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 74 Headlines A10 NETWORKS: Shah Alleges Misleading Financial Reports AAA COURIERS: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Morales Says ACA SECURITY: Fails to Timely Pay Final Wages, Slaughter Says AI MEDICAL: Faces "Kiler" Suit in New York Superior Court AKORN INC: "Joshi" Suit Alleges Exchange Act Violation ALPHA RECOVERY: "Hudson" Suit Alleges FDCPA Violations AMAZING HOME: "Pierre" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under Labor Law ARAMARK FOOD: "Tirado-Hannon" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA ARDENT COMPANIES: "Orozco" Suit Moved to C.D. California AT&T MOBILITY: Suit Over 'Unlimited Data' Escapes Arbitration BALLARD POWER: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action BASS PRO: "Anderson" Suit Alleges MMPA Violation BELLICUM PHARMA: Robbins Geller Files Class Action BEST BUY: Fails to Pay Hourly Wages, Lovig Says BROOKLYN DENTAL: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Kiler Claims CANCER GENETICS: Phetteplace Alleges Securities Law Violations CAPITAL ONE: "Augustine" Suit Alleges FCRA Violation CAR WASH: "Gonzalez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages under FLSA CELEBRATE AT SNUG HARBOR: Underpays Catering Staff, Suit Claims CEMEX SAB: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action CIGNA HEALTH: CA Moves Forward for Alleged Drug Overcharging CLICKSPARK LLC: Illegally Contacted Class, "Ivey" Suit Alleges COME LAND: Fails to Pay Wages & Overtime, Robles Says COMERICA BANK: "Baker" Suit Alleges Fraud and Negligence COMICBOOK.COM: Website Not Accessible to Deaf, Sullivan Claims CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Clermont Sues over Debt Collection CRACKER BARREL: "Vest" Suit Moved to Western Dist. of Missouri CREDIT SUISSE: Gainey McKenna Files Class Action Lawsuit CREDIT SUISSE: Milberg Tadler Files Suit Over XIV Notes CRESCENT GUARDIAN: "Quinn" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages under FLSA CSRA INC: "Fallness" Suit Challenges Sale to General Dynamics CSX TRANSPORTATION: Bell et al. Sue over Family Medical Leave Act CUMMINS ENTERPRISES: "Lopez" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT under FLSA CYNTHIA'S TOUCH: "Sedgwick" Suit Seeks OT Pay under FLSA CYPRESS SECURITY: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action DARP INC: Sued by Fochtman for Forcing Residents to Work W/o Pay DIRECTV LLC: Illegally Debits Customers' Accounts, Valdez Says DIVERSITY BUSINESS: Fails to Provide Rest Breaks, Gary Says DOES 1-100: Atlantic Trading Suit Alleges CEA Violation EAT REAL SNACKS: Condon Files False Labeling Suit in N.Y. ENERCON FEDERAL: "Jimerson" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations EVIO GROUP: "Cortes" Suit Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA FACEBOOK INC: Used Private Info to Influence Elections, Suit Says FACEBOOK INC: Allowed 3rd Party to Mine User Data, Labajo Claims FACEBOOK INC: Allowed 3rd Party to Mine User Data, Picha Claims FADARO FANCY FOODS: "Zamora" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT under FLSA FLORIDA: South Florida Homeowners to Split $42MM in State Money FOOT LOCKER: Faces Securities Suit by Warren Police Retirees FOOT LOCKER: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Class Action FORD MOTOR: Website Not Accessible to Deaf, Sullivan Says GLOBAL CONTROL: "Fahnestock" Disputes Collection Letter GLOBAL FITNESS: Gascho Seeks High Court Review of 6th Cir. Ruling GO WITH THE FLOW: "Haug" Suit Moved to C.D. California GOLD'S GYM: Zemel Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages GOOGLE LLC: Class Action Suit Advances Against Firm GT ADVANCED: June 28 Fairness Hearing on $27MM Class Settlement HARRIS & HARRIS: "Bartz" Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Settles Lawsuit, Will Change Labor Policy HITACHI CHEMICAL: June 7 Hearing on $66.9MM Class Settlement HITCHCOCK AUTOMOTIVE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Janabajal Claims HOME DEPOT: "Howard" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Law HUDSON MARKET: "Cuautle" Suit Seeks OT & Minimum Wage under FLSA HUDSON'S BAY: Fails to Secure Personally Identifiable Information INTEL CORP: Faces "Henderson" Suit in Oregon Over Defective CPUs INTEL CORPORATION: Processors Have Security Flaw, New Castle Says INTEL CORPORATION: "Jones" Suit Moved to District of Oregon J.S. PALUCH: Fails to Reimburse Employees for Business Expenses JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Bailey Sues over Talcum Powder Based Products LADY JANE'S HAIRCUTS: Siroka Seeks Minimum Wage & OT under FLSA LAYNE CHRISTENSEN: Witmer Balks at Merger Deal with Granite LIFETIME KIA: Warren Truck Sues over Unsolicited Fax Ads LONGFIN CORP: Reddy Says Financial Reports Misleading MADISON COUNTY, MS: Black Residents File Class Action MADISON COUNTY, MS: ACLU Says Data Shows Discriminatory Policing MAGICJACK VOCALTEC: "Akerman" Suit Alleges Exchange Act Violation MANITOBA FLOOD: Court Approves $90MM Flood Class Settlement MANUFACTURERS AND TRADERS: Kennedy Seeks OT Pay under FLSA MARIE CALLENDER: "Carter" Suit Moved to C.D. California MCKESSON CORPORATION: Reeses Sue over Opioid Drug Sales MDL 2741: "Pica" Suit vs. Monsanto Consolidated in N.D. Cal. MEND HEALTH: Fails to Pay All Wages & Overtime, Ramos Says METRO CHRYSLER: Brutus Seeks Minimum Wage & OT under Labor Law MICRO FOCUS: Wolff Sues over Plunge in Stock Price MIDLAND CREDIT: Slater Says Debts Collection Practices "Illegal" MIZUHO BANK: July 12 Hearing on $30MM Euroyen Settlement MONAT GLOBAL: Company Faces Four Class Action Lawsuits MONAT GLOBAL: Federman & Sherwood Files Class Action MULTI-STATE LOTTERY: Class Suit Seeks Money Due to Rigged System NEW YORK JETS: Class-Action Lawsuit Over Personal Seat Licenses NEW ZEALAND: Law Professor Advises Checkpoint Targets to Sue NEXEN CORP: Hegedus Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages NHL: Judge to Decide if Concussion Lawsuit is Class Action NORTHEAST CREDIT: Faces Class Suit Over Overdraft Fees NORWEGIAN AIR: Mazzini et al. Sue over Cancelled, Delayed Flights OHM GROUP: "Alom" Suit Alleges FLSA and NYLL Violations PACIFIC VIAL: Fails to Pay OT & Minimum Wages, Barragan Says PACTIV LLC: Refuses to Pay All Wages to Class, "Ceniceros" Claims PCL CIVIL: N.Carolina Islands Power Outage Could Yield $10MM Deal PETROLEO BRASILEIRO: Payout Triggers Deep 4Q Loss PICON PENZINI: "Callejas" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages QUALCOMM INC: "Evans" Suit Alleges Breaches of Fiduciary Duty QUDIAN INC: "Song" Suit Alleges Misleading IPO Documents QUEBEC: Negotiations Stall in Highway 13 Blizzard Suit ROADSTAR TOWING: "Rogers" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA RON HERMAN: Violates Wage and Hour Laws, Pham Says SANIMAX: South St. Paul Residents File Class-Action Lawsuit SCHULTE HOSPITALITY: Georges, Rankins Sue over Biometric Data SIMM ASSOCIATES: Matsui Sues over Debt Collection Practices SOLID BIOSCIENCES: IPO Prospectus Misleading, "Walsh" Suit Claims SONY CORP: PS3 Buyers Could Get $65 Following Class Settlement STRAD ENERGY: "Ruberto" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA STARKIST CO: Warner Sues over Product Labels' Heart-Check Mark SWAN LAKE: Class Action Suit Explained TEZOS: Judge Picks LTL Attorneys to Lead Groundbreaking Suit THINK FINANCE: "Banks" Suit Moved to Northern District of Texas U.S. SECURITY: "Burrola" Suit Moved to S.D. California UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Suit Says Firm Silences Sexually Abused Women ULTA BEAUTY: Claimsfiler Reminds of May 1 Lead Plaintiff Deadline ULTA BEAUTY: Vincent Wong Files Securities Class Action UNDER ARMOUR: Murray Sues over Consumer Data Breach VENMO LLC: "Babar" Suit Alleges False Advertising WAGEWORKS INC: Has Issued False Financial Statements, GERS Claims WELLS FARGO: Customers Could Have More Time to File Claims WESTLAKE SERVICES: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages & OT, Yeganeh Says WHITE GLOVE: "Cedeno" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Law WOOLERY PAINTING: "Almendares" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT WOLVERINE WORLD: Cedar Springs Residents Part of New Suit WHOLE FOODS: Sued Over Kombucha Products False Advertising YANGTZE LLC: "Wang" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages & OT under FLSA * Legislation Bans Fed Workers From Staying at Trump Properties ********* A10 NETWORKS: Shah Alleges Misleading Financial Reports ------------------------------------------------------- KETANKUMAR SHAH, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. A10 NETWORKS, INC., LEE CHEN, GREG STRAUGHN, SHIVA NATARAJAN, AND TOM CONSTANTINO, the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-01772-VC (N.D. Cal., March 22, 2018), is a federal securities class action on behalf of all persons and entities other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of A10 between February 9, 2016 and January 30, 2018, both dates inclusive. Defendant A10 provides software and hardware solutions in the United States and internationally. A10 is a Secure Application Services (TM) company, providing a range of high-performance application networking solutions that help organizations ensure that their data center applications and networks remain highly available, accelerated and secure. The Company is incorporated in Delaware and its principal executive offices are located at 3 West Plumeria Drive, San Jose, California 95134. A10's securities trade on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol "ATEN." The Defendant Lee Chen is the founder and has been the Chief Executive Officer of A10 at all relevant times. Defendant Greg Straughn was A10's Chief Financial Officer from the beginning of the Class Period until February 9, 2017. Defendant Shiva Natarajan served as A10's interim CFO from February 2017 until June 2017. Defendant Tom Constantino has been A10's CFO since June 2017. Each of the Individual Defendants: (a) directly participated in the management of the Company; (b) was directly involved in the day-to-day operations of the Company at the highest levels; (c) was privy to confidential proprietary information concerning the Company and its business and operations; (d) was directly or indirectly involved in drafting, producing, reviewing and/or disseminating the false and misleading statements and information alleged herein; (e) was directly or indirectly involved in the oversight or implementation of the Company's internal controls; (f) was aware of or recklessly disregarded the fact that the false and misleading statements were being issued concerning the Company; and/or (g) approved or ratified these statements in violation of the federal securities laws. The Company is liable for the acts of the Individual Defendants and its employees under the doctrine of respondeat superior and common law principles of agency because all of the wrongful acts complained of herein were carried out within the scope of their employment. The scienter of the Individual Defendants and other employees and agents of the Company is similarly imputed to the Company under respondeat superior and agency principles. A10 Networks is a U.S. public company, based in San Jose, Calif., that provides a range of high-performance application security and networking solutions that help organizations ensure that business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 785 2610 Facsimile: (213) 226 4684 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com AAA COURIERS: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Morales Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- CARLOS MORALES, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AAA COURIERS, INC., a California corporation; CLASSIC COURIERS, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC698806 (Cal. Super. Ct., March 21, 2018), seeks to recover minimum and straight-time wages and overtime compensation under the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a courier from approximately December 2016 to January 2018. The Defendants paid Plaintiff on an hourly basis and classified him as non-exempt from overtime. During his employment for Defendants, Plaintiff typically worked at least 5 days in a workweek and at least 8 hours per day, but there were also times when Plaintiff worked shifts greater than 10 and 12 hours in a workday, and there were also times when Plaintiff worked all 7 days in a workweek. Throughout his employment, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff for all hours worked (including minimum wages, straight time wages, and overtime wages), failed to provide Plaintiff with meal periods, failed to authorize and permit Plaintiff to take rest periods, failed to indemnify Plaintiff for necessary business expenses, failed to timely pay all final wages to Plaintiff when he terminated his employment, and failed to furnish accurate wage statements to Plaintiff. AAA Couriers is a licensed and bonded freight shipping and trucking company running freight hauling business from Hollywood, California.[BN] Attorneys for Carlos Morales: Kane Moon, Esq. Justin F. Marquez, Esq. MOON & YANG, APC 1055 W. Seventh St., Suite 18>80 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 232 3128 Facsimile: (213) 232 3125 E-mail: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com justin.marquez@moonyanglaw.com ACA SECURITY: Fails to Timely Pay Final Wages, Slaughter Says ------------------------------------------------------------- DARRYL SLAUGHTER, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ACA SECURITY SYSTEMS, LP, a California limited partnership; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC699237 (Cal. Super. Ct., March 21, 2018), seeks to recover final wages under the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, Defendants have wrongfully failed to provide Plaintiff and the Class with timely and duty-free meal periods. Defendants regularly required Plaintiff and the Class to work in excess of five consecutive hours a day without providing a 30-minute, continuous and uninterrupted, duty-free meal period for every five hours of work, or without compensating Plaintiff and the Class for meal periods that were not provided by the end of the fifth hour of work or tenth hour of work. Defendants did not adequately inform Plaintiff and the Class of their right to take a meal period by the end of the fifth hour of work, or, for shifts greater than 10 hours, by the end of the tenth hour of work. Moreover, Defendants did not have adequate written policies or practices providing meal periods for Plaintiff and the Class, nor did Defendants have adequate policies or practices regarding the timing of meal periods. Defendants also did not have adequate policies or practices to verify whether Plaintiff and the Class were taking their required meal periods. Accordingly, Defendants' policy and practice was to not provide meal periods to Plaintiff and the Class in compliance with California law. Throughout the statutory period, Defendants have wrongfully failed to authorize and permit Plaintiff and the Class to take timely and duty-free rest periods. Defendants regularly required Plaintiff and the Class to work in excess of four consecutive hours a day without Defendants authorizing and permitting them to take a 10-minute, continuous and uninterrupted, rest period for every four hours of work (or major fraction of four hours), or without compensating Plaintiff and the Class for rest periods that were not authorized or permitted.[BN] Attorneys for Darryl Slaughter: Kane Moon, Esq. Justin F. Marquez, Esq. MOON & YANG, APC 1055 W. Seventh St., Suite 1880 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 232 3128 Facsimile: (213) 232 3125 E-mail: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com justin.marquez@moonyanglaw.com AI MEDICAL: Faces "Kiler" Suit in New York Superior Court --------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against AI Medical Urgent Care PLLC. The case is captioned as MARION KILER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AI MEDICAL URGENT CARE PLLC d/b/a FIRST RESPONSE URGENT CARE, the Defendant, Case No. 505680/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., March 21, 2018). AI Medical is an urgent care clinic in Brooklyn, New York.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, Second Floor New York, NY 10016 AKORN INC: "Joshi" Suit Alleges Exchange Act Violation ------------------------------------------------------ Joshi Living Trust, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Akorn, Inc., Rajat Rai, Duane A. Portwood, and Randall E. Pollard, Case No. 1:18-cv-01713 (N.D. Ill., March 8, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Securities Exchange Act. This is a federal securities class action brought on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities, other than Defendants and their affiliates, who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of Akorn from March 1, 2017 through February 26, 2018, inclusive seeking to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of federal securities laws. Plaintiff, as set forth in the attached Certification, acquired Akorn securities at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period and was damaged upon the revelation of the corrective disclosures. Defendant Akorn develops, manufactures, and markets specialized generic and branded pharmaceuticals, over-the-counter drug products, and animal health products in the United States and internationally. Akorn is a Louisiana corporation with its headquarters located at 1925 W. Field Court, Suite 300, Lake Forrest, Illinois 60045. Akorn securities trade on the NASDAQ under the ticker symbol "AKRX." Defendant Rajat Rai has been the Company's Chief Executive Officer since May 21, 2010. Defendant Duane A. Portwood has been the Company's Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President since October 30, 2015. Defendant Randall E. Pollard has been the Company's Chief Accounting Officer since August 2015, and Senior Vice President and Corporate Controller since April 2015. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew T. Heffner, Esq. Matthew T. Hurst, Esq. HEFFNER HURST 30 North LaSalle Street Twelfth Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Tel: (312) 346-3466 Fax: (312) 346-2829 E-mail: mheffner@heffnerhurst.com mhurst@heffnerhurst.com - and - Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Ave, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Fax: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com ALPHA RECOVERY: "Hudson" Suit Alleges FDCPA Violations ------------------------------------------------------ Daryl Hudson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Alpha Recovery Corp and JH Portfolio Debt Equities, LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-01461 (E.D. N.Y., March 8, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Plaintiff Daryl Hudson is a resident in Kings County, New York. Defendant Alpha Recovery Corp is a Colorado Corporation with principal place of business in Arapahoe County, Colorado. Defendant JH Portfolio Debt Equities, LLC is a California Limited Liability Company with principal place of business in Los Angeles County, California. Defendants are regularly engaged, for profit, in the collection of debts allegedly owed by consumers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Tel: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 706-5055 E-mail: csanders@barshaysanders.com AMAZING HOME: "Pierre" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under Labor Law -------------------------------------------------------------- MARIE L. PIERRE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AMAZING HOME CARE SERVICES LLC, AMAZING HOME CARE PROVIDERS INC., INTERGEN HEALTH LLC, and JOSEPH STENFELD a/k/a JOSEPH STEINFELD individually, the Defendants, Case No. 506759/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., April 4, 2018), seeks to recover overtime pay under the New York Labor Law. The Defendants are primarily engaged in providing nursing and home health aide services at the residences of its clients. Defendants employed Plaintiff as a home health aide/home attendant at various locations throughout New York, and maintained control, oversight, and direction over Plaintiff in regard to timekeeping, payroll, and other employment practices, and functioned as employers pursuant to the NYLL. While employed by Defendants, Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours per week. Plaintiff would clock in and out every shift using Defendants' timekeeping system. Plaintiff generally worked 4 consecutive 24-hour shifts per week, beginning at 8:00 a.m. on Friday and ending at 8:00 a.m. on Tuesday. Occasionally Plaintiff would work additional shifts that lasted less than 24- hours. On average, Plaintiff would work approximately 96 hours per week. The Plaintiff was only paid for approximately 13 hours of her 24-hour shifts. Plaintiff was not paid any hourly rate for the other 11 hours worked. Thus, because of Defendant's improper compensation policies, Plaintiff was not paid for 44 or more hours per pay period, in direct violation of the NYLL.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Gaylord, Esq. BOUKLAS GAYLORD LLP 400 Jericho Turnpike Suite 226 Jericho, NY 11753 Telephone: (516) 742 4949 Facsimile: (516) 742 1977 ARAMARK FOOD: "Tirado-Hannon" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- ANNA TIRADO-HANNON, the Plaintiff, v. ARAMARK FOOD & SUP SERVICES, ARAMARK SERVICES, INC., and JOHN DOE ENTITIES 1 THROUGH 10, all whose true names are unknown, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-05402 (D.N.J., April 4, 2018), seeks to recover overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was improperly paid a salary for her hours worked. The Plaintiff routinely worked six days per week. The Plaintiff routinely worked conservatively 65 hours per week. The Defendants did not pay Plaintiff at one and one half times her regular rate of pay for her overtime hours worked in each work week. Aramark provides food service, facilities and uniform services to hospitals, universities, school districts, stadiums and other businesses around the world.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Andrew I. Glenn, Esq. Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq. JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A. 301 N. Harrison Street, Suite 9F, No. 306 Princeton, NJ 08540 Telephone: (201) 687 9977 Facsimile: (201) 595 0308 E-mail: AGlenn@JaffeGlenn.com JJaffe@JaffeGlenn.com ARDENT COMPANIES: "Orozco" Suit Moved to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Edgar Orozco, an individual, for himself and those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Ardent Companies, Inc., a Louisiana company and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 18CV00925, was removed from the Santa Barbara County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Western Division - Los Angeles) on April 3, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-02763-GW-SS to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge George H. Wu. Ardent is a group of companies operating as a privately held real estate investment and asset management firm that combines the disciplines of research and comprehensive due diligence with a commitment to long-term relationships creating compelling risk adjusted returns for investors.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Anthony Strauss, Esq. Andrew Clayton Ellison, Esq. Aris Edmund Karakalos, Esq. STRAUSS AND STRAUSS APC 121 North Fir Street Suite F Ventura, CA 93001 Telephone: (805) 641 6600 Facsimile: (805) 641 6607 E-mail: mike@strausslawyers.com andrew@strausslawyers.com aris@strausslawyers.com Attorneys for Ardent Companies, Inc.: Joshua D. Kienitz, Esq. Perry K. Miska, Jr., Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON PC 333 Bush Street 34th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 399 8451 Facsimile: (415) 358 4566 E-mail: jkienitz@littler.com pmiska@littler.com AT&T MOBILITY: Suit Over 'Unlimited Data' Escapes Arbitration ------------------------------------------------------------- Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, reports that a federal judge has breathed new life into a class action lawsuit claiming that AT&T Mobility misled consumers by marketing certain data plans as "unlimited" while at the same time slowing the data speeds for consumers who crossed certain use thresholds. U.S. District Judge Edward Chen of the Northern District of California, who had previously routed the suit to arbitration, on March 14 granted the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration, agreeing that AT&T's arbitration clause is now unenforceable under a California Supreme Court ruling that was handed down while his earlier ruling was pending on appeal. AT&T's lawyers at Mayer Brown previously convinced Chen to route the lawsuit to arbitration in April 2016 based on language in the company's user agreement with customers. That ruling was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in December 2017. But while the case was pending at the Ninth Circuit, the California Supreme Court ruled in McGill v. Citibank, N.A. that an arbitration agreement that waves the right to seek public injunctive relief in any forum is contrary to California public policy and therefore unenforceable. In March 14 ruling, Chen held that the McGill rule would apply to the California-based named plaintiffs in the AT&T case, and that plaintiffs counsel at Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein hadn't waited too long to raise new arguments. Mayer Brown's Archis Parasharami passed a request for comment along to an AT&T spokesman, Marty Richter . "We respectfully disagree with the decision and we plan to appeal," said Richter in an email statement. Michael Sobol, Esq., of Lieff Cabraser didn't immediately respond to a message seeking comment. [GN] BALLARD POWER: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors that purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Ballard Power Systems Inc. ("Ballard" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: BLDP) securities between September 30, 2016, and January 25, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Ballard investors have until March 20, 2018 to file a lead plaintiff motion. To obtain information or actively participate in the class action, please visit the Ballard page on our website at www.glancylaw.com/case/ballard-power-systems-inc. Investors that suffered losses on their Ballard investments are encouraged to contact Lesley Portnoy of GPM to discuss their legal rights in this class action at 310-201-9150 or by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com. On January 25, 2018, Spruce Point Capital Management published a report asserting, among other things, that Ballard misrepresented its operations. For example, the report alleges that contrary to Ballard's public statements, "there are no demonstration lines operating in Guangdong and that no bus lines are in service in Sanshui or Yunfu." The report further stated that local press releases indicate that Foshan has produced 114 fuel cell vehicle buses, but that a Foshan employee claimed that "far fewer buses have been produced to date and only 11 are licensed." On this news, shares of Ballard fell $0.52, or over 13%, to close at $3.27 on January 25, 2018, thereby injuring investors. The Complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company had overstated the operations of its China-based partners Broad Ocean and Synergy JV; (ii) Ballard's technologies had not been deployed in China to the extent the Company had represented; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, Ballard shares traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, and class members suffered significant losses and damages. Follow us for updates on Twitter: twitter.com/GPM_LLP. If you purchased shares of Ballard during the Class Period you may move the Court no later than March 20, 2018 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773- 9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. Contacts: Lesley Portnoy, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP Los Angeles, CA Tel: 310-201-9150 Tel: 888-773-9224 Email: shareholders@glancylaw.com lportnoy@glancylaw.com [GN] BASS PRO: "Anderson" Suit Alleges MMPA Violation ------------------------------------------------ Dustin Anderson and Franklin Gonzales, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bass Pro Outdoor World, LLC, Case No. 6:18-cv-03077 (W.D. Mo., March 9, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act and unjust enrichment. This is a class action brought by Plaintiffs on behalf of all consumers in the United States who attempted to purchase a Johnny Morris Carbonlite 2.0 rod and reel combo during Defendant's 2018 Spring Fishing Classic, but were unable to do so because Defendant failed to stock sufficient quantities of the product to meet reasonably anticipated demand. Plaintiffs, Frank Gonzales and Dustin Anderson, are Missouri residents and at all times relevant to this complaint (1) received the advertisement for Defendant's 2018 Spring Fishing Classic, which included the advertised sale on the Johnny Morris Carbonlite 2.0 rod and reel combo, (2) visited Defendant's store in Springfield, Missouri with the express intention to purchase the Carbonlite 2.0, and (3) were unable to do so because Defendant did not have any Carbonlite 2.0 in stock. Defendant, Bass Pro Outdoor World, LLC, is a Missouri limited liability company. Defendant operates 82 retail stores across the United States and Canada. Defendant markets and sells a wide variety of hunting, fishing, and outdoor gear at these retail stores and online. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nathan A. Duncan, Esq. Craig R. Heidemann, Esq. DOUGLAS, HAUN & HEIDEMANN, P.C. 111 West Broadway, P.O. Box 117 Bolivar, MO 65613 Tel: (417) 326-5261 Fax: (417) 326-2845 E-mail: nathan@dhhlawfirm.com craig@dhhlawfirm.com BELLICUM PHARMA: Robbins Geller Files Class Action -------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP disclosed that a class action has been commenced on behalf of purchasers of Bellicum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. securities during the period between May 8, 2017 and January 30, 2018 (the "Class Period"). This action was filed in the Southern District of Texas and is captioned Rudy v. Bellicum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 18-cv-00795. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from February 6, 2018. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, David C. Walton of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231- 1058, or via e-mail at davew@rgrdlaw.com. If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the complaint as filed at http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/bellicum/.Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. The complaint charges Bellicum and certain of its officers and/or directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Bellicum operates as a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on discovering and developing novel cellular immunotherapies for various forms of cancer. The Company's lead product candidate is BPX-501, an adjunct T-cell therapy administered after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation ("HSCT"), also known as bone marrow transplantation. During the Class Period, Bellicum represented that BPX-501 was in multiple clinical trials to evaluate the drug's ability to improve patient outcomes by enhancing the recovery of the immune system following an HSCT procedure. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose adverse information regarding BPX-501, Bellicum's lead product candidate. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose that a substantial undisclosed risk of encephalopathy (brain damage) was associated with BPX-501. As a result of defendants' false statements and/or omissions, the price of Bellicum shares was artificially inflated during the Class Period, with its stock price reaching a high of $13.98 per share on June 22, 2017. Then on January 30, 2018, after the market closed, Bellicum announced that it had "received notice from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that U.S. studies of BPX-501 have been placed on a clinical hold following three cases of encephalopathy deemed as possibly related to BPX-501. Bellicum is awaiting formal communications from the FDA to determine the requirements for resuming studies, and will be working closely with the FDA to address their questions." On this news, the price of Bellicum stock fell $2.12 per share, or more than 25%, to close at $6.08 per share on January 31, 2018. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Bellicum securities during the Class Period (the "Class"). The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions involving financial fraud. Robbins Geller is widely recognized as a leading law firm advising and representing U.S. and international investors in securities litigation and portfolio monitoring. With 200 lawyers in 10 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history. For the third consecutive year, the Firm ranked first in both the total amount recovered for investors and the number of shareholder class action recoveries in ISS's SCAS Top 50 Report. Robbins Geller attorneys have shaped the law in the areas of securities litigation and shareholder rights and have recovered tens of billions of dollars on behalf of the Firm's clients. Robbins Geller not only secures recoveries for defrauded investors, it also implements significant corporate governance reforms, helping to improve the financial markets for investors worldwide. Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more information. David C. Walton, Esq. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Tel: 800-449-4900 Email: davew@rgrdlaw.com [GN] BEST BUY: Fails to Pay Hourly Wages, Lovig Says ----------------------------------------------- NIKOLA LOVIG, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BEST BUY L.P., a Virginia limited Partnership, the Defendant, Case No. RG18899577 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 3, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid hourly wages under California Labor Code. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to provide him and all other similarly situated individuals with meal and rest periods; pay them premium wages for missed meal and/or rest periods at the regular rate of pay; pay them at least minimum wage for all hours worked; pay them overtime wages at the correct rate; pay them double time wages at the correct rate; pay them overtime and/or double time wages by failing to include all applicable remuneration in calculating the regular rate of pay; provide them with accurate written wages statements; and pay them all of their final wages following separation of employment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shaun Setareh, Esq. Scott Leviant, Esq. William M. Pao, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907 Beverley Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 888 7771 Facsimile: (310) 888 0109 E-mail: Shaun@setarehlaw.com scott@setareh1aw.com BROOKLYN DENTAL: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Kiler Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- MARION KILER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BROOKLYN DENTAL GROUP, P.C., the Defendant, Case No. 505681/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., March 21, 2018), seeks to put an end to systemic civil rights violations committed by Defendant against the blind in New York State and across the United States. According to the complaint, the Defendant is denying blind individuals throughout New York State equal access to the goods and services Defendant provides to its non-disabled customers through http://www.martinbodekdds.com/ The Website provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, and other programs offered by Defendant. Yet, the Website contains numerous access barriers that make it difficult, if not impossible, for blind customers to use the Website. The Defendant thus excludes the blind from the full and equal participation in the growing Internet economy that is increasingly a fundamental part of the common marketplace and daily living. Brooklyn Dental is a full service Dental Office Located in Flatbush Brooklyn specializing in complete dental procedures and dental services.[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 CANCER GENETICS: Phetteplace Alleges Securities Law Violations -------------------------------------------------------------- BEN PHETTEPLACE, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CANCER GENETICS, INC., PANNA L. SHARMA, JOHN A. ROBERTS, AND IGOR GITELMAN, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-05612 (D.N.J., April 5, 2018), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities, other than Defendants, who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of Cancer Genetics from March 23, 2017 through April 2, 2018, inclusive. On October 12, 2015, Cancer Genetics issued a press release entitled, "Cancer Genetics, Inc. Finalizes Purchase of Los Angeles-based Molecular Profiling Laboratory, Response Genetics, Inc., Adding $10-$12M in Annual Revenue and Establishing a National Clinical Sales Footprint" which announced that Cancer Genetics closed its acquisition of Response Genetics, Inc., a molecular profiling laboratory on October 9, 2012. On March 23, 2017, the Company filed a Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016 with the SEC, which provided the Company's year-end financial results and position as of December 31, 2016. The 2016 10-K was signed by Defendants Sharma, Roberts, and Gitelman. The 2016 10-K also contained signed certifications pursuant to Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 by Defendants Sharma and Roberts attesting to the accuracy of financial reporting, the disclosure of any material changes to the Company's internal controls over financial reporting, and the disclosure of all fraud. Cancer Genetics is an emerging leader in the field of personalized medicine, offering products and services that enable cancer diagnostics as well as treatments that are tailored to the specific genetic profile of the individual. Products and services being developed at CGI are poised to transform cancer patient.[BN] Counsel for Plaintiff: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 609 W. South Orange Avenue, Suite 2P South Orange, NJ 07079 Telephone: (973) 313 1887 Facsimile: (973) 833 0399 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com CAPITAL ONE: "Augustine" Suit Alleges FCRA Violation ---------------------------------------------------- Ophelia Augustine, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Capital One Auto Finance, Inc., Case No. 3:18-cv-00511 (S.D. Calif., March 9, 2018), seeks damages and injunctive relief for Defendant's violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Plaintiff Ophelia Augustine is a natural person who resides in the County of San Diego, State of California, whose credit report was affected by at least one unauthorized inquiry by Defendant. Defendant Capital One Auto Finance, Inc. provides vehicle financing. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Mona Amini, Esq. Veronica Cruz, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Tel: (800) 400-6808 Fax: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com amini@kazlg.com veronica@kazlg.com CAR WASH: "Gonzalez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- PEDRO GONZALEZ, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CAR WASH HEADQUARTERS INC. dba MISTER CARWASH, a Foreign Profit Corporation and JEFFREY BURR, the Defendants, Case No. 6:18-cv-00504-PGB-GJK (Fla. Cir. Ct, Seminole Cty., April 3, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were regularly required to work in excess of 40 hours a workweek but were not paid overtime compensation as required by FLSA. The Defendant operates car wash and express lube services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jay P. Lechner, Esq. WHITTEL & MELTON, LLC One Progress Plaza 200 Central Avenue No. 400 St. Petersburg, FL 33701 Telephone: (727) 822 1111 Facsimile: (727) 898 2001 E-mail: Pleadings@theFlawfirm.com lechnerj@theFlawfirm.com sonia@theFlawfirm.com CELEBRATE AT SNUG HARBOR: Underpays Catering Staff, Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- VINCENT SETTECASI and BARRY ROBINSON, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CELEBRATE AT SNUG HARBOR, LLC d/b/a RELISH CATERERS; FRANK CRETELLA; JEANNE CRETELLA; COLLEEN REMAURO; CLAUDINE REVERE; and any other related entities, the Defendants, Case No. 152508/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., March 21, 2018), seeks to recover compensation, including gratuities that they were deprived of plus interest, attorneys' fees, and costs under New York Labor Law. Defendants provide customers and potential customers with documents including bills, menus, contracts, invoices, correspondence with sales staff, and other catering related documents that refer to a "service charge" or other mandatory charge of approximately 20% for the administration of a banquet and/or catered event. These documents do not contain adequate disclaimers to ensure that a reasonable patron would understand that the Mandatory Charge is not a gratuity and will not be distributed to the event service staff. Defendants failed to include an adequate disclaimer on all documents containing pricing information, as required by Labor Law Sec. 196-d and its implementing regulations. For example, Defendants' wedding reception brochure for Defendants' Snug Harbor location, states that prices are subject to a "20% administrative fee" with no disclaimer advising customers that the administrative fee is not a gratuity and will not be distributed to the catering service workers who work the event. The Plaintiffs were in fact only paid a flat hourly wage when they worked at Defendants' catered events and did not receive their portion of the Mandatory Charge. The Defendants have engaged in a policy and practice of failing to pay the Mandatory Charge to the Named Plaintiffs and, upon information and belief, similarly situated employees. The Defendants instead retained the money for their own benefit in violation of Labor Law Article. Defendants provide catering services.[BN] Attorneys for the Named Plaintiff and the Putative Class: Laura R. Reznick, Esq. Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873 9550 CEMEX SAB: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Cemex, S.A.B. de C.V. and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under 18-cv-02352, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Cemex American Depositary Receipts ("ADRs") between August 14, 2014 and March 13, 2018, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff seeks to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. If you are a shareholder who purchased Cemex ADRs between August 14, 2014, and March 13, 2018, both dates inclusive, you have until May 15, 2018, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. Cemex is a global building materials company that produces, distributes, and markets cement, ready-mix concrete, aggregates, and related building materials. Cemex operates throughout the Americas, Europe, Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Cemex executives had engaged in an unlawful bribery scheme in connection with the Company's business dealings in Colombia; (ii) discovery of the foregoing conduct would likely subject the Company to heightened regulatory scrutiny and potential criminal sanctions; (iii) the Company lacked adequate internal controls over financial reporting; and (iv) as a result, Cemex's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On September 23, 2016, post-market, Cemex disclosed the Company's dismissal of two senior executives after an internal probe found that payments worth $20 million relating to a land deal in Colombia had breached company protocols. On this news, Cemex's American depositary receipt ("ADR") price fell $0.17, or 2.28%, to close at $7.26 on September 26, 2016. On December 9, 2016, Cemex disclosed receipt of a subpoena from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission seeking information about irregular payments made at the Company's Colombia unit. Then, on March 14, 2018, Cemex disclosed that the U.S. Department of Justice is investigating the Company over payments made by the Company related to a cement plant it is building in Colombia to determine whether any violations of federal bribery laws occurred. On this news, Cemex's ADR price fell $0.12, or 1.64%, to close at $7.21 on March 14, 2018. The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. Robert S. Willoughby, Esq. Pomerantz LLP Tel: 888-476-6529 Ext. 9980 Email: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN] CIGNA HEALTH: CA Moves Forward for Alleged Drug Overcharging ------------------------------------------------------------ Robert Storace, writing for Connecticut Law Tribune, reports that a federal judge in Connecticut has denied most of Cigna Health and Life Insurance's claims in its request to dismiss a lawsuit which alleges it artificially inflated prescription drug costs in violation of the health insurance policies of its clients. The March 12 ruling by U.S. District Judge Warren Eginton means the class-action lawsuit against both Cigna and OptumRx Inc. will move forward. The insurance giant hired OptumRx as its pharmacy benefits manager to negotiate drug prices on behalf of Cigna and the Cigna network. The October 2016 lawsuit, filed on behalf of five individuals who were covered by Bloomfield-based Cigna, alleges the two companies conspired over several years to make consumers pay higher prices for prescription drugs. The defendants allegedly misrepresented the costs of the drugs through increased charges to patients and then "clawbacks" to get a larger portion of patients' payments. In his ruling, Eginton, who presides in Bridgeport, wrote, in part: "The court finds the plaintiffs have plausibly alleged more than an entitlement to lower-cost prescription drugs or breach of contract. . . . . The complaint plausibly alleges the defendant CIGNA acted with scienter by alleging that it intentionally sought to charge excess amounts for prescription drugs and that it required the pharmacies to conceal from the insureds the amounts of the prescription drug costs." The lawsuit claims violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act against both defendants. Eginton denied the motion to dismiss most claims, but did dismiss the RICO claim against OptumRx, while keeping the RICO claim against Cigna. The lawsuit cites numerous alleged examples of the defendants and their agents taking clawback and/or so-called spread payments thousands of times each day from pharmacies across the country. Examples cited in the lawsuit show a class member in November 2014 paid a pharmacy a $20 co-payment for the prescription drug Amlodipine Besylate, 1,043 percent more than the actual $1.75 fee paid to the pharmacist. Without disclosing it to the consumer, the lawsuit alleges, the defendants clawed back the $18.25 overcharge. In another cited case, a class member, also in November 2014, paid a pharmacy a $20 co-payment for the prescription drug Clopidogrel, a 468 percent premium over the actual $3.52 fee paid to the pharmacist. Again without disclosing it to the customer, defendants clawed back the $16.48 overcharge, the lawsuit states. Craig Raabe, Esq. a partner with Izard, Kindall and Raabe in West Hartford and attorney for the plaintiffs, called Eginton's decision, "A great ruling for consumers. We now look forward to going into the discovery phase." That phase, Raabe told the Connecticut Law Tribune, should determine "the mechanism and scope of the overcharges. Discovery will also determine how much in overcharges there have been and how many people were overcharged. We are seeking reimbursement for the class for all of the overcharges." Raabe said his office became involved in the case after getting a call from a client. "We received a complaint about drug overcharges, investigated the issue thoroughly and discovered the overcharge scheme set forth in the complaint," he said. Cigna is represented by Brian Shaffer, Esq. -- brian.shaffer@morganlewis.com -- of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius in Philadelphia. Shaffer did not respond to a request for comment March 13. OptumRx, a subsidiary of the Minnesota-based United Health Care, is represented by Michelle Grant, Esq. -- grant.michelle@dorsey.com -- of Dorsey & Whitney in Minnesota. Grant also did not respond to a request for comment. The five plaintiffs are Kimberly Negron, Daniel Perry, Courtney Gallagher, and Nina and Roger Curol. The plaintiffs are from four states: Massachusetts, New Jersey, Washington and Louisiana. [GN] CLICKSPARK LLC: Illegally Contacted Class, "Ivey" Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- MEGAN IVEY, an individual, and RONNIESSA TOLEFREE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. CLICKSPARK, LLC, a New York Limited Liability Company; and DOE INDIVIDUALS, inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 2:18-at-00288 (E.D. Cal., March 9, 2018), seeks damages resulting from the alleged illegal actions of the Defendants in contacting the Plaintiffs, as well as knowingly and willfully contacting the Plaintiffs on their cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. ClickSpark, LLC, is a New York limited liability company (with its founding roots within the last 10 years in the Bay Area of California). Based in Henrietta, New York, ClickSpark regularly engages in allegedly aggressive and reckless marketing as an agent for profit educational entities. The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown to the Plaintiffs.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John P. Kristensen, Esq. David L. Weisberg, Esq. KRISTENSEN WEISBERG, LLP 12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 90066 Telephone: (310) 507-7924 Facsimile: (310) 507-7906 E-mail: john@kristensenlaw.com david@kristensenlaw.com - and - Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq. HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP 2700 Post Oak Boulevard, Suite 1120 Houston, TX 77056 Telephone: (713) 554-2377 Facsimile: (888) 995-3335 E-mail: jarrett@hughesellzey.com COME LAND: Fails to Pay Wages & Overtime, Robles Says ----------------------------------------------------- AIDA ROBLES, on behalf of herself and others similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. COME LAND MAINTENANCE SERVICE CO., INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION; and DOES 1 TO 100, Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC700958 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 5, 2018), alleges that the Defendants engaged in the illegal practice of requiring all non-exempt employees, including Plaintiff, to work four or more hours without a rest period in violation of the I.W.C. Wage Order, California Labor Code and other relevant laws, rules, orders, requirements and regulations. Defendants further required all non-exempt employees, including the plaintiff, to work five and more hours without a meal break. The Defendants also engaged in the illegal practice of requiring some non-exempt employees at the Come Land Maintenance, including Plaintiff, to work eight or more hours per day and/or more than forty hours per work week without providing time and a half- pay.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shoham J. Solouki, Esq. SOLOUKI & SAVOY, LLP Grant Joseph Savoy, Esq. 316 W. 2nd Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Telephone: (213) 814 4940 Facsimile: (213) 814 2550 COMERICA BANK: "Baker" Suit Alleges Fraud and Negligence -------------------------------------------------------- Mark Baker, Cornerstone Growth LP, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Comerica Bank, Case No. 18-cv- 60524 (S.D. Fla., March 12, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for aiding and abetting fraud and breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of a class of investors seeking to recover their losses resulting from the Woodbridge Ponzi scheme. Plaintiff Mark Baker is a citizen of the State of Florida and resides in Weston, Florida. Mr. Baker has invested more than $400,000 with Woodbridge. Plaintiff Cornerstone Growth LP is a limited partnership with its principal place of business in Las Vegas, Nevada. Cornerstone Growth invested $50,000 with Woodbridge. Defendant Comerica Banker is a Texas banking association with its principal place of business in Dallas, Texas. Defendant held and managed the Woodbridge bank accounts, through which Shapiro ran thousands of transactions and more than a billion dollars to operate his fraudulent scheme. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Harley S. Tropin, Esq. Gail A. McQuilkin, Esq. Rachel Sullivan, Esq. Robert J. Neary, Esq. Daniel Maland, Esq. KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON LLP 2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 9th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Tel: (305) 372-1800 Fax: (305) 372-3508 E-mail: hst@kttlaw.com gam@kttlaw.com rs@kttlaw.com rn@kttlaw.com dmaland@kttlaw.com COMICBOOK.COM: Website Not Accessible to Deaf, Sullivan Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- PHILLIP SULLIVAN, JR., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. COMICBOOK.COM, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02522 (S.D.N.Y., March 21, 2018), seeks to put an end to systemic civil rights violations committed by Defendant against the deaf and hard of hearing individuals in New York State and across the United States. According to the complaint, the Defendant is denying the deaf and hard of hearing individuals throughout the United States equal access to the goods and services Defendant provides to non- disabled individuals through http://www.comicbook.com.The Website provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, and other programs offered by Defendant. Yet, the Website contains access barriers that make it difficult, if not impossible, for deaf and hard of hearing individuals to use the Website. In fact, the access barriers make it impossible for deaf and hard of hearing users to comprehend the audio portion of videos that are posted on the Website. Defendant thus excludes the deaf and hard of hearing from the full and equal participation in the growing Internet economy that is increasingly a fundamental part of the common marketplace and daily living. In the wave of technological advances in recent years, assistive technology is becoming an increasingly prominent part of everyday life, allowing deaf and hard of hearing people to fully and independently access a variety of services, including accessing online videos. The Plaintiff, who currently lives in New York City, is a deaf and hard of hearing individual. ComicBook, LLC, doing business as Pop Culture Media, operates as an entertainment media company and focuses on pop culture. It operates Comicbook.com, a website that provides fans with the superhero and anime news, comic inspired, television shows, and gaming media updates; and PopCulture.com.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff 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 CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Clermont Sues over Debt Collection ---------------------------------------------------------- JEAN CLERMONT, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILIARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff(s), v. CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING, INC. AND NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2006-3, the Defendant, Case No. 705091/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., April 4, 2018), seeks to recover damages caused by Defendant's violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the New York General Business Law. According to the complaint, the Defendants' acts and practices have been directed entirely at consumers. Defendants' acts and practices have a broad impact on the New York consuming public and the courts of the State of New York. Defendants' collection acts are part of a recurring practice against large numbers of consumers in furtherance of its business model of increasing debt volume while decreasing the costs of each case, thus enhancing profitability. Defendants' offending collection practices have the capacity and tendency to deceive and mislead a significant percentage of consumers in a material way because they deprive consumers of state and federal rights and protections. These acts contribute to an increasing number of personal bankruptcies, and lead to marital instability and job loss, all of which are significant social concerns that applicable federal and state consumer protection laws were designed to prevent. The Defendant is a collection agency regularly engaging in the business of collecting debts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Simon Goldenberg, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF SIMON GOLDENBERG PLLC 818 East 16th Street Brooklyn, NY, 11230 CRACKER BARREL: "Vest" Suit Moved to Western Dist. of Missouri -------------------------------------------------------------- Cynthia Vest, On behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1816-CV04150 was removed from the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. The Western District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:18-cv-00262-ODS to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleged that Defendant denied her and similarly situated individuals certain minimum wages and overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Cracker Barrel is an American chain of combined restaurant and gift stores with a Southern country theme.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Heather M. Lake, Esq. CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE LLP 2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 750 Kansas City, MO 64108-4600 Telephone: (816) 472 6400 Facsimile: (816) 472 6401 E-mail: hlake@constangy.com CREDIT SUISSE: Gainey McKenna Files Class Action Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------- Gainey McKenna & Egleston disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Suisse Group AG in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired VelocityShares Inverse VIX Short Term Exchange Traded Notes (NYSE:XIVH) ("Notes") on the open market from January 29, 2018, through February 5, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Complaint alleges Plaintiff and each member of the Class purchased the Notes pursuant to a registration statement including prospectuses and pricing supplements (collectively, the "Registration Statement") that was active during the Class Period. The Registration Statement was materially false and misleading about a metric crucially important to investors. On February 5, 2018, at 4:00 p.m. EST, the regular-hours market for the trading of the Notes closed. The Notes' last trading price was $99. Less than 30 minutes later, during the after- hours market, the price of the Notes had dropped to $70.01. By 4:45 pm, the price had dropped to $42.81 and then by 6:28 p.m. the price had declined to a low of $10.16, a drop of approximately 89.74% from its closing value. On February 6, 2018, Credit Suisse issued a press release stating that it was accelerating the Maturity Date of the Notes. The Complaint further alleges that Credit Suisse obtained substantial financial benefits by accelerating the Maturity Date, because the Notes' value was depressed (and Credit Suisse's redemption payment obligation was reduced) by the acceleration. According to the Complaint, although Plaintiff and members of the Class sustained devastating losses as a result of Defendants' conduct, Credit Suisse itself escaped without damage. As reported by Bloomberg on February 6, 2018, "Credit Suisse says it has not suffered any trading losses related to the exchanged-traded note[.]" If you wish to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com. [GN] CREDIT SUISSE: Milberg Tadler Files Suit Over XIV Notes ------------------------------------------------------- Milberg Tadler Phillips Grossman LLP has filed a class action on behalf of purchasers of the VelocityShares Inverse VIX Short Term Exchange Traded Notes (Nasdaq: XIV) during the Class Period of January 29, 2018, through February 5, 2018, inclusive. If you bought XIV during the Class Period and sustained damages, you can seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff in the action by filing a motion with the Court no later than May 14, 2018. The complaint is filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against defendants Credit Suisse AG and Janus Index & Calculation Services LLC. It alleges that the registration statement, prospectus and pricing supplement issued on January 29, 2018, was materially false and misleading because it misrepresented the updating and accuracy of an important valuation metric, the Intraday Indicative Value, and failed to disclose that: (i) contrary to representations, the Intraday Indicative Value was not updated every 15 seconds based on the relevant index real time calculation of the relevant index (SPVXSPID) applying the real time prices of the relevant VIX futures contracts; and (ii) the Intraday Indicative Value was not an accurate gauge of the economic value of the Notes. It also alleges that the representation of the Intraday Indicative Value was materially false and misleading because it did not reflect the proper calculation of that metric. On February 5, 2018, between 4:10 p.m. and 5:09 p.m., the Intraday Indicative Value, was incorrectly represented to be between $24.7 to $28.6 per Note. The Intraday Indicative Value between 4:10 p.m. and 5:09 p.m. -- had it been calculated as Credit Suisse represented in the registration statement -- was between $4.22 and $4.4 per Note, materially less than the inflated amount of $24.7 to $28.6 per Note. Beginning at 5:10 p.m., the Intraday Indicative Value began to update, showing a value of $4.22 per Note. XIV was inflated as a result of the inflated Intraday Indicative Value, trading at $92.80 per Note at 4:09 p.m. and falling to $37.34 per Note at 5:10 p.m. The trading price of the Notes hit a low of $10 per Note at 6:30 p.m. and closed at $15.43 at 8:00 p.m. On February 6, 2018, Credit Suisse issued a press release stating that it was accelerating the Maturity Date of the Notes. Their last trading day was February 20, 2018. If you bought XIV during the Class Period and sustained damages, you have until May 14, 2018 to file a motion with the Court requesting that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed 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. Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may together serve as "lead plaintiff." Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain Milberg Tadler Phillips Grossman LLP, or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action. Andrei Rado, Esq. Milberg Tadler Phillips Grossman LLP One Pennsylvania Plaza, 19th Fl. New York, NY 10119 Email: arado@milberg.com [GN] CRESCENT GUARDIAN: "Quinn" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- ANTHONY QUINN, the Plaintiff, v. CRESCENT GUARDIAN, INC. AND MARIAN H. PIERRE, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-03576 (E.D. La., April 4, 2018), seeks to recover minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. In February 2017, Plaintiff was hired by Defendants to work as a security guard in connection with Defendants' business providing security guard services in the New Orleans area. The Defendants have a payroll policy whereby they deduct the following expenses from employees' paychecks: uniforms, state licensing fees, photographs and "other expenses." These deductions reduce employees' wages below the federally mandated $7.25 per hour for every hour worked during one or more pay periods while they work for Defendants. For example, during Plaintiff's first week working for Defendants, he was paid $21.37 for 14 hours of work. Accordingly, these deductions are in direct violation of the FLSA. Defendants have failed to properly disclose or apprise Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective Action Plaintiffs of their rights under the FLSA. Due to the intentional, willful, and unlawful acts of Defendants, Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective Action Plaintiffs suffered lost compensation in the amount of the difference between what they were paid by Defendants and the federally- mandated minimum wage, plus liquidated damages.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Jody Forester Jackson, Esq. Mary Bubbett Jackson, Esq. JACKSON + JACKSON 201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 2500 New Orleans, LA 70170 Telephone: (504) 599 5953 Facsimile: (888) 988 6499 E-mail: jjackson@jackson-law.net mjackson@jackson-law.net CSRA INC: "Fallness" Suit Challenges Sale to General Dynamics ------------------------------------------------------------- RONALD FALLNESS, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. CSRA INC., LARRY PRIOR, NANCY KILLEFER, KEITH B. ALEXANDER, SANJU K. BANSAL, MICHELE A. FLOURNOY, MARK A. FRANTZ, SEAN O'KEEFE, MICHAEL E. VENTLING, BILLIE I. WILLIAMSON, CRAIG MARTIN, JOHN F. YOUNG, GENERAL DYNAMICS CORPORATION, and RED HAWK ENTERPRISES CORP., Case No. 2:18-cv-00440-GMN-CWH (D. Nev., March 9, 2018), stems from a proposed transaction pursuant to which CSRA will be acquired by General Dynamics Corporation ("Parent") and Red Hawk Enterprises Corp. ("Merger Sub). On February 9, 2018, CSRA's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with General Dynamics. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub commenced a tender offer, currently set to expire at 11:59 p.m., New York City time, on April 2, 2018, to acquire all of CSRA's outstanding common stock for $40.75 in cash for each share of CSRA common stock. If the Tender Offer is completed, Merger Sub will be merged with and into the Company, and the Company will continue as the surviving corporation as a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent. CSRA is a Nevada corporation and maintains its principal executive offices in Falls Church, Virginia. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. CSRA is a pure-play provider of information technology services to the U.S. government. The Company seeks to deliver tailored, innovative, and efficient offerings to its customers and scale to its strategic partners. As of March 31, 2017, CSRA had approximately 18,500 employees executing more than 1,000 projects. Parent is a Delaware corporation and a party to the Merger Agreement. Merger Sub is a Nevada corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent, and a party to the Merger Agreement.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Gayan, Esq. KEMP, JONES & COULTHARD LLP Wells Fargo Tower, 17th Floor 3800 Howard Hughes Parkway Las Vegas, NV 89169 Telephone: (702) 385-6000 E-mail: m.gayan@kempjones.com - and - RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 - and - RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (484) 324-6800 CSX TRANSPORTATION: Bell et al. Sue over Family Medical Leave Act ----------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Bell, Jeremy Bright, Andrew Brown, Jared Brown, Jeff Burgess, Hank Crossman Jr., Nathan Dove, Ken Enlow, Jason Ewing, Justin Foringer, Scott Gales, Barry Gillum, Lamont Paulk, Joseph Richarson, Moussa Sayed, Chris Scott, Jason Siewert, William Wasdin, Cleatis Webb, and Jeffrey Whisner, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CSX Transportation, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00744-MJG (D. Md., March 13, 2018), seeks compensatory damages, damages for loss of income, back pay, lost benefits, consequential damages, front pay, liquidated damages, and other damages in an amount to be determined by trier of fact. CSX operates the third largest railroad in the U.S. The company operates a 365-days-a-year business, meaning employees are needed for work on weekends and holidays. While CSX employees understand that working on weekends and holidays comes with the territory, they did not anticipate having to work through serious illness, miss their children's births, or choose between caring for their sick loved ones and losing their jobs. These activities of course make up the core substantive conduct protected by the Family Medical Leave Act. Yet CSX has engaged in a brazen pattern and practice of unlawfully discouraging FMLA leave and retaliating against workers who rely on the FMLA's protection. CSX has done so in three ways. First, CSX unlawfully inflates the amount of time employees are charged for FMLA leave. Department of Labor regulations require employers to account for [FMLA] leave using an increment no greater than the shortest period of time that the employer uses to account for use of other forms of leave provided that it is not greater than one hour. CSX, however, account for FMLA leave by the day instead of by the hour. Second, in 2015, the company implemented an attendance policy that explicitly punishes employees for taking lawful FMLA leave. Third, beginning in 2017 and continuing to the present, CSX has terminated or suspended over 100 employees on the allegations that these employees has fraudulently taken FMLA leave.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew Darby, Esq. BERMAN, SOBIN, GROSS, FELDMAN & DARBY, LLP 1301 York Road, Suite 600 Lutherville, MD 21093 Telephone: (410) 769 5400 Facsimile: (410) 769 9201 E-mail: pmdarby@bsgfdlaw.com - and - Nicholas D. Thompson, Esq. THE MOODY LAW FIRM 500 Crawford Street, Suite 200 Portsmouth, VA 23704 Telephone: (757) 393 4093 Facsimile: (757) 397 7257 E-mail: nthompson@moodyrrlaw.com - and - Adam W. Hansen, Esq. APOLLO LAW LLC 400 South 4th Street, Suite 401M - 250 Telephone: (612) 927 2969 Facsimile: (419) 793 1804 E-mail: adam@apollo-law.com CUMMINS ENTERPRISES: "Lopez" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ JOSE RAMOS and GREGARIO LOPEZ, Individually and on Behalf of All Those Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. CUMMINS ENTERPRISES, INC., and KEVIN CUMMINS, Jointly and Severally, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01465-CAP (S.D. Ga., April 5, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime premium pay pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants operate a commercial construction, demolition, and excavation company called Cummins Enterprises, Inc. based out of Cartersville, Georgia. Plaintiff Ramos worked for Cummins Enterprises as a welder. Plaintiff Lopez worked for Cummins Enterprises as a welder's helper. The Plaintiffs were paid straight-time for all hours worked, despite working in excess of 40 hours per week throughout their employment. The exact number of employees who have suffered the same unpaid overtime wage injury as Plaintiffs, and have yet to receive redress is unknown at this time, but believed to be at least 20.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brandon A. Thomas, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF BRANDON A. THOMAS, PC 1800 Peachtree Street, N.W., Suite 300 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 343 2441 Facsimile: (404) 352 5636 E-mail: brandon@brandonthomaslaw.com CYNTHIA'S TOUCH: "Sedgwick" Suit Seeks OT Pay under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------- KYM SEDGWICK, AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED UNDER 29 USC 216(B), the Plaintiff, v. CYNTHIA'S TOUCH SENIOR SERVICES INC. and CYNTHIA RATCLIFF, Individually, the Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-01080 (S.D. Tex., April 5, 2018), seeks to recover overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other Caregivers like her, were required to work in excess of 40 hours a week. The Defendants attempted to circumvent the FLSA protections by misclassifying Plaintiff and other Caregivers as "independent contractors" in order to deny them overtime wages. Instead of paying overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours a week, the Defendants paid Plaintiff and her fellow Caregivers a flat hourly-rate and in a manner that failed to compensate them overtime wages for overtime worked. This collective action seeks to recover the unpaid overtime wages and liquidated damages owed to these misclassified Caregivers. Cynthia's Touch Senior Services Incorporated offers in-home care services for families.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: J. Forester, Esq. D. Matthew Haynie, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC 1701 N. Market Street, Suite 210 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 210 2100 Facsimile: (214) 346 5909 CYPRESS SECURITY: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- The San Francisco labor law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP filed a class action lawsuit against Cypress Security, LLC, alleging that the company failed to provide mandatory meal and rest breaks to its security guard employees. The Cypress Security lawsuit, Case No. CGC-18-564791, is currently pending in the San Francisco County Superior Court for the State of California. According to the class action complaint's allegations, the company's security guard employees were allegedly unable to take off duty meal breaks due to their rigorous work schedules. California labor laws require an employer to provide an employee required to perform work for more than five (5) hours during a shift with, a thirty (30) minute uninterrupted meal break prior to the end of the employee's fifth (5th) hour of work and a second uninterrupted meal break when employees are required to work ten (10) hours. The complaint alleges that the company did not provide their security guard employees who forfeited meal breaks additional compensation under the law. The class action complaint also alleges DEFENDANT allegedly fails to provide PLAINTIFF and the other members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS with complete and accurate wage statements which fails to show, among other things, the correct wages paid for missed meal and rest breaks. Cal. Lab. Code Sec 226 provides that every employer shall furnish each of his or her employees with an accurate itemized wage statement in writing showing, among other things, gross wages earned and all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding amount of time worked at each hourly rate. If you think your company is violating the California Labor Code and would like to know if you qualify to make a claim, please contact attorney Nicholas J. De Blouw, Esq. -- NICK@BAMLAWCA.COM -- by calling (858) 952-0354. Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP is an employment law firm with offices located in San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, and Chicago that dedicates its practice to helping employees, investors and consumers fight back against unfair business practices, including violations of the California Labor Code and Fair Labor Standards Act. [GN] DARP INC: Sued by Fochtman for Forcing Residents to Work W/o Pay ---------------------------------------------------------------- MARK FOCHTMAN, CORBY SHUMATE, MICHAEL SPEARS, ANDREW DANIEL, FABIAN AGUILAR, and SLOAN SIMMS individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DARP, INC., HENDREN PLASTICS, INC., and JOHN DOES 1-29, Case No. 5:18-cv-05047-TLB (W.D. Ark., March 9, 2018), is a class action for alleged violations of the Arkansas Constitution's prohibition on slavery, unpaid minimum wage and overtime under the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act, and for violations of the Arkansas Human Trafficking Act of 2013. DARP, Inc., is a foreign corporation that operates in Decatur, Arkansas. DARP can be served via its registered agent, Raymond Jones, in Ft. Gibson, Oklahoma. DARP was founded in 2001 by Raymond Jones, a convicted meth cook and dealer. DARP has two sixty-bed men's facilities in Decatur that houses hundreds of male residents. "DARP" is an acronym for "Drug and Alcohol Recovery Program." DARP purports to be a "faith based alcohol and drug recovery program." The Plaintiffs contend that DARP is an unregulated "recovery program" and is not a licensed drug treatment program. DARP claims to operate counseling and rehabilitation services. The Plaintiffs attended DARP for court-ordered rehabilitation services. Instead of receiving counseling and treatment, however, Plaintiffs were forced to work for various for-profit businesses in Arkansas, including Hendren Plastics, performing demanding, dangerous manual labor for no pay, according to the complaint. Hendren Plastics, Inc., is a domestic corporation with headquarters in Gravette, Arkansas. The Doe Defendants are currently unknown.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John Holleman, Esq. Timothy Steadman, Esq. Jerry Garner, Esq. HOLLEMAN & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 1008 West Second Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 975-5040 Facsimile: (501) 975-5043 E-mail: jholleman@johnholleman.net tim@johnholleman.net jerry@johnholleman.net DIRECTV LLC: Illegally Debits Customers' Accounts, Valdez Says -------------------------------------------------------------- ANTHONY VALDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DIRECTV, LLC; CABLE VISION CCTV, INC.; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, the Defendant(s), Case No. 3:18-cv-00663-JM-JMA (S.D. Cal., April 3, 2018), alleges that the Defendants debit the Plaintiff's and the putative Class members' bank accounts on a recurring basis without first obtaining a written authorization signed or similarly authenticated for preauthorized electronic fund transfers from the Plaintiff's and also the putative Class members' accounts, thereby violating Section 907(a) of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act. According to the complaint, on or around February 12, 2018, CCTV contacted Plaintiff and, acting as DIRECTV, offered to sell DIRECTV services to Plaintiff. CCTV asked Plaintiff to provide his debit card number over the phone, representing that CCTV would only charge $1, in order to determine that Plaintiff's debt card was valid. On or around February 14, 2018, Plaintiff cancelled the services with Defendants, prior to any installation of any equipment or activation of any services from DIRECTV. CCTV represented to Plaintiff that no charges would be made on the debit card provided. Later that day, Plaintiff discovered that Defendants made two charges to her debit card without his consent; one for $390.58 and another for $433.45. Defendant's automatic withdrawals caused an overdraft on Plaintiff's bank account, causing her actual injury in the form of additional fees. Plaintiff never provided Defendant with any authorization to deduct these sums of money from Plaintiff's banking account. Further, Defendants did not provide to Plaintiff, nor did Plaintiff execute, any written or electronic writing memorializing or authorizing these recurring or automatic payments. The Plaintiff alleges such activity to be in violation of the EFTA. DirecTV is an American direct broadcast satellite service provider based in El Segundo, California and is a subsidiary of AT&T.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: 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 DIVERSITY BUSINESS: Fails to Provide Rest Breaks, Gary Says ----------------------------------------------------------- DAVID GARY, as an individual and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DIVERSITY BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, INC., a California Corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC699138 (Cal. Super. Ct., March 21, 2018), seeks to recover minimum and regular wages under the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Defendants have acted intentionally and with deliberate indifference and conscious disregard to the rights of all employees in that they failed to authorize and permit rest breaks in conformity with California law, failed to reimburse their employees for all work related expenses, failed to properly compensate their employees for minimum and regular wages for all hours worked, failed to pay reporting time pay, and failed to provide accurate itemized wage statement. Diverse Business Solutions is a Human Resource and Business Consulting firm that partners with small to midsized companies to help with their Human Resources needs.[BN] Attorneys for David Gary: Peter M. Hart, Esq. Peter Choi, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF PETER M. HART 12121 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 205 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 478 5789 Facsimile: (509) 561 6441 DOES 1-100: Atlantic Trading Suit Alleges CEA Violation ------------------------------------------------------- Atlantic Trading USA, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Does 1-100, Case No. 1:18-cv-01754 (N.D. Ill., March 9, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the anti-manipulation provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act. This action arises from Defendants' alleged manipulation of the final settlement price of futures and options contracts linked to the Chicago Board Options Exchange Volatility Index, products traded on the CBOE and the CBOE Futures Exchange, an affiliate of the CBOE. Plaintiff Atlantic Trading USA, LLC is an Illinois limited liability company with its principle place of business in Chicago. At all material times, Atlantic Trading was a proprietary trading firm that traded in a variety of financial instruments. During the Class Period, Atlantic Trading regularly traded VIX contracts, held the contracts through settlement, and suffered financial losses as a result of the manipulation alleged herein. Defendants, Does 1-100, are persons and entities that directly or indirectly inappropriately influenced or attempted to influence the settlement price of VIX contracts. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Anthony F. Fata, Esq. Daniel O. Herrera, Esq. CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER AND SPRENGEL LLP 150 S. Wacker Dr., Suite 3000 Chicago, IL 60606 Tel: (312) 782-4880 Fax: (312) 782-4485 E-mail: afata@caffertyclobes.com dherrera@caffertyclobes.com EAT REAL SNACKS: Condon Files False Labeling Suit in N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------- Franco Condon individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Eat Real Snacks USA LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-01497 (E.D.N.Y., March 10, 2018), alleges that the Company's representation, description and identification of certain of its products are false and misleading. The relevant products are "Quinoa Puffs," "Quinoa Chips," "Lentil Chips," and "Hummus Chips," sold to consumers in bags of various sizes through third-parties via brick-and-mortar stores and online. The Products each represent through their name that that they are derived exclusively from quinoa, lentils and chickpeas and tout the unique benefits from their namesake ingredients, the Plaintiff asserts. The Plaintiff contends, among other things, that the Quinoa Products are misleading because despite their names they are puffs and chips derived mainly from corn. Eat Real Foods USA, LLC, is a Georgia limited liability company with a principal place of business in Marietta, Georgia. The Company is a subsidiary of the United Kingdom snack food conglomerate, Cofresh. Eat Real Foods manufactures and sells snack products made from lentils, chickpeas and quinoa under the brand "EatReal" accompanied by slogans and advertising promoting the healthy and unique aspects of its Products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq. LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 1 Penn Plaza, Suite 2527 New York, NY 10119 Telephone: (212) 792-0046 Facsimile: (212) 563-7108 E-mail: joshua@levinepstein.com - and - Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 891 Northern Blvd., Suite 201 Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 303-0552 Telephone: spencer@spencersheehan.com ENERCON FEDERAL: "Jimerson" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations -------------------------------------------------------- Rashad Jimerson, individually and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. Enercon Federal Services, Inc. and Fluor-BWXT Portsmouth LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv- 00201 (S.D. Ohio, March 8, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Ohio Minimum Faire Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act. Plaintiff Rashad Jimerson is an individual, United States citizen, and living in the Southern District of Ohio. Plaintiff was jointly employed by Defendants as a Radiological Control Technician beginning in approximately November 2017 until approximately March 2018 at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Piketon, Ohio. Defendant Enercon Federal Services, Inc. is a foreign for-profit corporation licensed to conduct business in the State of Ohio. Defendant EFS's principal place of business is located at 500 Townpark Lane, Kennesaw, GA 30144. According to its website, Defendant EFS is an architectural engineering, environmental, technical and management services firm providing a broad range of professional services to private, public, and government sector clients throughout the United States. Defendant Fluor-BWXT Portsmouth LLC is a domestic limited liability company that operates the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Piketon, Ohio. According to its website, Defendant FBP is the U.S. Department of Energy's contractor for the decontamination and decommissioning of the Portsmouth site, and Defendant FBP works cooperatively with the DOE, employees, labor groups, subcontractors, regulators, and other parties to see that Portsmouth site decontamination project is completed. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1457 S. High St. Columbus, OH 43207 Tel: (614) 949-1181 Fax: (614) 386-9964 E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com - and - Peter Contreras, Esq. CONTRERAS LAW, LLC P.O. Box 215 Amlin, OH 43002 Tel: (614) 787-4878 Fax: (614) 923-7369 E-mail: peter.contreras@contrerasfirm.com EVIO GROUP: "Cortes" Suit Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ WILLIAM G. CORTES and other similarly-situated individuals v. EVIO GROUP LLC, a/k/a EVIO'S PIZZA & GRILL, ELIO F. SOLARI, and SANDRO SOLARI, individually, Case No. 1:18-cv-20907-JEM (S.D. Fla., March 9, 2018), seeks to recover from the Defendants regular wages, overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and costs and reasonable attorney's fees under the provisions of Fair Labor Standards Act. Evio Group LLC, also known as Evio's Pizza & Grill, is a Florida corporation, having place of business in Miami-Dade County, Florida, where the Plaintiff worked for the Defendant. The Individual Defendants are the owners/partners/managers of the Defendant Corporation. Evio's Pizza & Grill is a pizza restaurant located at 12600 Biscayne Blvd., in North Miami, Florida. The restaurant also offers, burgers, sandwiches, pitas, salads, and other fast-food preparations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com FACEBOOK INC: Used Private Info to Influence Elections, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- JACKIE WILLIAMS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FACEBOOK, INC. and CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00535-RDP (N.D. Ala., April 4, 2018), alleges that the Defendants conspired and secretly used Personal Information to influence the numerous elections across the nation, including the 2016 Presidential election. Facebook allowed Cambridge Analytica to "mine" the highly-sensitive profile data from over 50 million Facebook users to manipulate voters in the hopes of controlling the results of the elections. CA used this mined Personal Information to unleash a highly-targeted and inflammatory advertisement campaign meant to influence the elections. Defendants' conduct shows an utter disregard for privacy and protection of Facebook users' Personal Information. To be clear, this Personal Information was supposed to be protected, and used for only expressly disclosed and limited purposes. However, Defendants exceeded whatever limited authorization they had been granted by allowing the improper collection and use of the Personal Information. Facebook knew this improper data collection was occurring and how the Personal Information would eventually be used. However, Facebook failed to stop it, or purposely avoided monitoring the eventual uses of the Personal Information in order to profess ignorance at a later date. By accessing and unlawfully using this highly sensitive, personal information, the Defendants greatly exceed the limited authorization granted by Facebook users. Facebook unlawfully shared the Personal Information from tens of millions of users with CA, which used this data in excess of any authorization in an effort to manipulate 2016 elections across the nation, including the 2016 Presidential Election. The Washington Post recently reported that Facebook allowed an app developer working for CA "to gain access to information about an estimated tens of millions of people. The group included both the 270,000 Facebook users who downloaded a psychological testing app and the Facebook "friends" of those people." The lawsuit alleges Defendants' violation of the Stored Communications Act, Alabama Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and common law. Facebook is an American online social media and social networking service company based in Menlo Park, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brad Ponder, Esq. Luke Montgomery, Esq. Brad Ponder, Esq. MONTGOMERY PONDER, LLC 2226 1st Avenue South, Suite 105 Birmingham, AL 35233 Telephone: 205 201 0303 Facsimile: 205 208 9443 E-mail: luke@montgomeryponder.com brad@montgomeryponder.com FACEBOOK INC: Allowed 3rd Party to Mine User Data, Labajo Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTINA LABAJO, an Individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FACEBOOK, INC. and CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA, the Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-02093-KAW (N.D. Cal., April 5, 2018), seeks to recover damages caused by Defendant's failure to implement and maintain appropriate and reasonable security procedures and practices to protect the profile and Personal Information of Plaintiff and the Classes from unauthorized access and disclosure. The Plaintiff alleges that in June-August 2014 Facebook allowed a massive data breach in which the sensitive personal information of Plaintiff and 87 million Facebook users (including 71 million Americans) was misappropriated by Cambridge Analytica and other entities and used for unauthorized purposes, including attempts to influence the 2016 United States presidential election. Plaintiff further alleges that for years, Facebook allowed hackers to exploit known vulnerabilities in its network to "scrape" data from users' profiles, violating their privacy and placing them at risk for identity theft. The Facebook is a popular Internet social networking service located at www.facebook.com. Facebook has more than two billion users worldwide. Facebook allows registered users to utilize their Facebook accounts and timeline pages to share information with and communicate with friends, family, and colleagues. Facebook users create customized profiles and pages containing highly personal information, including their name, home address, email address, telephone numbers, birthdate, gender, interests, relationships, photographs and videos, "likes" and other information. Facebook users can share this Personal Information and exchange messages with other users. Cambridge Analytica is a political consulting firm engaged in data mining, data analysis and consulting on behalf of political clients, in an effort to influence the outcomes of elections. Notably, it was hired to provide data and analytical services, first to the Ted Cruz primary campaign and then to the 2016 presidential campaign of Donald Trump. Among other things, Cambridge Analytica used Facebook users' personal data to build "psychographic" profiles so that these potential voters could be targeted with tailored advertising messages designed to influence their voting. Facebook falsely promised its users their Personal Information would be protected and not shared with others except as they authorized. In fact, Facebook knew its security was inadequate to protect users' data, and that its default settings and available tools coupled with security vulnerabilities made it easy for hackers to gain access to users' information. Also, Facebook had a policy of selling user data to third parties and even implemented APIs to allow third-party apps to "harvest" user information for their own purposes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gordon M. Fauth, Jr., Esq. Rosanne L. Mah, Esq. FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Direct Telephone: (510) 238 9610 Telephone: (415) 398 8700 Facsimile: (415) 398 8704 E-mail: gfauth@finkelsteinthompson.com rmah@finkelsteinthompson.com FACEBOOK INC: Allowed 3rd Party to Mine User Data, Picha Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Taylor Picha, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Facebook, Inc., and Cambridge Analytica, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-02090 (N.D. Cal., April 5, 2018), recounts that in a keynote speech in San Francisco in 2014, Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Facebook, vowed, "In every single thing we do, we always put people first;" promising that Facebook would give people control over how they share their information. Just four years later, on March 21, 2018, Zuckerberg addressed fresh reports of the misappropriation of personal data of 50 million Facebook users by an app made by Global Science Research Ltd. and Cambridge Analytica, admitting: "This was clearly a mistake. We have a basic responsibility to protect people's data, and if we can't do that then we don't deserve to have the opportunity to serve people." Then, on April 4, 2018, Facebook publicly stated that up to 87 million users may have been improperly shared with Cambridge Analytica. He added that he regrets the company waited so long to inform its users of what happened: "I think we got that wrong." On March 17, 2018 The Guardian and The New York Times revealed that data analytics firm, Cambridge Analytica, harvested private information from Facebook users "on an unprecedented scale." Facebook's "platform policy" at the time allowed for the accumulation of Facebook users' "friends'" data for the purpose of improved user experience, but prohibited it from being sold or used for advertising. Although Facebook knew about the misuse of 87 million users' data in 2015, it chose to hide this information from its users until forced to confront the issue on March 17, 2018. Just one month earlier, in February 2018, both Facebook and the CEO of Cambridge Analytica, Alezander Nix, told a U.K. parliamentary inquiry on fake news that the company did not have or use private Facebook data. When asked if Cambridge Analytica had Facebook user data, Simon Milner, Facebook's U.K. policy director, told U.K. officials: "They may have lots of data but it will not be Facebook user data. It may be data about people who are on Facebook that they have gathered themselves, but it is not data that we have provided." Cambridge Analytica's Nix told officials: "We do not work with Facebook data and we do not have Facebook data."[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Will Lemkul, Esq. Shawn D. Morris, Esq. MORRIS SULLIVAN & LEMKUL LLP 9915 Mira Mesa Boulevard, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92131 Telephone: (858) 566 7600 Facsimile: (858) 566 6602 E-mail: lemkul@morrissullivanlaw.com - and - Jodi Westbrook Flowers, Esq. Ann Ritter, Esq. Fred Baker, Esq. Kimberly Barone Baden, Esq. Andrew Arnold, Esq. Annie Kouba, Esq. MOTLEY RICE LLC 28 Bridgeside Boulevard Mount Pleasant, SC 29464 Telephone: (843) 216 9000 Facsimile: (843) 216 9450 E-mail: kbaden@motleyrice.com FADARO FANCY FOODS: "Zamora" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ EFREN ZAMORA RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FADARO FANCY FOODS, CORP. (D/B/A FADARO FANCY FOODS, CORP.), FADARO PRODUCE, CORP. (D/B/A FADARO FANCY FOODS, CORP.), WISSAM SHADAYDEH (A.K.A. SAM), and DAVID SHADAYDEH, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02541 (S.D.N.Y., March 22, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law. The Defendants own, operate, or control a grocery store, located at NYC Produce Terminal Market, Row A, Unit 106-A, Halleck St, Bronx, NY 10474 under the name "Fadaro Fancy Foods, Corp." The Defendants serve or served as owners, managers, principals, or agents of Defendant Corporations and, through these corporate entities, operate or operated the Grocery Store as a joint or unified enterprise. The Plaintiff is a former employee of Defendants. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate overtime compensation for the hours that he worked. Rather, Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked, failed to pay Plaintiff Zamora appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. Furthermore, Defendants repeatedly failed to pay Plaintiff Zamora wages on a timely basis. The Defendants' conduct extended beyond Plaintiff Zamora to all other similarly situated employees. The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiff Zamora and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing the overtime compensation required by federal and state law and regulations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, New York 10165 Telephone: (212) 317 1200 Facsimile: (212) 317 1620 E-mail: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com FLORIDA: South Florida Homeowners to Split $42MM in State Money --------------------------------------------------------------- David Fleshler ,writing for Contact Reporter ,reports that thousands of South Florida homeowners whose fruit trees were destroyed in the fight against citrus canker will finally receive compensation checks, ending a 17-year legal and political fight that pitted property rights against the protection of an iconic Florida agricultural product. More than 84,000 households in Broward and Palm Beach counties will split $42 million in state money, under an appropriation by the state Legislature to fund payments they had already won in court. Gov. Rick Scott, who last year vetoed compensation for homeowners, declined to do so this year, according to the veto list released Friday. The amount per household will depend on the number and size of the trees destroyed. From 2000 to 2006, tree-cutting crews roamed South Florida neighborhoods, cutting down healthy citrus trees within 1,900 feet of infected ones, in an attempt to prevent the disease from spreading to Florida's commercial citrus groves. The campaign, which failed to stop the disease, infuriated many homeowners who felt their rights were being trampled on to protect a powerful industry. Homeowners yelled at the crews, set their dogs on them and took the state to court, filing a series of lawsuits to stop the tree- cutting campaign and to win more compensation for the loss of orange, grapefruit and lemon trees. Toby Bogorff, a plaintiff in the case, who lost a ruby red grapefruit tree and two other citrus trees when the tree-cutters reached her home in Davie, said the case was about much more than a few fruit trees. "If it didn't end where it did, the government could seize anything," she said. "Although this started with trees, it became a much larger issue. This was a constitutional issue." Robert Gilbert, Esq., lead attorney for the homeowners, said the appropriation of the money represented the victorious end of a long battle. "For the past 17 years, we've fought on behalf of those families to recover the full compensation to which they are entitled under the Constitution," he said "The Department of Agriculture and Commissioner Adam Putnam fought us at every turn. This year, the Florida Legislature and Governor Scott recognized that the first duty of society is justice." The money, which will be available some time after July 1, when the state's budget year begins, will be distributed under court supervision by the homeowners' lawyers. Homeowners whose trees were destroyed don't need to do anything to receive their checks, since these were class-action lawsuits, in which all eligible homeowners were automatically covered. The state kept records of names, addresses and trees destroyed. The legislature appropriated $22 million for Broward County and $30 million for Palm Beach County, with the amounts determined from the sums homeowners in each county's case were awarded in court. The total amount available to homeowners will be about $42 million, since some of the money will go to attorney's fees, costs and interest. Because these were class-action suits, homeowners don't need to do anything to receive their payments. Payment amounts will be determined by the number and size of the trees. The governor vetoed similar payments last year. It's unclear why he let them through this time. Asked why he didn't veto the money, Kerri Wyland, spokeswoman for the governor, said, "Every year, the Governor goes through the budget line by line and makes the decisions he believes are in the best interests of families in Florida."[GN] FOOT LOCKER: Faces Securities Suit by Warren Police Retirees ------------------------------------------------------------ CITY OF WARREN POLICE AND FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. FOOT LOCKER, INC., RICHARD A. JOHNSON and LAUREN B. PETERS, Case No. 1:18-cv- 01492 (E.D.N.Y., March 9, 2018), is a securities class action on behalf of all purchasers of Foot Locker common stock between August 19, 2016, and August 17, 2017, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Defendants are liable for: (i) making false statements; or (ii) failing to disclose adverse facts known to them about Foot Locker, the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants' fraudulent scheme and course of business that operated as a fraud or deceit on purchasers of Foot Locker common stock was a success, as it: (i) deceived the investing public regarding Foot Locker's prospects and business; (ii) artificially inflated the price of Foot Locker common stock; (iii) allowed certain of Foot Locker's executives and insiders to sell more than $13.38 million worth of their personally held shares of Foot Locker common stock to the unsuspecting public; and (iv) caused plaintiff and other members of the Class to purchase Foot Locker common stock at inflated prices. Foot Locker is an American sportswear and footwear retailer with headquarters in Midtown Manhattan. As of October 28, 2017, Foot Locker had 3,349 stores in 23 countries in North America, Europe, Australia and New Zealand. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. Mary K. Blasy, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 Facsimile: (631) 367-1173 E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com mblasy@rgrdlaw.com - and - Thomas C. Michaud, Esq. VANOVERBEKE, MICHAUD & TIMMONY, P.C. 79 Alfred Street Detroit, MI 48201 Telephone: (313) 578-1200 Facsimile: (313) 578-1201 E-mail: tmichaud@vmtlaw.com FOOT LOCKER: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP disclosed that purchasers of Foot Locker, Inc. (NYSE: FL) have filed a class action complaint against the company's officers and directors for alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 between August 19, 2016 and August 17, 2017. Foot Locker, through its subsidiaries, operates as an athletic shoes and apparel retailer. According to the complaint, Foot Locker touted the company's outstanding track record of meaningful sales and profit growth in its public filings, while continuing to assure investors of the company's strong vendor relationships and solid financial position. However, Foot Locker's vendors were transitioning to selling through online retailers, in turn decreasing the utility of Foot Locker's brick and mortar stores. In addition, Foot Locker faced increased pricing competition and lower demand at its stores due to competition from online retailers. On August 18, 2017, Foot Locker reported that its 2Q17 revenues had declined 4.4% year-over-year and same store sales fell 6%. The company further announced that it would close approximately 130 stores and that it expected weaker sales for the remainder of FY17. Since Foot Locker began releasing poor financial results, the company's stock fell over 51% to close at $34.38 per share on August 18, 2017. Foot Locker Shareholders Have Legal Options If you would like more information about your rights and potential remedies, contact attorney Leonid Kandinov at (800) 350-6003, LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com, or via the shareholder information form on the firm's website. Robbins Arroyo LLP is a nationally recognized leader in shareholder rights law. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits, and has helped its clients realize more than $1 billion of value for themselves and the companies in which they have invested. Leonid Kandinov, Esq. Robbins Arroyo LLP Tel: (619) 525-3990 Email: LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com [GN] FORD MOTOR: Website Not Accessible to Deaf, Sullivan Says --------------------------------------------------------- PHILLIP SULLIVAN, JR., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02924-RA (S.D.N.Y., April 3, 2018), alleges that the Defendant is denying the deaf and hard of hearing individuals throughout the United States equal access to the goods and services Defendant provides to non-disabled individuals through http://www.corporate.ford.com/ The Website provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, innovation, investor and employment opportunities, and other information offered by Defendant. Yet, the Website contains access barriers that make it difficult, if not impossible, for deaf and hard of hearing individuals to use the Website. In fact, the access barriers make it impossible for deaf and hard of hearing users to comprehend the audio portion of videos that are posted on the Website. Defendant thus excludes the deaf and hard of hearing from the full and equal participation in the growing Internet economy that is increasingly a fundamental part of the common marketplace and daily living. In the wave of technological advances in recent years, assistive technology is becoming an increasingly prominent part of everyday life, allowing deaf and hard of hearing people to fully and independently access a variety of services, including accessing online videos. The Plaintiff, who currently lives in New York City, is a deaf and hard of hearing individual. Ford Motor Company is an American multinational automaker headquartered in Dearborn, Michigan, a suburb of Detroit. It was founded by Henry Ford and incorporated on June 16, 1903.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff 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 GLOBAL CONTROL: "Fahnestock" Disputes Collection Letter ------------------------------------------------------- Jacqueline Fahnestock, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff(s), v. Global Control, Inc. and John Does 1-25, Defendant(s), Case No. 18-cv- 00494, (N.D. Ohio, March 5, 2018), seeks damages and declaratory and injunctive relief under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act. Global Control, Inc. is a debt collection agency located at 22 E. Main Street, Geneva, OH 44041. It attempted to collect a personal medical obligation incurred by Fahnestock to Northwest Ambulance via a collection letter that threatened legal action within 5 days yet such action has not yet been filed after the said period. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Amichai Zukowsky, Esq. ZUKOWSKY LAW, LLC 23811 Chagrin Blvd, Ste 160 Beachwood, OH 44122 Phone: (216) 800-5529 Email: ami@zukowskylaw.com GLOBAL FITNESS: Gascho Seeks High Court Review of 6th Cir. Ruling ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned as AMBER GASCHO, On Behalf of Herself and Others Similarly Situated, et al., the Petitioners, v. GLOBAL FITNESS HOLDINGS, LLC; ROYCE G. PULLIAM; TOMI ANNE PULLIAM; LAURENCE E. PAUL; STEPHEN PAUL; and DAHL ADMINISTRATION, LLC, Respondents, Case No. 17-1342 (U.S.), filed a petition for a writ of certiorari. Global Fitness Holdings, LLC, doing business as Urban Active, operates sports and fitness clubs in the United States. It has locations in Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee. The company was founded in 1965 and is based in Lexington, Kentucky. As reported by the Class Action Reporter on Dec. 13, 2017, Judge Amul R. Thapar of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the district court's contempt finding and remanded for further proceedings the case captioned AMBER GASCHO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs- Appellees, v. GLOBAL FITNESS HOLDINGS, LLC, doing business as Urban Active, Defendants-Appellants (17-3579 & 17-3827), DAHL ADMINISTRATION, LLC, Defendant-Appellee (17 3821/3822/3825/ 3826/3827), LAURENCE E. PAUL (17-3577 & 17-3821); ROYCE G. PULLIAM (17-3578 & 17-3825); TOMI ANNE PULLIAM (17-3804 & 17- 3826); STEPHEN PAUL (17-3805 & 17-3822), Interested Parties- Appellants, Case Nos. 17-3577, 17-3578, 17-3579, 17-3804,17-3805, 17-3821, 17-3822, 17-3825, 17-3826, 17-3827 (6th Cir.). Global Fitness owned and operated a number of gyms. The Plaintiffs were members of those gyms and believed that Global Fitness misrepresented the terms of its gym memberships. They banded together and sued as a class. Eventually, the parties settled. In the settlement agreement, Global Fitness agreed to pay (i) $1.3 million to the class members, (ii) the class counsel's fees as ordered by the court, and (iii) the claims administrator's fees and costs. Some of the class members objected to the settlement. After a fairness hearing, the district court approved the agreement and ordered the parties to implement its terms. Still, some class members were dissatisfied and appealed. The Appellate Court affirmed the district court's order, Gascho v. Global Fitness Holdings, LLC, and the Supreme Court denied certiorari, Blackman v. Gascho; Zik v. Gascho. With this denial, the district court's order was final, and it was time for Global Fitness to pay up. But by this point, Global Fitness was nearly broke. It had sold all of its gyms and funneled nearly $10.4 million of the sale proceeds to the company's managers through what it termed "tax distributions." Fortunately for the class members, the payments Global Fitness owed to them had been placed in escrow under the terms of the settlement agreement. But unfortunately for the class counsel and the claims administrator, the agreement made no provision for the escrow of their payments. Two days before its payment obligation under the settlement agreement came due, Global Fitness notified the district court it was out of money and could not meet its remaining obligations under the agreement. So the Plaintiffs asked the district court to hold Global Fitness and its four managers in civil contempt. The district court did so and ordered them to pay the full amount owed to the class counsel and the claims administrator, as well as statutory interest. Global Fitness and the managers now appeal. Judge Thapar held that no one disputes that Global Fitness violated a definite and specific court order by failing to pay the class counsel and the claims administrator. The question is when the district court's order to do so became definite and specific. He explained that when a class-action settlement calls for payment from a company with shaky finances, self-help is indispensable. Concerned parties are well-advised to insist upon an escrow provision, or even personal guarantees from the Individual Defendants. The settlement agreement included neither here. Thus, Global Fitness had no legal obligation to conserve funds to pay class counsel and the claims administrator while the appeals were pending. Its obligation to pay became definite and specific only once the appeals were exhausted -- on March 21, 2017. The Appeals Court held that Global Fitness' obligation to pay the class counsel and the claims administrator was not definite and specific until March 21, 2017. So the district court erred in considering any of Global Fitness's conduct from before then. And likewise the district court also erred in relying on pre- order conduct to hold the managers in contempt. As such, a remand is appropriate so the district court can consider whether the evidence after March 21, 2017, is sufficient to support a contempt finding. Finally, the Appeals Court held that while the district court had authority to sanction the managers, those sanctions are permissible against individual officers only when (i) they are intended to compensate for actual losses, and (ii) the actual losses compensated for were caused by the officer's contumacious conduct. Here, the district court erred by holding the managers jointly and severally liable. On remand, if the district court determines sanctions are appropriate, it must then determine the extent to which each manager deliberately caused Global Fitness's inability to pay. Accordingly, Judge Thapar reversed the district court's contempt finding and remanded for further proceedings consistent with his Opinion. A full-text copy of the Sixth Circuit's Nov. 15, 2017 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/dDaQ61 from Leagle.com.[BN] Counsel for Petitioners: John J. Kulewicz, Esq. Thomas N. Mccormick, Esq. VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR AND PEASE LLP 52 East Gay Street P.O. Box 1008 Columbus, Ohio 43216 Telephone: (614) 464 6400 Facsimile: (614) 464 6350 E-mail: jjkulewicz@vorys.com tnmccormick@vorys.com - and - Gregory M. Travalioc, Esq. Mark H. Troutman, Esq. ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, LLC Two Miranova Place, Suite 700 Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 221 2121 Facsimile: (614) 365 9516 E-mail: gtravalio@isaacwiles.com mtroutman@isaacwiles.com GO WITH THE FLOW: "Haug" Suit Moved to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit titled Kaycee Haug, an individual on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Go with the Flow, Inc., doing business as: Massage Envy a California corporation; Massage Envy Franchising, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and Does 1 to 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC687181, was removed from the Los Angeles County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Western Division - Los Angeles) on April 5, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-02810-MWF-JEM to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marcus J Bradley, Esq. Kiley Lynn Grombacher, Esq. BRADLEY GROMBACHER LLP 2815 Townsgate Road Suite 130 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Telephone: (805) 270 7100 Facsimile: (805) 270 7589 E-mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com - and - Taylor L Emerson, Esq. BRADLEY GROMBACHER LLP 2815 Townsgate Road Suite 130 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Telephone: (805) 270 7100 Facsimile: (805) 270 7589 E-mail: temerson@bradleygrombacher.com Attorneys for Defendants: Hope Anne Case, Esq. Elaisha Nandrajog, Esq. Robert B Bader, Esq. SACKS RICKETTS AND CASE LLP 1900 Embarcadero Road Suite 110 Palo Alto, CA 94303 Telephone: (650) 494 4950 Facsimile: (650) 847 1520 E-mail: hcase@srclaw.com enandrajog@srclaw.com rbader@srclaw.com GOLD'S GYM: Zemel Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages ----------------------------------------------------- TZVI A. ZEMEL, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. GOLD'S GYM, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-03955 (D.N.J., March 22, 2018), wants to stop Gold's from sending unsolicited text messages. The lawsuit also seeks an award of statutory damages under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, together with costs and reasonable attorney's fees. According to the complaint, the TCPA strictly forbids nuisance text messages exactly like those alleged in this Complaint -- intrusive text messages to private cellular phones, placed to numbers obtained without the prior express consent of the call recipients. Gold's violations caused Plaintiff and members of the Class actual harm, included aggravation, nuisance, and invasion of privacy that necessarily accompanies the receipt of unsolicited text messages, as well as the violation of their statutory rights. Gold's owns and operates a gym.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class Daniel Zemel, Esq. Nicholas Linker, Esq. ZEMEL LAW LLC 78 John Miller Way Suite 430 Kearny, NJ 07032 Telephone: (862) 227 3106 E-mail: dz@zemellawllc.com GOOGLE LLC: Class Action Suit Advances Against Firm ---------------------------------------------------- Michael McGrady, writing for Northern California Record, reports that tech giants Google and Huawei were dealt a significant blow as a federal district judge in California has dismissed a motion to abandon the proceedings of a class action lawsuit against the two companies for the widespread "bootlooping" controversy with the popular Nexus 6P cell phone. Before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California San Jose Division, Judge Beth Labson Freeman ordered the multinational tech companies to "face the music" when it comes to addressing a class action lawsuit that was initiated in April 2017. "Here, the court dives into the merits of Huawei's and Google's Motions to dismiss, which assert the plaintiffs have failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted and that the plaintiffs' class allegations should be stricken," Freeman wrote in her 88-page opinion dated March 5, and obtained by Northern California Record. Freeman wrote, "The court hereby grants with leave to amend in part, grants without leave to amend in part, and denies in part Huawei's and Google's motions to dismiss," and "the court denies Huawei's and Google's motions to strike the plaintiffs' class allegations." Freeman, in a small win for Google and Huawei, dismissed further accusations of fraud alleged in an original filing of the lawsuit. "Huawei and Google contend that the putative nationwide class and the statewide sub-classes are facially overbroad because they include individuals who never experienced problems with their Nexus 6Ps," Freeman added. Individually, claims were dismissed under particular cases relating to fraud, warranty, and "unjust enrichment" claims, according to coverage from MobileSyrup. Freeman's opinion also paves the way for a previously filed class action lawsuit against Google and Huawei to proceed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Cory S. Fein, Esq. -- cory@coryfeinlaw.com -- of Cory Fein Law Firm of Houston, and Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.-- BFJ@chimicles.com -- Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. -- AWF@chimicles.com -- Jessica L. Titler, Esq. -- JT@chimicles.com -- and Chimicles & Tikellis LLP, in pro hac vice, represent the proposed class in the case of Gorbatchev et al. v. Huawei Technologies USA, Inc. et al. Proceedings in the overall case will continue into 2018 as the class action is set to proceed without opposition. Currently, no plans for future motions or appeals from defendants are known. This case originated in early 2017 when the top-level plaintiff filed suit against the defendants for "bootlooping" issues in his Nexus 6P cell phone. Google and Huawei coordinated on the design and manufacturing of the phone, which was sold as a top-of-the- line product. However, as reviews for the Nexus 6P continued to surface, the plaintiff class learned users were watching their phones displaying "Google logo appears on the screen, then the phone, then restarts again, repeatedly, until the phone runs out of battery," according to Chimicles & Tikellis LLP (C&T). "Some users reportedly have even wiped their phone's memory and reflashed Android, to no avail," C&T added "Reports indicate that this may suggest and support that the bootlooping is caused by a hardware issue. Consumers report that Google tells consumers to seek warranty coverage from Huawei for this issue, too, and that Huawei is largely unhelpful and often stonewalls attempts to obtain warranty coverage."[GN] GT ADVANCED: June 28 Fairness Hearing on $27MM Class Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- The following statement is being issued by Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP regarding Levy v. Gutierrez, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-00443-JL (D.N.H.) (GTAT Securities Litigation) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE ADAM S. LEVY on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. THOMAS GUTIERREZ, RICHARD J. GAYNOR, RAJA BAL, J. MICHAL CONAWAY, KATHLEEN A. COTE, ERNEST L. GODSHALK, MATTHEW E. MASSENGILL, MARY PETROVICH, ROBERT E. SWITZ, NOEL G. WATSON, THOMAS WROE, JR., MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO., CANACCORD GENUITY INC., AND APPLE, INC., Defendants. No. 1:14-cv-00443-JL ECF CASE SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND CERTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT CLASSES; (II) PROPOSED SETTLEMENTS WITH INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS AND UNDERWRITER DEFENDANTS; (III) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES; AND (IV) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING TO: (a) All persons and entities who or which from November 5, 2013 through 9:40 a.m. Eastern Standard Time on October 6, 2014, inclusive (the "Class Period") purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded GT Advanced Technologies Inc. ("GTAT") common stock ("GTAT Common Stock") and/or publicly traded GTAT 3.00% Convertible Senior Notes Due 2020 ("GTAT Senior Notes"), purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded call options on GTAT common stock ("GTAT Call Options"), and/or sold (wrote) publicly traded put options on GTAT common stock ("GTAT Put Options"), and were damaged thereby (the "Individual Defendant Settlement Class"); and (b) All persons and entities who or which, during the Class Period, purchased or otherwise acquired (i) GTAT Senior Notes pursuant or traceable to GTAT's December 2013 registration statement and prospectus supplement for the GTAT Senior Notes' offering and/or (ii) shares of GTAT Common Stock pursuant or traceable to GTAT's December 2013 registration statement and prospectus supplement for the secondary offering of GTAT common stock (the "Underwriter Defendant Settlement Class"). PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire, that the above-captioned action (the "Action") has been certified as a class action for the purposes of settlement only on behalf of the Individual Defendant Settlement Class and the Underwriter Defendant Settlement Class, except for certain persons and entities who are excluded from those Settlement Classes by definition as set forth in the full printed Notice of (I) Pendency of Class Action and Certification of Settlement Classes; (II) Proposed Settlements with Individual Defendants and Underwriter Defendants; (III) Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses; and (IV) Settlement Fairness Hearing (the "Notice"). YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that (i) the Court-appointed Lead Plaintiff Douglas Kurz ("Lead Plaintiff") and additional named plaintiffs Strategic Master Fund (Cayman) Limited ("Strategic Master Fund") and Highmark Limited, in respect of its Segregated Account Highmark Fixed Income 2 ("Highmark Limited"), on behalf of themselves and the Individual Defendant Settlement Class, have reached a proposed settlement of the Action with defendants Thomas Gutierrez, Richard Gaynor, Kanwardev Raja Singh Bal, Hoil Kim, Daniel W. Squiller, J. Michal Conaway, Kathleen A. Cote, Ernest L. Godshalk, Matthew E. Massengill, Mary Petrovich, Robert E. Switz, Noel G. Watson, and Thomas Wroe, Jr. (collectively, the "Individual Defendants") for $27,000,000 in cash (the "Individual Defendant Settlement"); and (ii) Lead Plaintiff and additional named plaintiffs Strategic Master Fund and Highmark Limited, on behalf of themselves and the Underwriter Defendant Settlement Class, have reached a proposed settlement of the Action with defendants Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Goldman, Sachs & Co. LLC (f/k/a Goldman, Sachs & Co.), and Canaccord Genuity Inc. (collectively, the "Underwriter Defendants") for $9,700,000 in cash (the "Underwriter Defendant Settlement" and, together with the Individual Defendant Settlement, the "Settlements"). These proposed Settlements will be considered independently by the Court and they do not resolve any of the claims asserted against the remaining defendant in the Action, Apple, Inc. A hearing will be held on June 28, 2018 at 2:00 p.m., before the Honorable Joseph N. Laplante at the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire, Courtroom 2, 55 Pleasant Street, Concord, NH 03301-3941, to determine: (i) whether the proposed Individual Defendant Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether the proposed Underwriter Defendant Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (iii) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice as against the Individual Defendants and the Releases specified and described in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement With Individual Defendants dated January 26, 2018 (and in the Notice) should be granted; (iv) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice as against the Underwriter Defendants and the Releases specified and described in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement With Settling Underwriter Defendants dated August 18, 2017, together with the Supplement thereto dated January 26, 2018 (and in the Notice) should be granted; (v) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation for the proceeds of the Settlements is fair and reasonable and should be approved; and (vi) whether Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of Litigation Expenses should be approved. If you are a member of the Individual Defendant and/or the Underwriter Defendant Settlement Class, your rights will be affected by the proposed Settlement(s) that apply to you and any orders or judgments related to those Settlements, and you may be entitled to share in the Individual Defendant and/or Underwriter Defendant Settlement Funds. If you have not yet received the Notice and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at GTAT Securities Litigation, c/o GCG, P.O. Box 10463, Dublin, OH 43017-4063, by toll-free phone at 1-866-562-8790, or by email at info@GTATSecuritiesLitigation.com. Copies of the Notice can also be downloaded from the website maintained by the Claims Administrator, www.GTATSecuritiesLitigation.com. If you are a member of one or both Settlement Classes, in order to be eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement(s) that apply to you, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked no later than July 12, 2018. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement(s) but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action related to the Settlement(s) that apply to you. If you are a member of one or both Settlement Classes and wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class(es) that apply to you, you must submit a written request for exclusion such that it is received no later than June 7, 2018, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you are a member of the Individual Defendant Settlement Class and properly exclude yourself from that class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action relating to the Individual Defendant Settlement, and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the Individual Defendant Settlement. If you are a member of the Underwriter Defendant Settlement Class and properly exclude yourself from that class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action relating to the Underwriter Defendant Settlement, and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the Underwriter Defendant Settlement. Any objections to the proposed Individual Defendant Settlement, the proposed Underwriter Defendant Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of Litigation Expenses must be filed with the Court and delivered to Lead Counsel and, if the objection is to the Individual Defendant Settlement and/or the Underwriter Defendant Settlement, to designated counsel for those Settling Defendants such that they are received no later than June 7, 2018, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. Please do not contact the Court, GTAT, Defendants, or their counsel regarding this notice. All questions about this notice, the proposed Settlements, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlements should be directed to the Claims Administrator or Lead Counsel. Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to: GTAT Securities Litigation c/o GCG P.O. Box 10463 Dublin, OH 43017-4063 1-866-562-8790 info@GTATSecuritiesLitigation.com www.GTATSecuritiesLitigation.com Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form, should be made to Lead Counsel: John C. Browne, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44th Floor New York, NY 10020 1-800-380-8496 blbg@blbglaw.com By Order of the Court HARRIS & HARRIS: "Bartz" Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation ----------------------------------------------------- Crystal Bartz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Harris & Harris, Ltd., dba Harris & Harris of Illinois, Ltd., Case No. 2:18-cv-00390 (E.D. Wis., March 12, 2018), seeks redress for Defendant's violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Wisconsin Consumer Act. Plaintiff Crystal Bartz is a resident of Eastern District of Wisconsin, Milwaukee County. Plaintiff is a consumer that Defendant sought to collect a debt from, allegedly incurred for personal, family or household purposes, namely a home internet services bill. Defendant Harris & Harris, Ltd. is a foreign corporation with its primary offices located at 111 West Jackson Boulevard, Suite 400, Chicago, IL 60604. Defendant operates a collection agency. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Jesse Fruchter, Esq. Ben J. Slatky, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Tel: (414) 482-8000 Fax: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com jfruchter@ademilaw.com bslatky@ademilaw.com HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Settles Lawsuit, Will Change Labor Policy ------------------------------------------------------------- Molly McCafferty, writing for Crimson, reports that Harvard settled a class-action lawsuit brought against it by an employee on March 15, mandating that the University reevaluate its independent contractor policy, reclassify some workers as employees, and compensate each of those employees in amounts up to $30,000. The suit was brought against the University in 2016. Kara Donohoe, a massage therapist who has worked for Harvard University Health Service's Center for Wellness for 13 years, served as the lead plaintiff in the case, alleging the University's independent contractor policy unjustly failed to recognize her as a full employee under Massachusetts labor law, thereby denying her benefits. The Mass. law in question is three part: a worker is an independent contractor -- not an employee -- if they perform work not under direction of "superiors," work that is not part of the "usual course of business" of the employer, or if the person has an independent business separate from their work for the employer in question. Shannon E. Liss-Riordan '90,Esq. -- sliss@llrlaw.com -- the attorney for the suit and a former Crimson editor, said these criteria do not apply to Donohoe. "She and others were misclassified as independent contractors and, as a result, missed out on various benefits that Harvard employees received," Liss-Riordan said. These benefits include paid vacation, paid holidays, sick days, and the ability to take Harvard classes at a discounted price. Early on in the case, the University attempted to dismiss the claims. But the court denied its motion, and -- after two years of discovery and investigation -- the two parties eventually reached a settlement of which Liss-Riordan said she is "very proud." As part of the settlement, the University agreed to revise its independent contractor policy. The current iteration of the policy was adopted in 2010, according to University spokesperson Tania deLuzuriaga. During the suit -- in the summer of 2017 -- the University created a working group to evaluate whether the policy is up to date, to recommend revisions, and to ensure that the classification approval process is "integrated with the University's business procedures," deLuzuriaga wrote in an emailed statement. "The working group expects to issue recommendations over the next few months," deLuzuriaga wrote. Harvard will also reclassify approximately 20 workers at the Center for Wellness as employees and award them back pay for the hours they put in while misclassified as independent contractors. Liss-Riordan wrote in an email that, of the workers who will be reclassified, some who "consistently worked close to full time schedules" will be compensated in the amount of $30,000 each. The rest will receive smaller back payments. The employees will also begin to receive benefits they were not entitled to as independent contractors. Those employees who work at least 17.5 hours per week will also earn representation in the bargaining unit of the Harvard Union of Clerical and Technical Workers. "I'm very grateful to become a member of the union and the Harvard community," Donohoe wrote in an emailed statement. Beyond these immediate changes, according to Liss-Riordan, the settlement could have an impact on workers in other parts of the University. "Since Harvard has agreed to revise its independent contractor policy University-wide, that aspect of the settlement could have far-reaching effect, though we don't have an exact count of people who would be affected," she wrote. The University will reach out to those staff who will be affected by the reclassification as soon as details about pay scales and benefits are determined; until then, the Center for Wellness will operate as normal, according to deLuzuriaga. "The settlement represents a mutually agreeable closure to the case in order to avoid protracted litigation, and it further underscores the contributions of the massage therapists and acupuncturists to the Center's mission," deLuzuriaga wrote. Overall, Donohoe wrote, she is "very pleased" about the settlement and the benefits that come with her new status. "I'm really looking forward to being able to take a vacation and give my body a rest without giving my bank account a rest as well," she wrote. [GN] HITACHI CHEMICAL: June 7 Hearing on $66.9MM Class Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, PROPOSED PARTIAL SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION, FAIRNESS HEARING, AND RIGHT TO APPEAR If you directly purchased aluminum, tantalum or film capacitors between January 1, 2002 through July 22, 2015, you could be affected by a Class Action Settlement. Please read this notice carefully. 1. Why did I receive this Notice? You have received this Notice because Defendants' records show you may have directly purchased Capacitors from one or more Defendant(s) or from a subsidiary, agent, affiliate or joint venture of a Defendant from January 1, 2002 through July 22, 2015. The Court sent you this Notice for the following reason: Class members have the right to know about the partial settlement of a class action lawsuit, and about their legal rights and options, before the Court holds a Fairness Hearing to decide whether to grant final approval to the settlement. This Notice explains the lawsuit, the partial settlements, and your legal rights. It also explains what benefits from the partial settlements are available at this time, who is eligible to participate, and how to share in the settlements. If the Court approves one or more of the partial settlements, and after any objections and appeals are resolved, Class Counsel will disburse the Settlement Fund (as described in Question 12 below) in one or more distributions at a time to be determined by the Court. The Court has preliminarily approved the settlements. If you are a settlement class member, you have legal rights and options that you may exercise before the Court considers whether it will grant final approval to the proposed partial settlements at the Fairness Hearing. The Court will hold the Fairness Hearing on June 7, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. to decide whether each of the proposed partial settlements with each of the Settling Defendants is fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Court will also consider Class Counsel's request for payment of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of litigation expenses. If you wish to comment on (including object to) or exclude yourself from one or more of the partial settlements, you must do so by following the procedures described below. If you do nothing, you will not receive any money from the partial settlements, but you will nevertheless be bound by any final judgment concerning the Settling Defendants. 2. What is this lawsuit about? The lawsuit claims that Defendants entered into agreements to artificially raise, fix, or stabilize the prices of aluminum, tantalum, and film capacitors in violation of federal antitrust law. Each of the Defendants, including the Settling Defendants, expressly denies that it violated any laws or engaged in any wrongdoing, except that: (a) on January 21, 2016, NEC TOKIN Corporation pleaded guilty to participating in a conspiracy to fix prices of certain electrolytic capacitors; (b) on June 9, 2016, Hitachi Chemical Co., Ltd. pleaded guilty to participating in a conspiracy to fix prices of certain electrolytic capacitors; (c) on October 11, 2017, ELNA Co., Ltd and Holystone pleaded guilty to participating in a conspiracy to fix prices of certain electrolytic capacitors; and (d) on October 25, 2017, Matsuo Electric Co., Ltd. pleaded guilty to participating in a conspiracy to fix prices of certain electrolytic capacitors. The Court has previously approved settlements of Plaintiffs' claims against Defendants Fujitsu Ltd.; NEC Tokin Corporation and NEC Tokin America, Inc.; Nitsuko Electronics Corporation; and Okaya Electric Industries Co., Ltd. and Okaya Electric America, Inc. To obtain more information about the claims in this lawsuit, you can view the complaint and other court documents in this case at www.capacitorsantitrustsettlement.com. 3. Why is this a class action, and who is involved? In a class action lawsuit, one or more people called "Named Plaintiffs" or "Class Representatives" sue on behalf of other people who have similar claims. The people and companies with similar claims together are a "Class" and each is called a "Class Member." In a class action, the court resolves the issues for all Class Members, except for those who exclude themselves (or "opt-out") from the Class. 4. Why are there settlements? The Court has not yet found in favor of Plaintiffs or Defendants. While the lawsuit is still pending before the United States District Court, Plaintiffs and the Settling Defendants have agreed to settlements that, if approved, will bring the claims against the Settling Defendants to an end. This way, Plaintiffs and Settling Defendants avoid the uncertainty of continuing the case between them. 0ey also avoid the cost and delay of further litigation, and Class Members will receive the benefits of the settlements. 5. Why are the settlements "partial" settlements? Although the settlements with the Settling Defendants fully resolve the Class Members' claims against the Settling Defendants (see response to Question 16), the settlements only partially resolve the case, which will continue against the Non-Settling Defendants (see response to Question 6). For this reason, the settlements with the Settling Defendants are partial settlements. 6. Why is the lawsuit continuing if there are settlements? The Settling Defendants have agreed to settle this case. Previously, other Defendants have settled (see response to Question 2). The remaining Defendants have not agreed to settle, so the lawsuit will continue as a proposed class action against them. More money may become available in the future as a result of additional settlements with (and/or a trial against) the NonSettling Defendants, but there is no guarantee that will happen. 7. What happens if Plaintiffs later reach a settlement with the Non-Settling Defendants? The lawsuit will continue as a proposed class action against the Non-Settling Defendants on behalf of all Class Members. It is unknown whether Plaintiffs will obtain settlements with, or prevail at trial against, the Non-Settling Defendants. If there are additional settlements in the future, there will be notice of those settlements as well. 8. Am I a Class Member who is part of the partial settlements and the ongoing class action lawsuit against the Non-Settling Defendants? In general, direct purchasers of Capacitors are Class Members, i.e., persons or entities (a) who are eligible for a payment from the proposed settlements when the funds are distributed, and (b) on whose behalf the lawsuit will continue against the Non- Settling Defendants, if they meet the following definition: All persons in the United States that purchased Capacitors directly from any of the Defendants (including through their controlled subsidiaries, agents, a2liates or joint-ventures) from January 1, 2002 through July 22, 2015 (the "Class Period"). 9. I am still not sure if I am included. If you received this Notice, it is because you were listed as a potential Class Member. If you are still not sure whether you are included, you can get help by calling Class Counsel at (415) 500- 6800. 10. Does it make a difference whether I purchased Capacitors from the Settling Defendants or a Non-Settling Defendant? No. As long as you fall within the definition of the Class in Question 8 above, you can participate in the partial settlements, and the ongoing lawsuit against the Non-Settling Defendants, regardless of the specific Defendant form which you purchased Capacitors. 11. What are my rights as a Class Member? You may submit a Claim Form for a payment from the Settlement Fund (see Question 14). Or, you may exclude yourself from one or more of the settlements (see Question 20). You may also comment on or object to the proposed partial settlements and the request for fees and litigation expenses (see Question 23). You may also attend the Court's Fairness Hearing to speak in support of, or against, the Court's final approval of the proposed partial settlements and the request for fees and litigation expenses. You may also choose to do nothing -- which would result in no payment to you for the partial settlements. (see Question 26). The Settlement Benefits 12. What do the partial settlements provide? The Settling Defendants will make payments into an Escrow Account for the benefit of Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class. Counsel will use the Escrow Account for reimbursement of such fees and expenses related to the provision of notice to the Class Members. The Settling Defendants will pay into the Escrow Account for the benefit of Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class the following (the "Settlement Fund"): -- Hitachi will pay $63,000,000 by December 1, 2017. -- Soshin will pay $3,900,000 within fourteen (14) calendar days after the Court grants preliminary approval of its settlement. As a Class Member, you will give up, or "release," your claims against the Settling Defendants. This release includes any claims made or that could have been made arising from the facts alleged in this class action lawsuit. The releases are described in more detail in the Settlement Agreements and in Question 16 below. You can view or download copies of the Settlement Agreements at the website www.capacitorsantitrustsettlement.com 13. How much money can I get from the partial settlement? Class Members who submit a Claim Form will be eligible to receive a share of the Settlement Fund based on an allocation formula (the "Allocation Formula") utilizing each Class Member's proportionate share of Capacitors purchased during the Class Period. Under the Allocation Formula, each Class Member submitting a valid Claim Form would be entitled to receive an amount calculated by multiplying (a) the net amount in the Settlement Fund (after deducting all Court-approved expenses, fees, and administrative costs) by (b) a quotient calculated by dividing (i) the total amount of Capacitors purchased directly from Defendants during the Class Period by the specific Class Member submitting a valid Claim Form, with (ii) the total amount of Capacitors purchased directly from Defendants during the Class Period by all Class Members submitting valid Claim Forms. Submitting A Claim Form for a Share of the Partial Settlement 14. How can I get money from the partial settlement? To receive money from the partial settlements, you must complete and submit a Claim Form, either online at www.capacitorsantitrustsettlement.com, or by mail. A copy of the Claim Form is included with this Notice. Please read this Notice and the accompanying Claim Form carefully. If any of the Defendants in this case have a record of you purchasing Capacitors from them during the Class Period (i.e., between January 1, 2002 through July 22, 2015, inclusive), you will be mailed a Claim Form for your review that includes details about these purchases. You can either approve the purchase information on your Claim Form, or, if you disagree with this information, you can submit records of your purchases. You must complete and submit the form online no later than April 23, 2018, or complete the included form manually, sign it, and mail it postmarked no later than April 23, 2018, to the Notice and Claims Administrator at the address listed in Question 28 of this Notice. If necessary, you may download and print out a Claim Form from the website www.capacitorsantitrustsettlement.com. If you have any problems with the Claim Form or questions about how to submit your claim, please call the Notice and Claims Administrator at the telephone number printed at the bottom of this page. If you fall within the settlement Class Member definition, you may receive money from the partial settlements. 15. When will I get my payment(s)? As noted above, the Court is scheduled to hold a final Fairness Hearing on June 7, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. to decide whether to approve the proposed partial settlements and the request for the payment of attorneys' fees and the reimbursement of litigation expenses. 0e Court may reschedule the Fairness Hearing or change any of the deadlines described in this Notice. Please check the website, www.capacitorsantitrustsettlement.com, for news of any such changes. Settlement payments to settlement Class Members will be distributed after one or more of the settlements is approved, and after appeals, if any, are resolved in the Settlement Class' favor. Class Counsel will remit the funds, through the Notice and Claims Administrator, in one or more distributions that may include future settlements with Non-Settling Defendants. Updates regarding the partial settlements and when payments may be made will be posted on the settlement website, www.capacitorsantitrustsettlement.com. 16. What am I giving up to receive payment(s) under one or more of the partial settlements? If you are a settlement Class Member, unless you exclude yourself from one or more of the settlements with the Settling Defendants, you will remain in the Class, and that means that you cannot sue, continue to sue, or be part of any other lawsuit against the Settling Defendants about the legal claims in this case. It also means that all of the Court's orders will apply to you and legally bind you, and that you agree to the "Releases of Claims" specifically set forth in the Settlement Agreements with Hitachi and Soshin available on the settlement website, www.capacitorsantitrustsettlement.com. In general (and subject to the precise terms as set forth in each of the Settlement Agreements, upon one or more of the Settlement Agreements becoming effective, the Named Plaintiffs and Class Members who do not otherwise properly exclude themselves ("Releasors") agree that the Settling Defendants and their o2cers, directors, a2liates, and employees ("Releasees") shall be completely released, acquitted, and forever discharged from any and all manner of claims, demands, rights, actions, suits, and causes of action, whether class, individual, or otherwise in nature (whether or not any Class Member has objected to the Settlement Agreements or makes a claim upon or participates in the Settlement Fund, whether directly, representatively, derivatively, or in any other capacity), damages whenever incurred, liabilities of any nature whatsoever, including costs, expenses, penalties, injuries, and attorneys' fees that Releasors, or any one of them, whether directly, representatively, derivatively, or in any other capacity, ever had, now have, or hereafter can, shall, or may have against the Releasees, whether known or unknown, relating in any way to any transaction, event, conduct, circumstance, action, failure to act, or occurrence of any sort or type arising out of or related to the Class Action and any joint and several liability arising from the conduct of any of the Defendants in the Class Action prior to the Effective Date arising under or relating to any federal or state antitrust laws, unfair competition, unfair practices or trade practice laws, civil conspiracy, or common law or statutory fraud claims concerning the purchase, pricing, selling, discounting, marketing, manufacturing and/or distributing of Capacitors ("the Released Claims"). To view the legally binding terms about the scope of the Released Claims, please refer to the proposed Settlement Agreements, which are available at www.capacitorsantitrustsettlement.com. By participating in the partial settlements, you are not giving up your rights against the Non-Settling Defendants. 1e Lawyers Representing You 17. Who represents me in this case? The Court appointed the following law firm as Interim Lead Class Counsel (also referred to as "Plaintiffs' Counsel" or "Class Counsel") to represent the Class: Joseph R. Saveri JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM 601 California Street, Suite 1000 San Francisco, CA 94108 (415) 500-6800 jsaveri@saverilaw*rm.com 18. Should I get my own lawyer? You do not need to hire your own lawyer because Plaintiffs' Counsel are working on your behalf. If you want your own lawyer, you may hire one, but you will be responsible for any payment for that lawyer's services. For example, you can ask your lawyer to appear in Court for you if you want someone other than Plaintiffs' Counsel to speak for you. You may also appear for yourself without a lawyer. 19. How will the lawyers be paid? At the Fairness Hearing, Plaintiffs' Counsel will seek payment of $16,725,000 (25% of the Settlement Fund) for legal fees for the work they have done in this case and $6,690,000 (10% of the Settlement Fund), for reimbursement of their reasonable litigation expenses, principally expert witness expenses. If the Court awards these payments, they will be paid from the Settlement Fund along with administrative fees and expenses related to the provision of notice to the settlement Class Members, processing of Claim Forms, and distributing Settlement Funds to the Class Members submitting valid Claim Forms. You personally do not have to pay any of Class Counsel's fees, costs, or expenses. Excluding Yourself From The Settlements And/Or The Ongoing Lawsuit 20. How do I opt out of the settlements and/or the ongoing class action lawsuit against the Non-Settling Defendants? Excluding yourself from one or more of the partial settlements: If you fall within the Class Member definition (see Question 8) but wish to keep the right to sue or continue to sue one or more of the Settling Defendants (at your own expense) about the legal issues in this case, then you must take steps to remove yourself from the Settlement Class. 0is is called excluding yourself from, or opting out of, the settlements. Opting out of the Class for purposes of the partial settlements described in this notice will not affect your right to remain in the proposed Class for purposes of the continuing litigation against the Non-Settling Defendants. You may also opt-out of the Settlement Class with respect to one or more Settling Defendants, but choose to remain in the Settlement Class with respect to the other Settling Defendants. To exclude yourself from (or opt out of ) the partial settlement with one or more Settling Defendants, you must send an OptOut Request letter to the Notice and Claims Administrator at the address below indicating that you want to be excluded from the Settlement Class in In re Capacitors Antitrust Litigation; stating your full legal name, address, and telephone number; providing a statement that you purchased Capacitors directly from one or more Defendants; and identifying the settlements from which you wish to opt out. You must include the following statement with your Opt-Out Request Letter: "I want to be excluded from the Capacitors Antitrust Litigation class action settlement with [SPECIFY THE NAME OF EACH SETTLING DEFENDANT FROM WHOSE SETTLEMENT YOU WISH TO EXCLUDE YOURSELF]. I understand that by so doing, I will not be able to get any money or benefits from the settlement with that/those Settling Defendant(s) in this case." This Opt-Out Request Letter must be signed and dated and include your telephone number. If you request to be excluded from one or more of the partial settlements with Settling Defendants, you will not be legally bound by the settlement with that/those Settling Defendant(s). You will be able to sue (or continue to sue) that/those Settling Defendant(s) in the future about the legal claims in this case. If you ask to be excluded from one or more of the settlements with Settling Defendant(s), you will not get any payment from the settlement with respect to the Settling Defendant(s), and you cannot object to that settlement. If you choose to remain in some or all of these settlements, you will have the right to remain in or exclude yourself from any future settlement classes or any class certified by the Court. Exclusion/Opt-Out Request Mailing Information To exclude yourself from one or more of the settlements with Settling Defendant(s), you must submit your Opt-Out Request Letter postmarked via First Class United States Mail (or United States Mail for overnight delivery) no later than April 23, 2018 (or received by the Notice and Claims Administrator by that date if sent by fax or e-mail) at the following address: Notice and Claims Administrator Capacitors Antitrust Direct Purchaser Litigation Settlement P.O. Box 2563 Faribault, MN 55021-9563 You cannot exclude yourself (opt out) by telephone 21. If I do not exclude myself, can I sue the Settling Defendants for the same thing later? No. If you are a Class member, unless you exclude yourself from one or more of the settlements with one or more of the Settling Defendants, you give up the right to sue all of the Settling Defendants for the claims that the partial settlement resolves as more fully described in Question 16 above. If you have a pending lawsuit against any of the Defendants, speak to your lawyer in that lawsuit immediately, because you may need to exclude yourself from the Class to continue your own lawsuit. The process for excluding yourself from one or more of the settlements is described in the preceding section. 22. If I exclude myself, can I get money from this case? Yes and no. If you exclude yourself from one or more of the settlements with Settling Defendants, you will not receive money under that settlement even if you submit a Claim Form. You will, however, remain eligible for payment relating to any settlements from which you did not opt out. You will also remain eligible to a share of the money recovered, if any, from Non-Settling Defendants in the future. Commenting On Or Objecting To The Settlement 23. How do I tell the Court that I like or do not like the proposed settlement, and may I speak at the hearing? If you are a Class Member, you can comment on, or object to, the proposed partial settlements if you object to any part of it, including the requests for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses. You can give reasons why you think the Court should or should not approve it. The Court will consider your views. To comment or object, you must send a letter to the Notice and Claims Administrator with your comment(s) or objection(s) to the proposed settlements in the In re Capacitors Antitrust Litigation. Be sure to include: -- Your name, address, telephone number, email address and signature. -- A statement signed under penalty of perjury that you are a member of the Settlement Class. -- A detailed statement of your comment(s) or objection(s), including the grounds for your objection(s), if any, together with any documents you think support it. You do not need to attend or speak at the Fairness Hearing (described in Question 24 below) for your comments or objections to be considered. If you would like to speak at the Fairness Hearing about your comments or objections to the settlement, you must add to your letter a statement that you intend to appear and speak at the hearing (for example, by stating "This is my Notice of Intention to Appear in In re Capacitors Antitrust Litigation."). If you wish for the Court to consider your comment(s) or objection(s), you must mail the comment(s) or objection(s), along with a request to speak at the Fairness Hearing (if any), by First Class U.S. Mail, postmarked no later than May 18, 2018, to: Questions? Call 1-866-903-1223 Notice and Claims Administrator In re Capacitors Antitrust Litigation Lawsuit P.O. Box 2563 Faribault, MN 55021-9563 You will have no right to speak at the Fairness Hearing about these settlements if you choose to exclude yourself from the settlements, because a settlement no longer affects you if you opt out of it. The Court's Fairness Hearing 24. When and where will the Court decide whether to approve the settlements? The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing on June 7, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 11, on the 19th Floor of the United States District Court located at 450 Golden Gate Avenue in San Francisco, California. At the Fairness Hearing, the Court will consider each of the proposed settlements and determine whether each is fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Court will also consider the request for attorneys' fees and litigation expenses, and for payment of other administrative expenses. If there are written comments or objections, the Court will consider them. The Court will decide whether to allow people who have raised objections or comments to speak at the hearing. After the Fairness Hearing, the Court will separately decide whether to approve the partial settlements. The Court may reschedule the Fairness Hearing or change any of the deadlines described in this Notice. Please check the website, www.capacitorsantitrustsettlement.com, for news of any such changes. 25. Do I have to come to the Fairness Hearing? No. Class Counsel will be present at the Fairness Hearing to answer any questions the Court may have. You are welcome to come at your own expense. If you send comments or objections to the settlements, you do not have to come to Court to talk about them. If you mailed your written comments or objections on time, the Court will consider them. You may also pay your own lawyer to attend, but such attendance is not necessary. If You Do Nothing 26. What happens if I do nothing at all? If you are a Class Member and you do nothing, you will receive no money from the partial settlements with the Settling Defendants. Any claims you might have against the Settling Defendants for the allegations in this case will be released unless you separately write to exclude yourself (following the instructions in Question 20). This means that if you do nothing, you will not be able to collect any damages from the Settling Defendants for the alleged agreements to raise, maintain, or stabilize the prices of Capacitors as alleged in this lawsuit, or in any other lawsuit. You will not receive money from the partial settlements unless you submit a Claim Form (by following the instructions in Question 14). To qualify to receive any money from the settlements with the Settling Defendants, you must submit a Claim Form and follow the instructions in Question 14. Your claim must be *led online or postmarked by mail by April 23, 2018, or received by the Notice and Claims Administrator by that time (e.g., via e-mail or facsimile). Getting More Information 27. Are more details about the settlements and the lawsuit available? Yes. This Notice summarizes the proposed settlements with the Settling Defendants and the ongoing lawsuit against the Non-Settling Defendants. More details about the settlements are set forth in the proposed Settlement Agreements themselves. You can see or print copies of the Settlement Agreements at www.capacitorsantitrustsettlement.com. More information about the ongoing class action lawsuit, including the Plaintiffs' class action complaint, can also be viewed or printed at www.capacitorsantitrustsettlement.com, or at the Website of Class Counsel, the Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., at www.saverilaw!rm.com. 28. How do I get more information? The Website www.capacitorsantitrustsettlement.com allows you to complete and submit a Claim Form online. The Website also provides answers to common questions about the lawsuit, the partial settlements, Claim Forms, and other information to help you determine whether you are a Class Member, whether you are eligible for a payment, and when Settlement Funds will be distributed. You may also submit a written Claim Form at the address listed below, or you may call or write to the Notice and Claims Administrator with your questions at: Notice and Claims Administrator In re Capacitors Antitrust Lawsuit P.O. Box 2563 Faribault, MN 55021-9563 Telephone: 1-866-903-1223 PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT. YOU SHOULD DIRECT ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE ABOUT THIS NOTICE OR THE SETTLEMENT TO THE NOTICE AND CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR AND/OR TO PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL. You may also seek the advice and counsel of your own attorney at your own expense, if you desire. HITCHCOCK AUTOMOTIVE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Janabajal Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- JEREMIAH JANABAJAL, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. HITCHCOCK AUTOMOTIVE RESOURCES, dba NORTHRIDGE TOYOTA, dba PUENTE HILLS FORD, a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, the Defendant, Case No. BC699000 (Cal. Super. Ct., March 21, 2018), seeks to recover minimum wages and overtime under the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked as a non-exempt Sales Consultant at Defendants' Northridge Toyota location from approximately August 2015 to March 18, 2016. During his employment, Plaintiff and similarly situated employees were paid on a commission-only basis, whereby they were paid a commission per vehicle sold, plus a volume incentive bonus for reaching various sales goals. Service technicians and/or consultants were paid on a similar commission-only compensation system. The Plaintiff and similarly situated employees clocked in and out at the beginning and end of the workday, and each meal period, but were generally only paid based on commissions earned during the pay period, not based on hours worked. Hitchcock Automotive Resources owns and operates automotive dealerships. The Company, through its dealerships, engages in the marketing and sale of new and pre-owned vehicles. Hitchcock Automotive also provides vehicle servicing and repair as well as supplying auto parts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul K. Haines, Esq. Sean M. Blakely, Esq. Daniel J. Brown, Esq. HAINES LAW GROUP, APC 222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (424) 292 2350 Facsimile: (424) 292 2355 E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com sblakely@haineslawgroup.com dbrown@haineslawgroup.com HOME DEPOT: "Howard" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Law ------------------------------------------------------------ TIMOTHY HOWARD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC. d/b/a HOME DEPOT, the Defendant, Case No. 506788/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., April 4, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages under the New York State Labor Law, the New York Code of Rules and Regulations, and the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act. The Defendant employed Plaintiff as an associate, in Plaintiff's King's Plaza Location, and maintained control, oversight, and direction over Plaintiff in regard to timekeeping, payroll, and other employment practices, and functioned as an employer pursuant to the NYLL. The Defendant is considered a large employer, having at least 11 or more employees during the duration of Plaintiff's employment. Defendant, by virtue of its ownership, management, and control over the wages and work of Plaintiff, is considered an employer under the NYLL. The Plaintiff worked shifts scheduled from 1:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., Monday through Friday throughout the duration of his employment with Defendant. The Plaintiff was provided a 1-hour unpaid meal break each shift. Accordingly, Plaintiff was scheduled to work 40 hours per week. In reality, Plaintiff worked between 45-50 hours each week. Plaintiff would clock in every shift using Defendant's timekeeping system. Plaintiff was required to, and did, routinely did perform work on behalf of Plaintiff prior to clocking in at the start of his shift. Frequently, Plaintiff would work later than 10:00 p.m., sometimes as late as 3:00 a.m. depending on the needs of Defendant. When Plaintiff worked past 10:00 p.m., Defendant required Plaintiff to clock-in an equal amount of time later on the subsequent day, despite Plaintiff actually beginning work at 1:00 p.m. Thus, Plaintiff's time sheets showed less work than was actually performed. Home Depot is an American home improvement supplies retailing company that sells tools, construction products, and services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Gaylord, Esq. BOUKLAS GAYLORD LLP 400 Jericho Turnpike Suite 226 Jericho, NY 11753 Telephone: (516) 742 4949 Facsimile: (516) 742 1977 HUDSON MARKET: "Cuautle" Suit Seeks OT & Minimum Wage under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- ABRAHAN VELAZQUEZ CUAUTLE, ARTURO GIL GARITA, CESARIO VAZQUEZ TALAVERA, CRISTO GARCIA SANTIAGO, JOSE HUMBERTO BECERRA BUITRAGO, JOSE OSCAR JUAREZ RAMOS, JOSE PEREZ ESPINAL, JOSE YAT CHIC (A/K/A EDGAR CASTRO), PEDRO RAMALES, PEDRO TECUN POL, RAFAEL PASCUAL CHACAJ BATZ (A/K/A EDGAR PEREZ), and RAUL ANTONIO CRUZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. HUDSON MARKET 303 LLC (D/B/A HUDSON MARKET), CHRISTOPHER SANTOS, CHAN K. PARK, TERRENCE PARK, SCOTT BARNER, GREG GROSSMAN, ADAM DOE, JAZMIN DOE and ZACK DOE, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02968 (S.D.N.Y., April 4, 2018), seeks to recover overtime & minimum wage under Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The Plaintiffs have been employed as line cooks, cook helpers, salad preparers, porters, dishwashers, food preparers and ostensibly as delivery workers at the marketplace located at 303 10th Avenue, New York, NY 10001. The Plaintiffs have worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that they have worked. Rather, Defendants have failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked, failed to pay Plaintiffs appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. Further, Defendants have failed to pay Plaintiffs the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which they have had to work over 10 hours a day. Furthermore, Defendants have repeatedly failed to pay Plaintiffs wages on a timely basis. Hudson Market is a brand new farm to table market and restaurant in the heart of West Chelsea, NYC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317 1200 Facsimile: (212) 317 1620 E-mail: Faillace@emplyomentcompliance.com HUDSON'S BAY: Fails to Secure Personally Identifiable Information ----------------------------------------------------------------- HOPE TAFET, LESLIE LEVITTRASCHELLA and JANE LEFKOWITZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, THE Plaintiffs, v. HUDSON'S BAY COMPANY, SAKS FIFTH AVENUE LLC, and LORD & TAYLOR LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02980-KBF (S.D.N.Y., April 4, 2018), alleges that HBC, Saks and Lord & Taylor failed to secure and safeguard consumers' personally identifiable information which HBC collected from various sources in connection with the operation of its Saks and Lord & Taylor subsidiaries. HBC has acknowledged that a cybersecurity incident occurred, resulting in the theft of its customers' PII, mainly consisting of credit card numbers and other information sufficient for wrongdoers to make fraudulent charges to HBC customers' accounts. The PII for Plaintiffs and the class of consumers they seek to represent was compromised due to Defendants' acts and omissions and its failure to properly protect its customers' PII. The Defendants could have prevented the Data Breach. Instead, Defendants disregarded the rights of Plaintiffs and Class members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, and/or negligently failing to take adequate and reasonable measures to ensure its data systems were protected, failing to disclose to its customers the material fact that it did not have adequate computer systems and security practices to safeguard PII, failing to take available steps to prevent and stop the breach from ever happening, and failing to monitor and detect the breach on a timely basis. As a result of the Data Breach, the PII of the Plaintiffs and Class members has been exposed to criminals for misuse.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Howard T. Longman, Esq. Melissa R. Emert, Esq. Michael J. Klein, Esq. STULL, STULL, & BRODY 6 East 45th Street New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 687 7230 Facsimile: (212) 490 2022 E-mail: hlongman@ssbny.com memert@ssbny.com mklein@ssbny.com INTEL CORP: Faces "Henderson" Suit in Oregon Over Defective CPUs ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH HENDERSON and MATTHEW MANISKAS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. INTEL CORPORATION, Case No. 3:18-cv-00413-SB (D. Ore., March 9, 2018), is brought on behalf of both a proposed class and subclasses of individuals, who purchased Intel CPUs, either through Intel itself, or through purchase of a device that included the Intel CPU as an integral part. Around January 2, 2018, news began to circulate regarding two serious security vulnerabilities -- "Meltdown" and "Spectre." The Defects are inherent to all Intel Central Processing Units that use the x86-64 architecture manufactured by Intel. The Defects provide a backdoor for third parties and malicious programs to access information on computers that use Intel CPUs, regardless of other sophisticated and otherwise through security measures employed to safeguard that data, the Plaintiffs allege. Intel Corporation is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters and principal place of business located in Santa Clara, California. Intel is one of the world's largest manufacturers of central processing units. Intel sells its CPUs as separate components to individual enthusiasts and businesses. Additionally, Intel manufactures and sells servers with integrated CPUs.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Young Walgenkim, Esq. HANSON & WALGENKIM, LLC 838 Commercial Street NE Salem, OR 97301 Telephone: (503) 383-1496 Facsimile: (503) 766-6477 E-mail: young@hansonwalgenkim.com - and - Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq. Joseph C. Bourne, Esq. Eric S. Taubel, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC Canadian Pacific Plaza 120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 Facsimile: (612) 339-6622 E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com jbourne@gustafsongluek.com etaubel@gustafsongluek.com INTEL CORPORATION: Processors Have Security Flaw, New Castle Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- THE CITY OF NEW CASTLE, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. INTEL CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00489-JE (D. Ore., March 21, 2018), seeks an order or orders requiring Intel to adequately disclose and remediate the Defect and "Meltdown" or "Spectre" security flaws. Intel is one of the top-selling semiconductor companies in the world and manufacturers semiconductor chips of central processors that are sold as individual components or sold as components in computers including personal computers (PCs) and mobile devices. Some of the companies that have sold computers or mobile devices with Intel CPUs are Apple, Asus, Acer, Google, Lenovo, Hewlett Packard, and Dell. The CPU(s) is the hardware component responsible for interpreting and executing most of the commands from a computer's other hardware and software, i.e., the brain of a computer, laptop, or mobile device. Intel represented and touted to consumers in its advertising, marketing and on the packaging of the products it sells that it manufactures some of the fastest CPUs in the world. In addition to the speed of the processing, Intel represented and touted to consumers the security features of its CPUs. Two of the most essential features in a CPU which consumers and users are looking for are speed and security, and Intel's success is largely based on the advertised speed and security of its CPUs. Focusing on speed and producing the fastest CPUs, Intel took short cuts which left the CPUs with security flaws, vulnerabilities and susceptibilities to cyber-attack. Specifically, Intel's CPUs suffer from an inherent security defect referred to as "Meltdown" and/or "Spectre" in the computer industry. The inherent defect in Intel's CPUs creates the security flaw or vulnerability which allows hackers the ability to access personal, sensitive, private and secure information in every computer, PC or Device that uses an Intel CPU which were designed with features and components to perform "speculative execution".[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Steve D. Larson, Esq. Jennifer S. Wagner, STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING & SHLACHTER P.C. 209 SW Oak Street, Suite 500 Portland, OR 97204 Telephone: (503) 227-1600 Facsimile: (503) 227-6840 E-mail: slarson@stollberne.com jwagner@stollberne.com - and - Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. Daniel C. Levin, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN, LLP 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592 1500 Facsimile: (215) 592 4663 E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com dlevin@lfsblaw.com INTEL CORPORATION: "Jones" Suit Moved to District of Oregon ----------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Jason Jones, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Intel Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00029, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon (Portland 3) on April 5, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-00579-SI to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Michael H. Simon. Intel Corporation is an American multinational corporation and technology company headquartered in Santa Clara, California, in the Silicon Valley.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Irwin B. Levin, Esq. Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Richard E. Shevitz, Esq. Vess Allen Miller, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636 6481 Facsimile: (317) 636 2593 E-mail: ilevin@cohenandmalad.com ltoops@cohenandmalad.com rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com vmiller@cohenandmalad.com J.S. PALUCH: Fails to Reimburse Employees for Business Expenses --------------------------------------------------------------- IRVING PICOU on behalf of himself, and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. J.S. PALUCH CO., INC.; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. RG18897850 (Cal. Super. Ct., March 21, 2018), challenges the Defendants' policy and practice of: (a) failing to reimburse employees for business expenses in violation Labor Code section 2802; (b) failing to pay former employees all wages due and owing at the time of discharge or voluntary quit in violation of Labor Code sections 201-203; and (c) violating California Labor Code section 226 by failing to provide wage statements that list the name and address of the legal entity that is the employer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric A. Grover, Esq. Robert W. Spencer, Esq. KELLER GROVER LLP 4 11 1965 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94103 Telephone: (415) 543 1305 Facsimile: (415) 543 7861 E-mail: eagrover@kellergrover.com rspencer@kellergrover.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Bailey Sues over Talcum Powder Based Products ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN BAILEY, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF KAREN BAILEY, the Plaintiffs, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., a New Jersey corporation doing business in California; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business in the State of California; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 18CV325920 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 5, 2018), seeks to recover damages caused by Defendants' failure to remedy known defects in talcum powder based products and failure to warn the public, including the Plaintiff or Plaintiff's Spouse or Plaintiff's Decedent, of the extreme risk of injury occasioned by the defects inherent in the Products. The Plaintiff or Plaintiff's Spouse or Plaintiff's Decedent suffered illnesses that have latency periods and do not arise until many years after exposure. The illnesses did not distinctly manifest as having been caused by the Products until Plaintiff was made aware that the ovarian cancer could be caused by use of the Products. Consequently, the discovery rule applies to this case and the statute of limitations has been tolled until the day that Plaintiff knew or had reason to know that ovarian cancer was linked to the use of the Products. Furthermore, the running of any statute of limitations has been equitably tolled by reason of Defendants' fraudulent concealment and conduct. Through their affirmative misrepresentations and omissions, Defendants actively concealed from Plaintiff the true risks associated with the talcum powder contained within the Products. As a result of Defendants' actions, Plaintiff was unaware, and could not reasonably know, or could not have reasonably learned through reasonable diligence, that Plaintiff or Plaintiff's Spouse or Plaintiff's Decedent had been exposed to the risks alleged herein and that those risks were the direct and proximate result of Defendants' acts and omissions. Furthermore, Defendants are estopped from relying on any statute of limitations because of their concealment of the truth, quality and nature of the Products. Defendants were under a duty to disclose the true character, quality and nature of Products because this was non-public information which the Defendants had and continue to have in their exclusive control, and because the Defendants knew that this information was not available to Plaintiff. The Defendants and their individual agents, officers, and directors intentionally proceeded with the manufacturing, sale, distribution and marketing of the Products knowing that the public, including Plaintiffs, would be exposed to serious danger in order to advance Defendants' own pecuniary interest and monetary profits. IMERYS has been in the business of mining, extracting, processing, treating, formulating, promoting, selling, and distributing talcum powder for use in talcum powder based products. Johnson & Johnson is an American multinational medical devices, pharmaceutical and consumer packaged goods manufacturing company founded in 1886.[BN] Counsel for Plaintiff: Lee Cirsch, Esq. Michael Akselrud, Esq. THE LANIER LAW FIRM, PC 21550 Oxnard Street, 3rd Floor Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (310) 277 5100 Facsimile: (310) 277 5103 E-mail: lee.cirsch@lanierlawfirm.com michael.akselrud@lanierlawfirm.com LADY JANE'S HAIRCUTS: Siroka Seeks Minimum Wage & OT under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- HALEY SIROKA, 8308 Chalmers Ave. Warren, MI 48089 On behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. LADY JANE'S HAIRCUTS FOR MEN HOLDING COMPANY, LLC 3921 Rochester Road Troy, MI 48083 c/o Its Resident Agent Tim McCollum 34915 Woodward Ave. Birmingham, MI 48083; and CHAD JOHNSON 2655 Invitational Drive Oakland Township, MI 48363, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18- cv-11075-RHC-APP (E.D. Mich., April 3, 2018), seeks to recover minimum wage and overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Michigan's minimum wage and overtime compensation statutes. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff, the Potential Opt-Ins, and the Michigan Class Members frequently worked more than 40 hours in a single workweek. The FLSA required Lady Jane's to pay the stylists at least the minimum wage, and to pay them overtime compensation at one and one-half times their "regular rate" for all hours worked in excess of forty hours in a workweek. However, Lady Jane's, having unlawfully misclassified Plaintiff, the Potential Opt-Ins, and the Michigan Class Members as "independent contractors," failed to pay them minimum wages and overtime compensation. Defendants own and operate retail shops under the name "Lady Jane's Haircuts for Men" throughout the United States and its territories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas A. Downie, Esq. 46 Chagrin Falls Plaza No. 104 Chagrin Falls, OH 44022 Telephone: 440 973 9000 Cell: 440 829 9614 E-mail: tom@chagrinlaw.com - and - Joseph F. Scott, Esq. Ryan A. Winters, Esq. Kevin M. McDermott, II, Esq. SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC The Caxton Building 812 E. Huron Rd., Suite 490 Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (440) 498 9100 E-mail: jscott@ohiowagealawyers.com rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com LAYNE CHRISTENSEN: Witmer Balks at Merger Deal with Granite ----------------------------------------------------------- COLLEEN WITMER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. LAYNE CHRISTENSEN COMPANY, DAVID A.B. BROWN, J. SAMUEL BUTLER, ROBERT R. GILMORE, JOHN T. NESSER III, NELSON OBUS, ALAN P. KRUSI, MICHAEL J. CALIEL, GRANITE CONSTRUCTION INCORPORATED, and LOWERCASE MERGER SUB INCORPORATED, the Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-01051 (S.D. Tex., April 3, 2018), seeks to enjoin the defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating, or closing a proposed merger transaction, and in the event defendants consummate the Proposed Transaction, rescind it and set it aside or award rescissory damages. This action stems from a proposed transaction announced on February 14, 2018, pursuant to which Layne Christensen Company will be acquired by Granite Construction Incorporated and its wholly owned subsidiary, Lowercase Merger Sub Incorporated. On February 13, 2018, Layne Christensen's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Granite Construction. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, if the Proposed Transaction is approved by Layne Christensen's shareholders, they will receive 0.27 shares of Granite common stock for each share of Layne Christensen stock they own. On March 13, 2018, defendants filed a Form S-4 Registration Statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Registration Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Registration Statement false and misleading. Accordingly, plaintiff alleges herein that defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Layne Christensen Company is a U.S.-based global water management, construction and drilling company, providing responsible solutions for water, mineral and energy resources.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 295 5310 Facsimile: (302) 654 7530 - and - 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (484) 324 6800 Facsimile: (484) 631 1305 - and - Joe Kendall, Esq. Jamie J. McKey, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP 3232 McKinney Avenue, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75204 Telephone: (214) 744 3000 Facsimile: (214) 744 3015 E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com jmckey@kendalllawgroup.com LIFETIME KIA: Warren Truck Sues over Unsolicited Fax Ads -------------------------------------------------------- WARREN TRUCK AND TRAILER, INC., on its own and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. LIFETIME KIA, PARKWAY AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INC., and BLUERIDGE AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00447-SGC (N.D. Ala., March 22, 2018), alleges that the Defendants have recently sent out thousands of unsolicited fax advertisements and thousands of fax advertisements without the proper opt-out notices as required by the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Taylor C. Bartlett, Esq. W. Lewis Garrison, Jr., Esq. Anna M. Carroll, Esq. HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC 2224 First Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 326 3336 E-mail: lewis@hgdlawfirm.com taylor@hgdlawfirm.com acarroll@hgdlawfirm.com LONGFIN CORP: Reddy Says Financial Reports Misleading ----------------------------------------------------- KARTHIK REDDY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. LONGFIN CORP. and VENKAT S. MEENAVALLI, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02933 (S.D.N.Y., April 3, 2018), is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities, other than Defendants and their affiliates, who purchased or otherwise acquired Longfin common stock December 15, 2017 through April 2, 2018, both dates inclusive. Longfin is a finance and technology company. The Company provides trade and physical commodities solutions for finance businesses and trading platforms. Longfin recently began using blockchain technology to enable global trade finance solutions for small and medium enterprises, processors, manufacturers, importers, and exporters through cryptocurrencies. The Company's entry into blockchain markets attracted widespread attention when, on December 15, 2017, Longfin announced the acquisition of Ziddu.com, a blockchain- empowered global micro-lending solutions provider. In early March 2018, the global index operator FTSE Russellalso took note of Longfin and added the Company to two widely tracked Russell indices effective March 16, 2018. On March 26, 2018, stock commentary website Citron Research posted a tweet on Twitter.com questioning the veracity of Longfin's operations. The same day, Russell issued a statement announcing Longfin would be removed from its global indices after market close on March 28, 2018, only approximately 12 days after being added. On March 30, 2018, the end date by which Defendant Meenavalli stated Longfin's annual report would be filed, no Longfin financial report on Form 10-K had been filed with the SEC. Further, as of the close of trading on April 2, 2018, two days after Defendant Meenavalli stated the annual report would be filed, no Longfin financial report on Form 10-K had been filed with the SEC. The foregoing events caused the price of the Company's stock to decline from $71.10 per share on March 23, 2018, to close at $14.31 per share on April 2, 2018, a decline of 79.9%, damaging investors. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Longfin had material weaknesses in its operations and internal controls that hindered the Company's profitability; (ii) Longfin did not meet the requirements for inclusion in Russell indices; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, the Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. As a result of the fraudulent conduct alleged, Plaintiff and other members of the Class purchased Longfin common stock at artificially inflated prices and suffered significant losses and damages once the truth emerged.[BN] Counsel for Plaintiff Karthik Reddy: Thomas L. Laughlin, IV, Esq. Rhiana Swartz, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP The Helmsley Building 230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10169 Telephone: 212 223 6444 Facsimile: 212 223 6334 E-mail: tlaughlin@scott-scott.com rswartz@scott-scott.com - and - David P. Abel, Esq. U.S. MARKET ADVISORS LAW GROUP PLLC 5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Ste. 440 Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: 202 274 0237 E-mail: dabel@usmarketlaw.com MADISON COUNTY, MS: Black Residents File Class Action ----------------------------------------------------- Arielle Dreher, writing for Jackson Free Press, reports that ten black residents in Madison County are suing the county and sheriff's department, which stopped, searched or arrested them. They allege that the county's policing strategies disproportionately target them and not white residents -- with officers even pre-checking 'black,' 'male,' and 'arrested' on paperwork before knowing who they would apprehend. They also allege that deputies used the word "n-gger" during arrests. Now, after a half-year of discovery in the case, the ACLU of Mississippi is asking the federal court to certify it as a class- action complaint, meaning their lawsuit would be on behalf of all black residents in Madison County, not just the named plaintiffs. Attorneys argue that Madison County's policing program violates black residents' rights outlined in the Fourth Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. The ACLU of Mississippi released data found during discovery at a press conference March 14. Black residents only make up 38 percent of Madison County's population, but 77 percent the Madison County Sheriff's Department made between 2012 and 2017 were black individuals, ACLU data show. The ACLU of Mississippi brought the lawsuit in May 2017 after a year-long investigation of policing strategies. Public records show that the Madison County sheriff's department targets black communities, the ACLU argues. "Almost 81 percent of roadblock arrests in Madison County between May and September of 2016 were of black individuals," the complaint, filed last year, says. The county denies most of the allegations in the complaint, and in its answer outlined Sheriff Randall Tucker's involvement in the community and schools with the goal of improving race relations. "Upon entry to office, Sheriff Tucker also created a Madison County Community Advisory Group comprised of citizens, business owners, homeowners and others, both Black and White, to meet together and to discuss any and all concerns all citizens have in regard to the activities of the Madison County Sheriff's Department," the defendant's answer filed June 29, 2017, says. "One of the purposes for his creating this Group was to improve race relations in Madison County, which has been one of his main objectives since being elected to office." Attorneys representing black residents in the county disagree. "MCSD's own paperwork confirms that it targets Black citizens for arrest," said Joshua Tom, legal director for the ACLU of Mississippi, in a press release. "In the course of our class certification discovery, MCSD officials produced template forms that deputies use in the course of their duties, and on those forms from at least two officers appear pre-populated checkboxes marking 'black,' 'male,' and 'arrested.' The evidence will show discriminatory and unconstitutional policing, and we are looking forward to presenting all of the facts as our case moves forward." Data from the ACLU of Mississippi show that 76 percent of roadblock arrests in Madison County are black residents. The Madison County Sheriff's Department denied that their roadblocks target certain communities or residents, "Black or White," their answer filed last year says. "The roadblocks conducted by the Sheriff's Department over the last three years show that they were evenly disbursed throughout Madison County. Further, according to Sheriff's Department policies, each vehicle was stopped and certain information was uniformly obtained during these roadblocks," the defendant's answer says. ". . . Any differences in the number of Black individuals and White individuals arrested during these roadblocks is irrelevant to the location of these roadblocks. Instead, these arrests were based on each individual arrested and whether probable cause existed for their arrest or whether a warrant was outstanding for their arrest." Two plaintiffs in the ACLU's case testified about their experiences of roadblocks in the motion for class certification. "Plaintiff Bessie Thomas testified that when she tried to speak to an MCSD deputy during a roadblock the deputy cut her off and, referring to the cars behind her, said, 'I've got all these n- ggers off the side of this road,'" the motion says. "Class member Quincy Smith stated that at a traffic stop, he witnessed a white MCSD deputy tell a Black MCSD deputy that he wasn't 'going to help a n-gger out' by letting a driver go without a ticket." (Note: The JFP adds hyphens to certain offensive words out of respect for our readers.) The plaintiffs have also requested oral argument in the case. [GN] MADISON COUNTY, MS: ACLU Says Data Shows Discriminatory Policing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kate Royals, writing for Mississippi Today, reports that attorneys in a federal lawsuit against the Madison County Sheriff's Department presented new data they say supports their case that the defendants practice discriminatory and unconstitutional policing tactics. The data shows that over a five-year period from 2012 to 2017 in Madison County: blacks accounted for 77 percent of all arrests, 72 percent of all citations and nearly 76 percent of arrests at roadblocks. In addition, more than 74 percent of arrests at traffic stops were of blacks, according to the American Civil Liberties Union. African Americans make up 38 percent of the county's population. The plaintiffs' attorneys are asking the legal challenge be deemed a class-action lawsuit, a request they say is supported by those statistics. "MCSD's own paperwork confirms that it targets black citizens for arrest," said Joshua Tom, legal director for the ACLU of Mississippi. "In the course of our class certification discovery, MCSD officials produced template forms that deputies use in the course of their duties, and on those forms from at least two officers appear pre-populated check boxes marking 'black,' 'male,' and 'arrested.' The evidence will show discriminatory and unconstitutional policing, and we are looking forward to presenting all of the facts as our case moves forward." Madison County Attorney Katie Snell, Esq. said the sheriff's department does not comment on pending litigation, but the defendants' prior response in court denied any racist or discriminatory practices. The plaintiffs, represented by the ACLU and the New York-based law firm Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, accuse the sheriff's department of running a "top-down program" of selectively targeting black communities with unconstitutional policing tactics such as "show-ID-and-search pedestrian checkpoints, roving roadblocks, 'jump outs' by plainclothes deputies in unmarked cars and warrantless home invasions," a release from the ACLU stated. At a news conference announcing the findings, plaintiff Lawrence Blackmon spoke about his experience with sheriff's department officials. He says deputies forced his way into his Canton home without a warrant one night looking for his cousin. "(They) made me lay face down on the floor and handcuffed me at gunpoint and proceeded to search my home for my cousin who I informed them was no longer living there at that time," Blackmon said. "I asked them to produce a warrant and they would not." Blackmon said this is one of many such incidents in his community. "(It was) another reminder of the fact that being black in Madison County oftentimes means that your constitutional rights can be disregarded by overzealous Madison County Sheriff's Department deputies," he said. Attorneys representing the sheriff's department have until May 8 to respond. [GN] MAGICJACK VOCALTEC: "Akerman" Suit Alleges Exchange Act Violation ----------------------------------------------------------------- Morris Akerman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. magicJack Vocaltec Ltd., Richard Harris, Yuen Wah Sing, Don C. Bell III, Izhak Gross, Tal Yaron-Eldar, and Alan B. Howe, Case No. 9:18-cv-80310 (S.D. Fla., March 9, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The federal securities class action seeks to enjoin the solicitation of shareholders' votes with respect to the approval of magicJack's acquisition by B. Riley Financial, Inc., a Delaware company and its wholly B.R. Acquisition Ltd., an Israeli company, which, if completed, will result in B. Riley acquiring magicJack. The Proposed Transaction proposes to unlawfully divest magicJack's public stockholders of valuable Company assets without fully disclosing all material information to them, says the complaint. As a result, stockholders are unable to make a fully informed decision whether to tender their shares in support of the Proposed Transaction or seek appraisal, in violation of the Exchange Act. Plaintiff Morris Akerman is, and has been at all times relevant hereto, a continuous stockholder of ordinary shares of magicJack stock. Defendant magicJack is a cloud communications leader that is the inventor of the magicJack devices and other magicJack products and services. The Company is incorporated in the State of Israel with principal executive offices at 12 Haomanut Street, 2ndN Floor Poleg Industrial Zone, Netanya, Israel 4250445. Its common stock is traded on the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC under the ticker symbol "CALL." Defendant maintains its principle place of business in the United States at 560 Village Blvd, Suite 120, West Palm Beach, Florida 33409. The Individual Defendants are members of magicJack's board of directors. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq. Michael J. Pascucci, Esq. EGGNATZ PASCUCCI 5400 S. University Drive, Ste. 417 Davie, FL 33328 Tel: (954) 889-3359 Fax: (954) 889-5913 E-mail: JEggnatz@JusticeEarned.com Mpascucci@JusticeEarned.com MANITOBA FLOOD: Court Approves $90MM Flood Class Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------- $90M Settlement for Flooded Manitoba First Nations: Notice of Settlement Approval To anyone who is a member of the Pinaymootang (Fairford), Little Saskatchewan, Lake St. Martin, or Dauphin River First Nations, who lived in Manitoba during the 2011 Flood: Settlement A Settlement Agreement has been reached and approved by the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench that settles the litigation involving the severe flooding in Manitoba in 2011 that led to the evacuation of and/or adverse conditions endured by members of the Pinaymootang (Fairford), Little Saskatchewan, Lake St. Martin, and Dauphin River First Nations. While not admitting wrongdoing, the Governments of Manitoba and Canada have agreed to pay $90,283,000.00. This amount includes lawyer ("Class Counsel") fees and expenses as well as Administration costs. All members of the Pinaymootang (Fairford), Little Saskatchewan, Lake St. Martin, and Dauphin River First Nations resident in Manitoba at the time of the 2011 flood can make claims for Disruption Payments and Special Circumstances compensation: Disruption Payments: For the disruption the Eligible Claimant endured on account of the 2011 Flood, including his/her evacuation, or, if not evacuated, the adverse conditions he/she was subjected to while remaining on reserve. These payments will be determined on a point system that takes into account the length of time an Eligible Claimant was evacuated and/or living under adverse conditions and whether or not the Eligible Claimant was resident on or off one of the Four First Nations reserves. Special Circumstances: Eligible Claimants may also apply for compensation in respect of personal property loss or damage, income loss and/or health care costs or personal injuries relating to the 2011 flooding that have not already been compensated. Because payments under the Settlement are based on the number of people that come forward to make claims, it is not possible to estimate the amounts Eligible Class Members may receive. Making A Claim In order to make a claim for benefits under the Settlement, Class Members must complete, sign and return a Claim Form to the Claims Administrator, along with any necessary supporting documents, postmarked or deposited by courier or delivered in person at various Workshops no later than July 17, 2018. Class Members must complete and submit a Claim Form by the deadline or he or she will not be able to participate in or share in the benefits available under the Settlement. Learning More The Court Office will NOT be able to answer questions about the matters in this Notice. If you have any questions regarding the Settlement Agreement or making a Claim, information is available by contacting the Claims Administrator at: Email: manitobaflood@ricepoint.com Call toll-free: 1-866-934-0509 IMPORTANT DATES: Claim Form Workshops: RBC Convention Centre (Winnipeg, MB): April 24 at 11 a.m. until 8 p.m. April 25 at 10 a.m. until 4 p.m. Gypsumville Hall (Gypsumville, MB): April 26 at 11 a.m. until 8 p.m. April 27 at 10 a.m. until 4 p.m. Claim Deadline: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 [GN] MANUFACTURERS AND TRADERS: Kennedy Seeks OT Pay under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------- JULIAN KENNEDY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff(s), v. MANUFACTURERS AND TRADERS TRUST COMPANY d/b/a M&T BANK, and M&T BANK CORP., a New York corporation, the Defendant(s), Case No. 505693/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., March 21, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act According to the complaint, pursuant to Defendants' common compensation policies and practices, Defendants have regularly suffered, permitted, encouraged, and/or required RBs, including Plaintiff, to work more than 40 hours in a workweek preparing for Licensing Exams, but have not paid them for all of their hours worked. Although Defendants have been aware that RBs work and have worked in excess of 40 hours preparing for Licensing Exams, Defendants have failed to ensure that this work time was properly recorded and compensated. M&T is one of the twenty largest commercial banks based in the United States. It operates more than 800 branches in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, Virginia, West Virginia, Washington, D.C., and Connecticut.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin M. Swartz, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 245 1000 Facsimile: (646) 509 2060 MARIE CALLENDER: "Carter" Suit Moved to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Ramon Carter, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Marie Callender Pie Shops, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. BC692819, was removed from the Los Angeles Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Western Division - Los Angeles) on Mar. 22 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-02351-DSF-GJS to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Dale S. Fischer. Marie Callender Pie Shops, LLC operates restaurants. The company offers various banquet menus, as well as facilities for business meetings, family gatherings or celebrations, parties, or special gatherings. It supports local schools.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Evan Jason Smith, Esq. BRODSKY AND SMITH LLC 9595 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 900 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 300 8425 Facsimile: (310) 247 0160 E-mail: esmith@brodskysmith.com Attorneys for Marie Callender Pie Shops, LLC: Mark L Eisenhut, Esq. Matthew R Orr, Esq. Michael S Orr, Esq. Ryan M McNamara, Esq. CALL AND JENSEN APC 610 Newport Center Drive Suite 700 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 717 3000 Facsimile: (949) 717 3100 E-mail: meisenhut@calljensen.com morr@calljensen.com msorr@calljensen.com rmcnamara@calljensen.com MCKESSON CORPORATION: Reeses Sue over Opioid Drug Sales ------------------------------------------------------- Deric Rees And Ceonda Rees, Individually And As Bext Friend And Guardian Of Baby T.W.B. On Behalf Of Themselves And All Others Similarly Situated, The Plaintiff, v. McKesson Corporation; Cardinal Health, Inc.; Amerisourcebergen Corportion; Purdue Pharma L.P.; Purdue Pharma, Inc.; The Purdue Frederick Company, Inc.; Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd.; Teva Pharmaceutical Usa, Inc.; Cephalon, Inc., Johnson & Johnson; Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Ortho-Mcneil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Janssen Pharmaceutica Inc. n/k/a Janssen Endo Health Solutions Inc.; Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Allergan Plc f/k/a Actavis Plc; Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. n/k/a Actavis, Inc., Watson Laboratorties, Inc., Actavis Llc; Actavis Pharma, Inc., f/k/a Watson Pharma, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00511 (S.D. Ill., Feb. 28, 2018), seeks injunctive relief, compensatory damages, statutory damages, and any other relief allowed by law against opioid drug distributors, retailers, and manufacturers that, by their actions and omissions, knowingly or negligently have distributed and dispensed prescription opioid drugs in a manner that foreseeably injured, Baby T.W.B. and the Class. According to the complaint, Defendants have foreseeably caused damages to Baby T.W.B. and Class members including the costs of neo-natal medical care additional therapeutic, prescription drug purchases and other treatments for NAS afflicted newborns, and counseling and rehabilitation services after birth and into the future.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James F. Clayborne, Esq. John E. Sabo, Esq. CLAYBORNE, SABO & WAGNER, LLP 525 West Maine Street, Suite 105 Belleville, IL, 62220 Telephone: (618) 239 0187 Facsimile: (618) 416 7556 E-mail: jclayborne@cswlawllp.com - and - Celeste Brustowitcz, Esq. Barry J. cooper, Esq. Stephen H. Wussow, Esq. Victor Cobb, Esq. THE COOPER LAW FIRM , LLC 1525 Religious Street New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 399 0009 E-mail: cbrustowicz@sch-llc.com - and - Anthony D. Gray, Esq. JOHNSON GRAY, LLC 319 North 4th Street, Suite 212 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 385 9500 Facsimile: (314) 594 2052 E-mail: agray@johnsongraylaw.com - and - Gary I. Blakman, Esq. LEVENFELD PEARLSTEIN, LLC 2 N LaSalle St. Suite 1300 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 476 7536 E-mail: gblackman@lplegal.com MDL 2741: "Pica" Suit vs. Monsanto Consolidated in N.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit titled Joseph Pica, the Plaintiff, v. Monsanto Company, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00318, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-01787-VC to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The Pica case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October 3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non- Hodgkin's lymphoma. Plaintiffs each allege that they or their decedents developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of several or more years. Plaintiffs also allege that the use of glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning general causation, the background science, and regulatory history will be common to all actions. In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is 3:16-md-02741- VC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN AND CROUPPEN P.C. One Metropolitan Square 211 N. Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222 2222 Facsimile: (314) 421 0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MEND HEALTH: Fails to Pay All Wages & Overtime, Ramos Says ---------------------------------------------------------- JOELLE RAMOS, individually, and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of other aggrieved employees pursuant to the California Private Attorney General Act, the Plaintiff, v. MEND HEALTH, INC., a California Corporation; UNITY HEALTH GROUP, INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. BC700783 (S.D. Fla., April 4, 2018), seeks to recover all wages earned and overtime wages under the California Labor Code. The Defendants have scheduled their non-exempt hourly employees to work an alternative workweek schedule consisting of three 12- hour shifts per week. The Defendants have never conducted an alternative workweek election in compliance with California Labor Code section 511. Nevertheless, Defendants do not pay their non- exempt employees one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of eight hours, up to and including 12 hours in any workday. Defendants also do not compensate nonexempt employees at double their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 12 hours in any workday. These practices have been in place throughout the relevant time period. As a result of Defendants' policies and practices, its hourly non-exempt employees have been wrongfully denied overtime compensation due to them under California Labor Code section 510. The Plaintiff alleges she has been wrongfully denied overtime compensation by Defendants during each pay period she has worked since the inception of her employment. Defendants' unlawful failure to pay overtime has resulted in its non-exempt employees receiving inaccurate wage statements and nonexempt employees who voluntarily or involuntarily end their employment with Defendants do not receive all wages earned at the time of separation. The Defendants have also maintained rest break policies that do not comply with their obligations under the Wage Orders and California Labor Code section 226.7. Despite regularly being scheduled for 12 or more hours in a workday, Defendants' non- exempt employees are provided with only one 10-minute rest break during a shift. The Defendants implemented a series of willful, systematic, and deliberate policies and practices that suppressed operating costs at the expense of employee rights set forth under the California Labor Code and the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sandeep J. Shah, Esq. Samir I. Sheth, Esq. SHAH SHETH LLP 650 Town Center Drive, Suite 1400 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (714) 955 4551 Facsimile: (714) 966 0663 E-mail: sandeep@shahshethlaw.com - and - Gregory P. Wong, Esq. ADEPT EMPLOYMENT LAW, APC 10880 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1101 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Telephone: (213) 505 6283 Facsimile: (213) 947 4584 E-mail: greg@adeptemploymentlaw.com METRO CHRYSLER: Brutus Seeks Minimum Wage & OT under Labor Law -------------------------------------------------------------- JEAN INES BRUTUS, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. METRO CHRYSLER PLYMOUTH, INC. d/b/a STAR CHRYSLER JEEP DODGE RAM and/or any other entities affiliated with or controlled by METRO CHRYSLER PLYMOUTH, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 153047/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., April 4, 2018), seeks to recover minimum wage and overtime compensation wages which Plaintiffs were contractually and statutorily entitled to receive pursuant to New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, Defendant paid its sales representative based on a flat rate of pay plus commission. The Defendant failed to ensure that sales representatives were paid at the lawful minimum wage rate and overtime compensation when they did not earn enough commission to reach the minimum wage and overtime compensation required under the New York Labor Law. The Defendant maintained a policy and practice of paying its sales representatives commissions at a lower rate than the agreed upon rate. The Defendant maintained a policy and practice of deducting monies from its sales representatives' commissions. The reduction of commissions by the imposition of these deductions was not agreed upon in writing with the sales representatives in violation of the NYLL.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff and the putative class: Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq. James Murphy, Esq. Alanna R. Sakovits, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP Joel Goldenberg, Esq. 40 Broad Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 943 9080 E-mail: jmurphy@vandallp.com MICRO FOCUS: Wolff Sues over Plunge in Stock Price -------------------------------------------------- FRITZ WOLFF, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. MICRO FOCUS INTERNATIONAL PLC, CHRISTOPHER HSU, STEPHEN MURDOCH, MIKE PHILLIPS, KEVIN LOOSEMORE, NILS BRAUCKMANN, KAREN SLATFORD, RICHARD ATKINS, AMANDA BROWN, SILKE SCHEIBER, DARREN ROOS, GISELLE MANON, JOHN SCHULTZ and DOES 1-25, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 18CIV01653 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 4, 2018), seeks to recover compensatory damages for Defendants' violations of the Securities Act of 1933. The case is a securities class action on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or acquired Micro Focus American Depositary Shares (ADSs) pursuant or traceable to the Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the merger of Micro Focus with Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company, and their subsidiaries, pursuant to which Micro Focus combined with the software business segment of HPE. This action asserts claims under the Securities Act of 1933 against Micro Focus and certain of the Company's executive officers, directors and authorized representatives. Micro Focus is a software development company. The Company helps organizations leverage existing information technology investments, enterprise applications and emerging technologies to address complex and evolving business requirements, including the protection of corporate information. The Company's legacy product line, termed its "Existing Products" segment, includes products in development and mainframe solutions, host connectivity, identity and access security, development and IT operations management tools, and collaboration and networking. The Company also has an open-source product portfolio, termed its "SUSE Products" segment, which provides interoperable Linux, cloud infrastructure and storage solutions. For the six months ended October 31, 2016, the Company's Existing Products and SUSE Products reporting segments generated $684 million in total revenue for the Company, with 78% of this revenue coming from Micro Focus's Existing Products portfolio. Of the $537.3 million in Existing Products revenues for the quarter, approximately $364.2 million came from maintenance services, $146.9 million from licensing, and $26.2 million from consultancy. On September 7, 2016, Micro Focus issued a press release announcing a proposed merger with HPE Software, the software business segment of HPE. The transaction was valued at $8.8 billion, which was larger than Micro Focus's market capitalization at the time and was projected to triple the Company's revenues. According to the deal terms, the Company would issue newly registered ADSs to shareholders of HPE as consideration in the Merger. Immediately following the completion of the Merger, HPE shareholders would own 50.1% of the fully diluted share capital of the combined company. In addition, HPE would receive $2.5 billion financed through newly incurred indebtedness of HPE Software, and Micro Focus shareholders would receive a $400 million return of value prior to completion. Then, on March 19, 2018, Micro Focus filed a trading update on Form 6-K which stated the Company's revenue declines had significantly accelerated. Specifically, Micro Focus lowered its constant currency revenue guidance for the twelve months ended October 31, 2018 to minus 6% to minus 9% compared to the prior year. This more than doubled the rate of revenue decline provided in the January Interim Update. The trading update also stated that the worsening revenue trends stemmed from disruption of former HP global customer accounts as a result of the de-merger of HP and HPE -- an event that occurred in November 2015 -- and that the Company had suffered ongoing sales execution issues, particularly in North America, as well as significant employee attrition. In addition, the trading update revealed that defendant Hsu had abruptly resigned from the Company, despite taking the helm as CEO only six~and-a-ha1f months previously and overseeing the Merger. On March 22, 2018, the price of Micro Focus ADS closed at $12.99 per ADS, representing a decline of more than 54% from the closing price of the ADS on the date of the Merger's close.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey D. Diamond, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JEFFREY D. DIAMOND 115 Perimeter Center Place South Terraces, Suite 425 Atlanta, GA 30346 Telephone: (770) 407 7303 Facsimile: (770) 407 7310 E-mail: jdiamond@diamlaw.corn - and - Corey D. Holzer, Esq. HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC 1200 AshWood Parkway, Suite 410 Atlanta, GA 30338 Telephone; (770) 392 0090 Facsimile: (770) 392 0029 E-mail: cholzer@falholzerlaw.com MIDLAND CREDIT: Slater Says Debts Collection Practices "Illegal" ---------------------------------------------------------------- NECHEMIA SLATER on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers Plaintiff, v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC, AND ENCORE CAPITAL GROUP, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01775 (E.D.N.Y., March 22, 2018), seeks redress for illegal practices of Midland Credit Management, Inc., Midland Funding, LLC, and Encore Capital Group, Inc. concerning the collection of debts, in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. On March 22, 2017, Defendants sent the Plaintiff a collection letter seeking to collect a balance allegedly incurred for personal purposes. The collection letter was confusing to the Plaintiff and is likely to be misconstrued by the "least sophisticated consumer" since it is open to more than one reasonable interpretation, at least one of which is inaccurate. The complaint cites the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Avila v. Riexinger & Assocs., LLC, 817 F.3d 72, 74 (2d Cir. 2016): "The question presented is whether a collection notice that states a consumer's "current balance," but does not disclose that the balance may increase due to interest and fees, complies with this provision. We hold that Section 1692e requires debt collectors, when they notify consumers of their account balance, to disclose that the balance may increase due to interest and fees." According to the complaint, the holding of the Second Circuit is that Section 1692e of the FDCPA requires every debt collector in every collection letter "to disclose that the balance may increase due to interest and fees". See Islam v. Am. Recovery Serv., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180415 ("If a collection letter is ambiguous as to interest, Avila holds, then it violates Sec.1692e. I recognize that ambiguity can be indicative of a misleading or deceptive communication. But Avila compels the conclusion that any ambiguity as to post-dated accruals in a collection notice gives rise to a claim under the general prohibition of section 1692e -- even if the ambiguity does no harm or even inures to the benefit of the debtor." Language such as the "current balance" or "as of the date of this letter" is insufficient disclosure to a debtor that her balance is either dynamic or static and such ambiguity violates the framework of Avila. Midland Credit Management, Inc. is engaged in the business of collecting or attempting to collect debts on behalf of Midland Funding, LLC as one of its principal areas of business. Encore Capital Group, Inc. is the parent company of Midland Credit Management, Inc. and Midland Funding, LLC. Defendants' principal place of business is located in San Diego, California. The Defendants are regularly engaged, for profit, in the collection of debts allegedly owed by consumers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam J. Fishbein, Esq. ADAM J. FISHBEIN, P.C. 735 Central Avenue Woodmere, New York 11598 Telephone: (516) 668 6945 E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com MIZUHO BANK: July 12 Hearing on $30MM Euroyen Settlement -------------------------------------------------------- Lowey Dannenberg, P.C. announced a settlement for those who have transacted in Euroyen-based derivatives between January 1, 2006 through June 30, 2011. If you transacted in Euroyen-Based Derivatives1 from January 1, 2006 through June 30, 2011, inclusive, then your rights will be affected and you may be entitled to a benefit. This Notice is only a summary of the Settlement and is subject to the terms of the Settlement Agreement2and other relevant documents (available as set forth below). The purpose of this Notice is to inform you of your rights in connection with a proposed settlement with Settling Defendants The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi, UFJ, Ltd. ("BTMU") and Mitsubishi UFJ Trust and Banking Corporation ("MUTB") in the actions titled Laydon v. Mizuho Bank Ltd., et al., 12-cv-3419 (GBD) (S.D.N.Y.) and Sonterra Capital Master Fund, Ltd., et al. v. UBS AG, et al., 15-cv-5844 (GBD) (S.D.N.Y.). The settlement with BTMU and MUTB ("Settlement") is not a settlement with any other Defendant and thus is not dispositive of any of Plaintiffs' claims against the remaining Defendants. The Settlement has been proposed in two class action lawsuits concerning the alleged manipulation of the London Interbank Offered Rate for Japanese Yen ("Yen LIBOR") and the Euroyen Tokyo Interbank Offered Rate ("Euroyen TIBOR") from January 1, 2006 through June 30, 2011, inclusive. The Settlement will provide $30 million to pay claims from persons who transacted in Euroyen- Based Derivatives from January 1, 2006 through June 30, 2011, inclusive. If you qualify, you may send in a Proof of Claim and Release form to potentially get benefits, or you can exclude yourself from the Settlement, or object to it. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (500 Pearl St., New York, NY 10007-1312) authorized this Notice. Before any money is paid, the Court will hold a Fairness Hearing to decide whether to approve the Settlement. Who Is Included? You are a member of the "Settlement Class" if you purchased, sold, held, traded, or otherwise had any interest in Euroyen- Based Derivatives at any time from January 1, 2006 through June 30, 2011, inclusive. Excluded from the Settlement Class are (i) the Defendants and any parent, subsidiary, affiliate or agent of any Defendant or any co-conspirator whether or not named as a defendant; and (ii) the United States Government. Contact your brokerage firm to see if you purchased, sold, held, traded, or otherwise had any interest in Euroyen-Based Derivatives. If you are not sure you are included, you can get more information, including the Settlement Agreement, Mailed Notice, Plan of Allocation, Proof of Claim and Release, and other important documents, at www.EuroyenSettlement.com ("Settlement Website") or by calling toll free 1-866-217-4453. What Is This Litigation About? Plaintiffs allege that each Defendant, from January 1, 2006 through June 30, 2011, inclusive, manipulated or aided and abetted the manipulation of Yen LIBOR, Euroyen TIBOR, and the prices of Euroyen-Based Derivatives. Defendants allegedly did so by using several means of manipulation. For example, panel banks that made the daily Yen LIBOR and/or Euroyen TIBOR submissions to the British Bankers' Association and Japanese Bankers' Association respectively (collectively, "Contributor Bank Defendants"), such as BTMU and MUTB, allegedly falsely reported their cost of borrowing in order to financially benefit their Euroyen-Based Derivatives positions. Contributor Bank Defendants also allegedly requested that other Contributor Bank Defendants make false Yen LIBOR and Euroyen TIBOR submissions on their behalf to benefit their Euroyen-Based Derivatives positions. Plaintiffs further allege that inter-dealer brokers, intermediaries between buyers and sellers in the money markets and derivatives markets (the "Broker Defendants"), had knowledge of, and provided substantial assistance to, the Contributor Bank Defendants' foregoing alleged manipulations of Euroyen-Based Derivatives in violation of Section 22(a)(1) of the Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. Sec. 25(a)(1). For example, Contributor Bank Defendants allegedly used the Broker Defendants to manipulate Yen LIBOR, Euroyen TIBOR, and the prices of EuroyenBased Derivatives by disseminating false "Suggested LIBORs," publishing false market rates on broker screens, and publishing false bids and offers into the market. Plaintiffs have asserted legal claims under various theories, including federal antitrust law, the Commodity Exchange Act, the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and common law. BTMU and MUTB have consistently and vigorously denied Plaintiffs' allegations. BTMU and MUTB entered into a Settlement Agreement with Plaintiffs, despite each believing that it is not liable for the claims asserted against it, to avoid the further expense, inconvenience, and distraction of burdensome and protracted litigation, thereby putting this controversy to rest and avoiding the risks inherent in complex litigation. What Does the Settlement Provide? Under the Settlement, BTMU and MUTB agreed to pay $30 million into a Settlement Fund. If the Court approves the Settlement, potential members of the Settlement Class who qualify and send in valid Proof of Claim and Release forms may receive a share of the Settlement Fund after they are reduced by the payment of certain expenses. The Settlement Agreement, available at the Settlement Website, describes all of the details about the proposed Settlement. The exact amount each qualifying Settling Class Member will receive from the Settlement Fund cannot be calculated until (1) the Court approves the Settlement; (2) certain amounts identified in the full Settlement Agreement are deducted from the Settlement Fund; and (3) the number of participating Class Members and the amount of their claims are determined. In addition, each Settling Class Member's share of the Settlement Fund will vary depending on the information the Settling Class Member provides on their Proof of Claim and Release form. The number of claimants who send in claims varies widely from case to case. If less than 100% of the Settlement Class sends in a Proof of Claim and Release form, you could get more money. How Do You Ask For a Payment? If you are a member of the Settlement Class, you may seek to participate in the Settlement by submitting a Proof of Claim and Release to the Settlement Administrator at the address provided on the Settlement Website postmarked no later than September 25, 2018. You may obtain a Proof of Claim and Release on the Settlement Website or by calling the toll-free number referenced above. If you are a member of the Settlement Class but do not timely file a Proof of Claim and Release, you will still be bound by the releases set forth in the Settlement Agreement if the Court enters an order approving the Settlement Agreement. If you timely submitted a Proof of Claim and Release pursuant to the class notice dated June 22, 2016 ("2016 Notice") related to the $58 million settlements with Defendants R.P. Martin Holdings Limited, Martin Brokers (UK) Ltd., Citigroup Inc., Citibank, N.A., Citibank Japan Ltd., Citigroup Global Markets Japan Inc., HSBC Holdings plc, and HSBC Bank plc or pursuant to the August 3, 2017 Notice, amended September 14, 2017 (the "2017 Notice") related to the $148 million settlements with Defendants Deutsche Bank AG, DB Group Services (UK) Ltd., JPMorgan Chase & Co., JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, and J.P. Morgan Securities plc, you do not have to submit a new Proof of Claim and Release to participate in this Settlement with BTMU and MUTB. Any member of the Settlement Class who previously submitted a Proof of Claim and Release in connection with the 2016 Notice or 2017 Notice will be subject to and bound by the releases set forth in the Settlement Agreement with BTMU and MUTB, unless such member submits a timely and valid request for exclusion, explained below. What Are Your Other Options? All requests to be excluded from the Settlement must be made in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Settlement Notice and must be postmarked to the Settlement Administrator no later than June 7, 2018. The Settlement Notice, available at the Settlement Website, explains how to exclude yourself or object. All requests for exclusion must comply with the requirements set forth in the Settlement Notice to be honored. If you exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by the Settlement Agreement and can independently pursue claims at your own expense. However, if you exclude yourself, you will not be eligible to share in the Net Settlement Fund or otherwise participate in the Settlement. The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing in these cases on July 12, 2018, to consider whether to approve the Settlement and a request by the lawyers representing all members of the Settlement Class (Lowey Dannenberg, P.C.) for an award of attorneys' fees of no more than twenty-three percent (23%) of the Settlement Fund for investigating the facts, litigating the case, and negotiating the settlement, and for replenishment of the litigation fund created to reimburse their costs and expenses in the amount of no more than $500,000. The lawyers for the Settlement Class may also seek additional reimbursement of fees, costs, and expenses in connection with services provided after the Fairness Hearing. These payments will also be deducted from the Settlement Fund before any distributions are made to the Settlement Class. You may ask to appear at the Fairness Hearing, but you do not have to. For more information, call toll free 1-866-217-4453 or visit the website www.EuroyenSettlement.com. 1 "Euroyen-Based Derivatives" means (i) a Euroyen TIBOR futures contract on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange ("CME"); (ii) a Euroyen TIBOR futures contract on the Tokyo Financial Exchange, Inc. ("TFX"), Singapore Exchange ("SGX"), or London International Financial Futures and Options Exchange ("LIFFE") entered into by a U.S. Person, or by a Person from or through a location within the U.S.; (iii) a Japanese Yen currency futures contract on the CME; (iv) a Yen LIBOR- and/or Euroyen TIBOR-based interest rate swap entered into by a U.S. Person, or by a Person from or through a location within the U.S.; (v) an option on a Yen LIBOR and/or Euroyen TIBORbased interest rate swap ("swaption") entered into by a U.S. Person, or by a Person from or through a location within the U.S.; (vi) a Japanese Yen currency forward agreement entered into by a U.S. Person, or by a Person from or through a location within the U.S.; and/or (vii) a Yen LIBOR and/or Euroyen TIBOR-based forward rate agreement entered into by a U.S. Person, or by a Person from or through a location within the U.S. 2 The "Settlement Agreement" means the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement with The Bank of TokyoMitsubishi, UFJ, Ltd. ("BTMU") and Mitsubishi UFJ Trust and Banking Corporation ("MUTB") entered into on January 23, 2018. MONAT GLOBAL: Company Faces Four Class Action Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------ Darcy Spears, writing for 13 Action News, reports that MONAT, which is short for Modern Nature, claims they are number one. "We know that we are the number one hair care brand," said co- founder Rayner Urdaneta in a Facebook live video. "We're selling more than any other brand that you can think of." They've commissioned independent clinical testing and report hundreds of thousands of happy customers. "People who sit at their door waiting for their MONAT products each and every month," said company President Stuart MacMillan on Facebook. But Co-Founders Rayner and Luis Urdanta say their success has made them a target for critics who are jealous. "And that's kind of why we're here today," MacMillan explained in the video. "That's why we want to fight back." MONAT has refused our repeated requests for on-camera interviews with corporate executives. We interviewed a spokesman over the phone for our stories, and after they aired, MONAT posted a nearly hour-long Facebook live video to their multi-level marketing sales force. "I kinda took a peek at the latest story that came out and honestly, it's hard for us not to get upset," MacMillan said. Four class action lawsuits have been filed since February. The most recent on March 13 in Oklahoma. And a fifth is brewing in Canada. The suits allege "False and deceptive advertising, concealment of true risks and side effects and intimidation of critics." In court records, in Facebook groups with thousands of members and in on-camera interviews, consumers across the country report balding, scalp sores and substantial hair loss after using MONAT. The FDA is also assessing nearly 200 adverse event reports. Said MacMillan, "We're okay if our product doesn't work for you. Because frankly not all products work for everybody. And you know what? There may be times when there is something in our product that you might have an allergic reaction to. And we're fine with that too. But what we won't stand for is people bullying our field, maligning our products." They've sued several stylists and accused us of being biased because of Las Vegas stylist Toni Miller. "The only hair transformation that I am seeing with my clients is hair loss," Miller said. Miller's daughter works at 13 Action News. MONAT sued Miller for defamation three and a half weeks after we first spoke with her and began our investigation. "You never wanted to say you were having a bad reaction to MONAT because of what would happen. People jump on you," said former Market Partner Erin Ostby. She stopped selling MONAT after her hair began falling out. She's seen first-hand the online backlash and victim blaming and shaming. After our story, MONAT prompted its market partners to flood social media. "#MONAThaircare, because the positive posts, you just keep flooding the zone," MacMillan said. As the video ends, MacMillan says, "We're throwing out a public invitation in the spirit of transparency that if any reporter wants to hear the MONAT story, we invite them here to Miami. We'll pay their airfare and their hotel. So if you know any reporters that want to do a story, we'll do it. Come on down! 13 Action News would like to note that it's a serious ethics violation for a journalist to accept a company-sponsored trip. When we said we'd pay our own way to Florida, they said the invitation did not extend to us. [GN] MONAT GLOBAL: Federman & Sherwood Files Class Action ---------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Federman & Sherwood filed a proposed class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against Monat Global Corp. The lawsuit alleges that MONAT has misled consumers about the safety and characteristics of MONAT hair care products. If you wish to discuss this action, obtain further information and participate in this litigation, or should you have any questions or concerns regarding this notice, please contact Robin Hester at rkh@federmanlaw.com or visit our firm's website www.federmanlaw.com. Robin Hester, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD Tel: (405) 235-1560 Email: rkh@federmanlaw.com [GN] MULTI-STATE LOTTERY: Class Suit Seeks Money Due to Rigged System ---------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Dasilva, writing for Who TV News, reports that "How do you go about rigging a lottery?" asked Gus Fritschie at DEF CON 25. "Obviously, you become a lottery developer, write code, and have your friends buy the winning numbers," he continued, answering his own question. That's what Eddie Tipton did, but he got caught, in large part because he bought one of the tickets himself in a store that had video and audio surveillance. But before he was caught and convicted, the then-head of IT at the Multi-State Lottery Association scammed millions of dollars in jackpots in numerous states, creating one of the largest lottery scams ever. It's because Tipton rigged the system that Antoinett McGregor isn't confident everything is on the up and up with the lottery anymore. "I don't play the lottery anymore because of the man stealing the money," said McGregor. "I used to play a lot, but why play if you know you're not gonna win?" But John Lee Miller Sr. isn't going to let the Tipton situation deter him from playing the lotto. "Well, you know, everybody's still playing," he said. "There's one bad apple in every bunch. So, you know, thank God he got caught." Gary Dickey, Esq. -- gary@dickeycampbell.com -- Managing Member of Dickey & Campbell Law Firm in Des Moines, is suing the Multi- State Lottery Association. "Anybody who purchased a lottery ticket is guaranteed, according to the rules of the game, to have a random drawing," said Dickey. "And what we know from Eddie Tipton's circumstances is that in certain games, that is not what they were given." Dickey is representing a Burlington, Iowa, resident seeking a class action lawsuit on behalf of all players who were cheated out of potential lottery winnings. "As part of our litigation, we've asserted that because of Eddie Tipton's actions, that the lottery games were rigged and therefore people should be entitled to get their money back," said Dickey. Dickey says the public should be concerned about the integrity of lotto drawings, but the Iowa Lottery says its games are fair and offer everyone the same shot at winning. "I know here at the Iowa Lottery, that this case proved to be our best day in the end," said Mary Neubauer. "In terms of the information that we learned from it and the improvements that we were able to make." Neubauer says there are greater checks and balances that have been put in place, such as greater separation of duties and more detailed processes within drawings themselves. She could not reveal much beyond that, though, as she said it would be like giving away the keys to the kingdom.[GN] NEW YORK JETS: Class-Action Lawsuit Over Personal Seat Licenses --------------------------------------------------------------- Tom Nobile, writing for North Jersey, reports that a class-action lawsuit has been filed against the New York Jets after they announced that licenses would no longer be required to buy season tickets in MetLife Stadium's mezzanine section -- a decision that renders the costly licenses "entirely or substantially worthless," according to the suit. Saddle Brook attorney Jeffrey Herrmann, Esq. filed the suit March 16 in Superior Court on behalf of a longtime Jets fan from Connecticut who paid $8,000 in personal seat license fees for two seats in 2010. The suit aims to recoup the license fees paid by his client and other fans who bought licenses for some 5,000 second-level seats in MetLife Stadium. The Jets organization had previously represented to fans that buying the seat licenses was the only way to obtain season tickets in the stadium's 200-level seating, according to the suit. However, the Jets said this year that non-license holders would also be allowed to buy season tickets. "In essence, the actions of the Jets have offset the value of PSLs," said Herrmann. The lawsuit names as defendants the New York Jets LLC, along with Jets Stadium Development, the company that co-owns and operates MetLife Stadium with the New York Giants NFL franchise. It accuses the Jets of breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and of violating the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty And Notice Act. A Jets spokesperson declined to comment March 16. The Jets organization had required the purchase of personal seat licenses as a pre-condition to buying season tickets for seats in the lower and middle decks, initially done to help finance a new stadium in 2010, the suit states. The licenses, however, have declined steadily in value since the 2009-10 football season, some dropping from $25,000 to $4,500 in the lower seating areas. In January, the organization announced that license holders will continue to receive access and discounts to exclusive events, such as Jets House and Taste of the Jets. Current mezzanine license holders will also have the opportunity to upgrade to lower-level seats for no additional fee. [GN] NEW ZEALAND: Law Professor Advises Checkpoint Targets to Sue ------------------------------------------------------------ Matt Stewart And Tom Hunta, writing for Stuff, reports that a law professor is advising the Wellington women stopped at an illegal breath-testing checkpoint to take a class action against police for breaching their rights. Otago University professor Andrew Geddis' comments came after the Independent Police Conduct Authority found on March 15 that police were not justified in using the illegal checkpoint to target people who had attended a euthanasia meeting in Lower Hutt. The targets, mostly elderly women, had been attending the Exit International meeting on the afternoon of October 2, 2016, which police had bugged. They were then stopped at the roadblock and, before being asked to blow into the breathalyser, were made to give their names and addresses to police, and show their driver's licences. The police operation, codenamed Painter, was triggered in August 2016 as part of an inquiry into the death of 77-year-old Annemarie Treadwell, who had taken pentobarbitone, a controlled drug used to euthanise animals. It led to the prosecution of Lower Hutt woman Susan Austen on a charge of aiding Treadwell's suicide. She was acquitted by a jury in Wellington in February. After the release of the IPCA report on March 15, Geddis tweeted: "Well, if I were one of those stopped, I'd be getting my lawyer to ask the police how much they're going to give me for breaching my [NZ Bill of Rights Act] rights ... and readying a class action if they aren't forthcoming." Linda Young, who was one of those stopped at the checkpoint, said the "appalling" episode had left her sleepless and eroded her confidence in police. "When we've got domestic violence rampaging, and youth suicide needing attention, we've got this complete waste of time going on." She said she had not considered a class action against police, "but perhaps I should" -- though she added she was not in the financial position to do so. "I'd rather assumed it was the end of the matter when we received this tepid apology from the police." Austen said she was keeping out of the matter, but was pleased with the IPCA finding. "People should be allowed to go to a meeting in someone's home without the fear of being stopped unlawfully." Austen's lawyer, Donald Stevens, QC, said he was concerned police had set up the checkpoint without seeking legal advice, or considering whether it was appropriate or lawful. Exit International director Philip Nitschke said from Amsterdam that he welcomed the report's findings. "Wellington is not Moscow, and the police are not the KGB. Such underhand and downright dishonest tactics have no place in New Zealand civil society. "It is unthinkable in this day and age that the police can operate in such a subversive and dishonest manner and get away with it." In its report, IPCA chairman Judge Colin Doherty found that police powers to stop vehicles were allowed only for the purposes of enforcing land transport legislations. The checkpoint was not for that purpose, and was therefore unlawful. "Police should have recognised that they had no power to stop vehicles in these circumstances. It was an illegitimate use of police power that unlawfully restricted the right of citizens to freedom of movement." Assistant Commissioner Bill Searle said police accepted the findings. "We accept that establishing a vehicle checkpoint to identify meeting attendees was unlawful. However, our staff acted in order to protect life and did not intentionally break the law." The Office of the Privacy Commissioner also launched an investigation after receiving complaints from those attending the meeting. Privacy Commissioner John Edwards said the checkpoint had unlawfully and unfairly collected personal information, harming some of the people affected. [GN] NEXEN CORP: Hegedus Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- ANTHONY HEGEDUS, JUSTIN WELCH, JONATHAN OGNIAN, and BRYANT LOWE, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated, known and unknown v. NEXEN CORPORATION, a Michigan for-profit corporation, STEVEN KIRKA, a natural person, AMAZON.COM DEDC LLC, a Michigan for-profit corporation, and AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware for-profit corporation, Case No. 2:18-cv-10798-MOB-MKM (E.D. Mich., March 9, 2018), seeks to recover the benefits due to the Plaintiffs and the class under the Fair Labor Standards Act arising from the Defendants' alleged failure to pay minimum wages and the overtime wage premium. Nexen is a for-profit Michigan company. Steven Kirka is an owner and officer of Nexen. Nexen is a subcontracting company that contracted with Amazon to provide local truck driving and delivery services to Amazon's retail customers and to local post offices. Amazon.com Inc. is a Delaware Limited Liability Company and is one of the largest Internet retailers in the world. Amazon.com DEDC LLC is a Washington company and is a sister company of Amazon. Amazon offers a range of products and services through its Web sites.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bryan Yaldou, Esq. Leah Seliger, Esq. Omar Badr, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF BRYAN YALDOU, PLLC 23000 Telegraph, Suite 5 Brownstown, MI 48134 Telephone: (734) 692-9200 Facsimile: (734) 692-9201 E-mail: bryan@yaldoulaw.com leah@yaldoulaw.com Ted@Yaldoulaw.com NHL: Judge to Decide if Concussion Lawsuit is Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Bill Hudson, writing for CBS Minnesota, reports that there is no question that professional hockey leaves players battered and bruised. What is uncertain is whether the concussions resulting from fights and heavy body checks result in disabling and life altering brain injuries? Some 150 former players have filed suit against the National Hockey League, claiming that the league thrived on the violence - - but did little to warn players of the long-term effects. "We just want to help the guys who need medical monitoring or medical help," said Reed Larson, a retired NHL star and Minnesota native. Larson played 14 NHL seasons and says he suffered at least four concussions over his career. He is among the retired players demanding medical monitoring of brain injury symptoms, and eventually compensation for losses and future medical costs. "God forbid nobody wants it, and no amount of money will help if you get over it," Larson said. "Families have been ruined, players ruined and players were promoted, the violence was promoted." The league is fighting plaintiffs demand to consider all claims in a single class action lawsuit. Plaintiff's attorneys contend that hearing cases individually would make it impossible to force the league to monitor players for brain disease. NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman has gone so far as to call the player's lawsuit, "Without merit." League attorneys did not want to appear on camera to answer questions about the case. Plaintiff's lawyers say the evidence linking concussions with long-term brain disease is clear. They told Federal Judge Susan Richard Nelson that certifying the lawsuit a class action is the "best and most efficient way to adjudicate the case." [GN] NORTHEAST CREDIT: Faces Class Suit Over Overdraft Fees ------------------------------------------------------ Elizabeth Dinan, writing for Fosters News, reports that a federal judge has paved the way for a class action lawsuit to proceed against Northeast Credit Union, based on allegations that it imposes overdraft fees using customers' "available balance," as opposed to "actual" or "ledger balance." The difference, U.S. District Court Judge Joseph DiClerico wrote in a March 7 order, is that available balances "can be less, and even considerably less," than customers' actual balances. The judge's order reports the discrepancy is due to how Northeast Credit Union (NECU) credits customers' deposits and reduces their balances for pending but not-yet paid debts. The credit union is headquartered at 100 Borthwick Ave. in Portsmouth and has 16 New Hampshire branches, according to the lawsuit. The lawsuit was filed against NECU in the U.S. District Court of New Hampshire by Joseph Walbridge of Milton, who is represented by attorney Sean O'Connell, Esq., from the Dover branch of the Shaheen and Gordon law firm. O'Connell did not return Seacoast Media Group's request for comment. The lawsuit claims overdraft fees are the "primary fee generators" for banks and credit unions and in 2009, $37 billion was generated through overdraft fees based on debit purchases and ATM transactions. "For credit unions such as NECU, overdraft fees are a major source of revenue and a profit center," the suit alleges, while citing a Georgetown Law study reporting 6 to 7 percent of credit union profits are derived from overdraft fees. Representing the credit union as lead attorney is Russell Hilliard, Esq., from the Portsmouth firm of Upton and Hatfield. Hillard, in a written statement said, "Northeast, like all credit unions, is a member-owned, volunteer-governed, not-for-profit financial cooperative that exists to serve its members. Northeast has and will respond to the allegations in the federal lawsuit through appropriate pleadings, including an answer to be filed next week. Northeast Credit Union follows all rules and regulations relative to overdrafts as established by the National Credit Union Administration and the Federal Reserve." Walbridge filed a 6-count federal suit against NECU and 100 of its agents or subsidiaries (identified as Does 1-100), claiming he was improperly assessed overdraft fees. His suit seeks to included anyone who incurred overdraft fees by NECU for a time period to be determined. Walbridge alleges he had an actual checking account balance of $111.09, when he made a $32.43 debit card payment, but was found by NECU to have insufficient funds and was assessed three $32 overdraft fees. The federal judge's order agreed with NECU that three of the counts in the lawsuit should be dismissed. The judge's order also allows three other counts with allegations against NECU to proceed. One of the counts the judge allowed alleges NECU breached its "opt-in agreement," an overdraft protection service that states NECU pays debts if there are insufficient funds, for a fee. The judge noted the agreement does not explain what is meant by the words, "When you do not have enough money in your account to cover a transaction." NECU did not use the words "available balance" in the contract, but instead used the phrases "enough money," "insufficient funds" and "non-sufficient funds," according to the court order. The judge wrote that NCU "has not shown that the only reasonable meaning" of the terms in the agreement is available balance, therefore that claim is allowed to proceed through the legal process. The lawsuit's two counts that allege NECU breached its account contract, as well as "implied duty of good faith and fair dealing," may also proceed through the litigation process, the judge ruled. The first count alleges NECU stated it would provide overdraft protection when transactions were for "more money than you have in your account," with no mention made of it including pending transactions in the calculation. The second count alleges NECU created an "artificial balance when determining whether to assess an overdraft fee." The federal court scheduled a 2-week trial to commence Sept. 4, 2019.[GN] NORWEGIAN AIR: Mazzini et al. Sue over Cancelled, Delayed Flights ----------------------------------------------------------------- BRIDGET MAZZINI, PATRICIA J. PAWLAK, and JOESEPH ANDRIS on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. NORWEGIAN AIR SHUTTLE ASA, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv- 01574-KAW (N.D. Cal., March 13, 2018), seeks to recover damages caused by Defendant's breach of contract claims on behalf of California residents who had confirmed reservations on airplane flights with the Defendant. Norwegian Air incorporated into its contracts with its passengers Regulation No. 261/2004 of the European Parliament and European Council; and contractually bound itself to provide care and compensation in accordance with EC 261 to passengers whose flights are delayed or cancelled. As incorporated into Norwegian Air's contracts, EC 261 requires Norwegian Air to pay not less than EUR600 to each passenger whose flight is cancelled, or is delayed by more than four hours; and to pay not less than EUR300 to each passenger whose flight is delayed by more than three, but less than four, hours. In addition, as incorporated into Norwegian Air's contracts, EC 261 requires Norwegian Air to provide passengers with written notice of their rights to care and compensation at the time that a flight is cancelled or delayed. The lawsuit contends that Norwegian Air has breached its contractual obligations to a class of California residents with reservations on flights that were cancelled or delayed by failing to provide them with the required written notice of their rights; and by failing to pay them the EC 261 compensation that it agreed to pay. Norwegian Air also has breached its contractual obligations to a class of California residents who had reservations to fly in the "premium" section of Norwegian Air flights that were cancelled; and who Norwegian Air ultimately placed on alternate flights not providing premium service. Under the terms of Norwegian Air's contacts, it was required to refund to such passengers all charges imposed for premium service. Norwegian Air has failed to do so. Norwegian Air, trading as Norwegian, is a Norwegian low-cost airline. It is the third largest low-cost carrier in Europe and the sixth largest low-cost airline in the world.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated: Gordon W. Renneisen, Esq. Harry G. Lewis, Esq. CORNERSTONE LAW GROUP 351 California Street, Suite 600 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 625 5025 Facsimile: (415) 655 8236 E-mail: grenneisen@cornerlaw.com hlewis@cornerlaw.com OHM GROUP: "Alom" Suit Alleges FLSA and NYLL Violations ------------------------------------------------------- Jahan Alom, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. OHM Group LLC, RLH Corp., AMR Development LLC, and Rajendra Patel, Case No. 1:18-cv-01503 (E.D. N.Y., March 12, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Plaintiff Jahan Alom was employed as a housekeeper for the Defendants and performed his job duties both at the physical premises of Americas Best Value Inn and Hotel Omega, according to the instructions and schedules provided by Defendant Patel. Defendant RLH grants franchises to operate Americas Best Value Inn motels nationwide including in the State of New York. Defendant OHM is a franchisee of RLH and operates Americas Best Value Inn located at 1705 Linden Blvd., Brooklyn, NY 11212. AMR is a corporation doing business as Hotel Omega located at 27 Pennsylvania Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11207. Defendants OHM and AMR are, in turn, owned and managed by Individual Defendant Rajendra Patel. RLH, OHM, AMR and Patel were joint employers of Plaintiff and/or operated as a single integrated enterprise. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ariadne Panagopoulou, Esq. PARDALIS & NOHAVICKA, LLP 3510 Broadway, Suite 201 Astoria, NY 11106 Tel: (718) 777-0400 Fax: (718) 777-0599 PACIFIC VIAL: Fails to Pay OT & Minimum Wages, Barragan Says ------------------------------------------------------------ BLANCA PAOLA BARRAGAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PACIFIC VIAL MFG., INC., a California corporation; ESG PERSONNEL LEASING INC., a Nevada corporation; TS EMPLOYMENT, INC., a Florida corporation, BUZY BODIES, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC700908 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 4, 2018), seeks to recover overtime wages and minimum wages under the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Defendants have had a consistent policy of failing to pay wages, including minimum and overtime wages, to Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees in the State of California in violation of California state wage and hour laws as a result of, including but not limited to, unevenly rounding time worked. Pacific Vial Manufacturing, Inc. manufactures glass container products. The Company offers screw thread glass, test tubes, medical supplies, and ampoules products. Pacific Vial Manufacturing serves its clients in the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mehrdad Bokhour, Esq. Dayana R. Pelayo, Esq. BOKHOUR LAW GROUP, P.C. 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 450 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 975 1493 Facsimile: (310) 300 1705 E-mail: mehrdad@bokhourlaw.com dayana@bokhourlaw.com PACTIV LLC: Refuses to Pay All Wages to Class, "Ceniceros" Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- MARCELINO CENICEROS, and JESUS CABRAL, individually, and on behalf of similarly situated individuals v. PACTIV, LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-01759 (N.D. Ill., March 9, 2018), alleges that the Defendant has willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the Illinois Wage Payment Collection Act by intentionally failing and refusing to pay the Plaintiffs and putative class members all compensation due them over the course of the last several years. The Plaintiffs and putative class members all are hourly factory workers dedicated to manufacturing the Defendant's primary product: Reynold's Plastic Wrap. Pactiv LLC manufactures and distributes food packaging and foodservice products. The Company offers containers; cutlery, plates, platters, and bowls; hot and cold beverage cups, lids, straws, and beverage carriers; plastic wraps and aluminum foils; and school, carry, processor, and meat and poultry trays. The Company offers products for various applications, such as beverage, take-out, deli, HMR, bakery, food preparation, and processor packaging, as well as sustainable, tableware, and catering products.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Sean C. Starr, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SEAN C. STARR 540 W. Frontage Road, Suite 3020 Northfield, IL 60093 Telephone: (773) 368-9930 PCL CIVIL: N.Carolina Islands Power Outage Could Yield $10MM Deal ----------------------------------------------------------------- 13newsnow reports that a preliminary settlement would allow those who lost power for days last summer on two North Carolina islands to divvy up more than $10 million. News outlets report that documents filed in federal court show that PCL Civil Constructors would pay $8.1 million to businesses and $2.25 million to the permanent residents and renters on Hatteras and Ocracoke islands. Late last July, underwater electric transmission cables were inadvertently cut, prompting the mandatory evacuation of 50,000 visitors from the two Outer Banks islands. The outage lasted from July 27 until Aug. 3. A class-action lawsuit filed within days said those on the islands suffered damages including financial loss, stress and anxiety. PCL denied wrongdoing in the settlement documents. The settlement awaits final approval from a federal judge.[GN] PETROLEO BRASILEIRO: Payout Triggers Deep 4Q Loss ------------------------------------------------- Reuters reports that Brazilian oil company Petroleo Brasileiro SA (PETR4.SA) posted a deep fourth-quarter loss, missing estimates due to a massive payout to shareholders in a class action settlement. Petrobras, as the state-controlled company is known, posted a net loss of 5.48 billion reais ($1.68 billion), according to a securities filing, down from a 2.51 billion real profit during the same period last year. The average estimate in a Thomson Reuters survey of analysts was for a 294 million reais profit. Petrobras shares fell 2 percent in Sao Paulo, as the stock retreated from a more than three-year high last week. Adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) slid 32 percent from a year earlier to 12.986 billion reais in the final three months of the year. Free cash flow in the quarter was 6.608 billion reais, well below the 14.734 billion reais achieved in the July to September period. Net debt at the world's most indebted oil company was stable from the third to the fourth quarter. Low cash flow generation "illustrates Petrobras' limited ability to deliver a steeper deleveraging process in a $50-55 per barrel Brent price environment, assuming no further asset divestments," Goldman Sachs said in a client note, describing its view of the results as neutral. Petrobras narrowed its 12-month net loss to 446 million reais in 2017 from the 14.824 billion hole in 2016, but still posted its fourth straight annual net loss. The world's most indebted oil company said that without the extraordinary expenses, it would have reached a net profit of 7.089 billion reais in the year. "The class action impacted results, but it was important to eliminate the uncertainty that this could have had on our results . . . we have worked very hard to solve contingent liabilities," Petrobras Chief Executive Officer Pedro Parente said. The settlement, announced in January, was a milestone for the oil company as it seeks to emerge from a scandal over a massive corruption scheme, in which Petrobras executives and contractors conspired to inflate prices and bilk the company of billions. Petrobras has denied wrongdoing. The bribery scheme has entangled two former Brazilian presidents and dozens of the country's corporate executives. Executives reported on the company's efforts to recover fuel market share. Petrobras's share of the gasoline market slid to 77 percent in February, from 83 percent last year and 90 percent in 2016. However, its share of the diesel market rose slightly to 79 percent from 74 percent last year but remained down from 83 percent in 2016. In January, Petrobras said it was developing a new gasoline and diesel contract model to improve its relationship with customers and boost sales, but it did not provide details. [GN] PICON PENZINI: "Callejas" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Ricardo Callejas, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Picon Penzini Catering, LLC dba The Sandwich Shop, Clarisa Penzini and Ricardo Picon, Case No. 1:18-cv-01496 (E.D. N.Y., March 10, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post- judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Ricardo Callejas was employed by Defendants in Kings County, New York, to work as a sandwich-maker, for Defendants' restaurant known as "The Sandwich Shop" from on or about October 27, 2017, continuously through February 26, 2018. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant known as "The Sandwich Shop" located at 658A Grand Street, Brooklyn, New York 11211. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Cilenti, Esq. Peter H. Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 708 Third Avenue - 61h Floor New York, NY 10017 Tel: (212) 209-3933 Fax: (212) 209-7102 E-mail: pcooper@jcpclaw.com QUALCOMM INC: "Evans" Suit Alleges Breaches of Fiduciary Duty ------------------------------------------------------------- James Evans, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated stockholders v. Qualcomm Incorporated et al., Case No. 2018-0164 (Del. Ch., March 8, 2018), is brought against the board of directors of Qualcomm for breaches of fiduciary duty. This class action on behalf of Qualcomm stockholders challenges an unprecedented attempt by incumbent directors to have the United States federal government preclude stockholders of a Delaware corporation from electing independent directors, including U.S. citizens, to replace incumbent Board members. Plaintiff James Evans is and at all relevant times has been a stockholder of Qualcomm. Defendant Qualcomm is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal executive offices located at 5775 Morehouse Drive, San Diego, California 92121. Qualcomm develops and commercializes technologies and products used in mobile devices and other wireless products, including network equipment, broadband gateway equipment and consumer electronic devices. Shares of Qualcomm's common stock trade on the NASDAQ Global Select Market under the symbol "QCOM." As of January 8, 2018, Qualcomm had 1,480,385,450 shares of common stock outstanding. The Individual Defendants are the board of directors of Qualcomm. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Hanrahan, Esq. Paul A. Fioravanti, Jr., Esq. Corinne Elise Amato, Esq. Eric J. Juray, Esq. PRICKETT, JONES & ELLIOTT, P.A. 1310 N. King Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Tel: (302) 888-6500 QUDIAN INC: "Song" Suit Alleges Misleading IPO Documents -------------------------------------------------------- INGEUN SONG, Individually and on Behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. QUDIAN INC., MIN LUO, CARL YEUNG, LIANZHU LV, YI CAO, SHILEI LI, LI DU, CHAO ZHU, TIANYU ZHU, DIANA ARIAS, MORGAN STANLEY & CO. INTERNATIONAL PLC, CREDIT SUIS SE SECURITIES (USA) LLC, CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., CHINA INTERNATIONAL CAPITAL CORPORATION HONG KONG SECURITIES LIMITED, UBS SECURITIES LLC, STIFEL, NICOLAUS & COIVIPANY, INC., NEEDHAM & COMPANY, LLC, and NOMURA SECURITIES INTERNATIONAL, IN C., the Defendants, Case No 18CIV01425 (Cal. Super. Ct., March 21, 2018), is a securities class action on behalf of all persons other than Defendants who purchased Qudian American Depositary Shares in or traceable to the Company's October 18, 2017 initial public offering. Qudian is a lending company which provides online credit products including funds in digital form and merchandise credit products. The Company serves customers in China. In 2015, Qudian established a strategic partnership with Ant Financial, one of its principal shareholders. Alipay, operated by Ant Financial, is a leading online and mobile third -- party payment service provider in China. The Company engages the majority of its active borrowers through the Alipay consumer interface, which has significantly contributed to the Company's rapid growth. The Company also collaborates with Zhima Credit, a credit assessment service provider operated by Ant Financial. Following Qudian's partnership with Ant Financial, its number of active borrowers grew from only 250,000 in September 2015 to more than 5.5 million by June 2017. The Company took a number of steps leading up to its IPO to reassure investors that it had minimized regulatory risk and that its rapid growth rate was the product of legitimate and sustainable business practices. For example, while historically the Company also provided peer-to-peer and campus credit lending services, these services were phased out in the months preceding the IPO, partly in a response to increased governmental regulations and a ban on online lending to college students initiated by the Chinese government. In addition, the Company capped its APR at 36%, obtained licenses for online small-credit business and claimed that it employed user -- friendly collection methods, such as non-threatening text and telephone reminders. On September 18, 2017, Qudian filed a registration statement on Form F-l with the SEC for the IPO. After several amendments the registration statement was declared effective on October 17, 2017. The following day, Qudian filed a prospectus for the IPO on Form 424B4 which incorporated and formed part of the Registration Statement. Together, the Registration Statement and Prospectus were used to sell to the investing public approximately 37.5 million Qudian ADSs, representing 37.5 million Qudian Class A ordinary shares, at $24 per share thereby raising net proceeds of approximately $900 million. The Registration Statement was negligently prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material fact, omitted material facts necessary to make the statements contained therein not misleading, and failed to make adequate disclosures required under the rules and regulations governing the preparation of such documents.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 785 2610 Facsimile: (213) 226 4684 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com QUEBEC: Negotiations Stall in Highway 13 Blizzard Suit ------------------------------------------------------ Charlie Fidelman, writing for Montreal Gazette, reports that the provincial government is willing, but the city of Montreal said no, lawyer Marc-Antoine Cloutier, Esq. -- macloutier@deveau.qc.ca -- said March 14. In November, a Quebec Superior Court judge gave the green light to a class-action lawsuit against the city and province. Quebec's Transport Ministry, the Surete du Quebec and the Societe de l'assurance automobile du Quebec (SAAQ) are also named as defendants. Two thousand claimants are seeking $2,500 apiece in damages for a total of $5 million. Many were trapped in the cold without food or water for up to 14 hours, and some needed access to regular medication. Those who ran out of gas also ran out of heat. They needed washroom facilities. Some families with children attempted to walk along the highway in search of help. The government apologized, Cloutier said, but victims so far have received no financial compensation. "One year later, it's time to put words to action and compensate victims who suffered harm," Cloutier said of people deprived of their freedom, dignity and safety. Jacques Laramee, 65, said he is still traumatized by the events of the night of March 14. There was no indication that anything was wrong when he left his daughter's home in St-Jerìme at 4 p.m. for St-Constant to have supper with his wife. Traffic slowed and finally ground to a halt along the storm-swept road, about four kilometres from the exit to Highway 20. As diabetic who needs to take his medication, Laramee said he was concerned about his health, but there was no news about what caused the bottleneck on Highway 13 -- nor how long he and hundreds of others would be stuck there. He had no food and no water. He needed his medication. And he had to turn the car off to conserve gas. The worst part was feeling powerless, he said. His stress mounted with each minute that passed, he said, choking with emotion. A retired banker, Laramee said he has faced 14 holdups during his career, but getting trapped on the highway was worse. "A hold-up lasts 30 seconds, but this lasted 10 hours," he said. "That's 10 hours of not knowing what to do." He now packs his car with a survival kit, including food and water, blankets and other essential items. Troubles on Highway 13 began as traffic grew in the snowstorm and cars began to break down, some running out of gas. Then two trucks reportedly got stuck and blocked the highway completely. Hundreds of 911 calls were reported. Hours passed and the provincial transport department didn't send in plows. Some tow trucks couldn't get through, and most were already busy elsewhere on the roads. Finally, the fire department was called in. A report by government investigator Florent Gagne largely blamed Quebec Transport and the Surete du Quebec for a series of gaps in communication about what was going on, followed by poor management of the situation that night; it also said that a Roxboro company had failed to clear snow and spread abrasives. [GN] ROADSTAR TOWING: "Rogers" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ KERRY ROGERS, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ROADSTAR TOWING & RECOVERY SERVICES, LLC and CORRI EDWARD, the Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-00900 (S.D. Tex., March 22, 2018), seeks to recover available relief, including compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and Texas common law. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members are those similarly situated persons who worked for RoadStar at any time during the relevant statutes of limitations through the final disposition of this matter, and were not paid for all hours worked or any overtime compensation in violation of state and federal law. Specifically, Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members were supposed to be paid either by the hour or a percentage commission on the number of vehicles they towed, regardless of the number of hours worked each week. The Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members routinely work (and worked) in excess of 40 hours per workweek. The Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members were not only not paid for all hours worked (and in some cases not paid at all), but they were also not paid overtime at the proper rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours each week. The decision by RoadStar not to pay for all hours worked or any overtime compensation to Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members was neither reasonable nor in good faith. RoadStar knowingly and deliberately failed to compensate Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members for all hours worked and overtime at the proper rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. Roadstar Towing provides automotive towing service, roadside assistance and heavy truck towing in Houston and also offer a complete line of towing services.[BN] Attorneys in Charge for Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members: Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. Lauren E. Braddy, Esq. Alan Clifton Gordon, Esq. Carter T. Hastings, Esq. George Schimmel, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 819 N. Upper Broadway Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452 1279 Facsimile: (361) 452 1284 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com lauren@a2xlaw.com cgordon@a2xlaw.com carter@a2xlaw.com geordie@a2xlaw.com RON HERMAN: Violates Wage and Hour Laws, Pham Says -------------------------------------------------- HANG PHAM, an individual, the Plaintiff, v. RON HERMAN, INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC700516 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 3, 2018), seeks to recover all wages due under California Labor Code. The Plaintiff represents "Aggrieved Employees". Aggrieved Employees consist of all non-exempt, hourly-paid employees, including but not limited to sales persons, warehouse employees, currently and/or formerly employed by Defendant. The Plaintiff is alleging that Defendants engaged in a systematic pattern of wage and hour violations under the California Labor Code, among other things: failed to provide uninterrupted meal periods; failed to authorize and permit two ten-minute rest breaks; failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements; and failed failing to pay all wages due within the required time semimonthly and upon separation of employment. Ron Herman operates as a retailer of apparel and accessories. It offers accessories, active wear, denim, gift cards, hats, loungewear, outerwear, Pants, scarves, shoes/socks, shorts, sweaters, swimwear, and T-shirts/tanks for men and women; grooming products and shirts for men; and skirts, beauty, dresses, and handbags.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sima Fard, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SIMA FARD 895 Dove Street, Suite 300 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 851 4606 E-mail: Simafard@earthlink.net SANIMAX: South St. Paul Residents File Class-Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- Trevor Squire, writing for the Star Tribune, reports that two South St. Paul residents have filed what they hope will be a class-action lawsuit in federal court against animal renderer Sanimax, seeking damages for years of "noxious odors" they say continue to emanate from the company's processing plant. The plaintiffs also want Sanimax to "significantly reduce, if not eliminate" odors from the plant wafting into nearby neighborhoods. The odors, they say, are a nuisance and have had a negative impact on their property values. Jeff Storms, Esq. a Minneapolis-based attorney handling the suit, said that the response from residents has been overwhelming and enthusiastic about "the need to have something done as to the strong, disgusting smell that's been emanating from that facility." The suit comes a year after Sanimax, based in Green Bay, Wis., challenged South St. Paul's odor ordinance as unconstitutionally vague. Sanimax dropped its suit a few months later after city officials agreed to stop calling it a "significant odor generator," which made it liable for penalties. Storms said residents repeatedly describe the smell from the Sanimax plant as akin to that of rotting flesh. "They can't stay outside because the smell makes them sick," he said. "They can't open their windows." According to its website, Sanimax collects animal hides, skins, meat byproducts and discarded oils and grease and turns them into animal feed and biofuels. Company officials did not respond to a request for comment last week. While some mitigation efforts have been made, the suit alleges that Sanimax "has failed to install and maintain adequate technology to properly control its emissions of noxious odors." The suit, filed on March 12 in Minneapolis federal court, was brought by South St. Paul residents Patricia Keech and David Newfield on behalf of residents living within two miles of the plant since 2015. The plaintiffs seek to have the suit certified as a class-action case. The complaint states that members of 80 households have told lawyers about odors they attribute to the plant, and that the class-action suit would represent more than 100 complainants. Sanimax has faced similar lawsuits at facilities in Wisconsin and Montreal. Liddle and Dubin, a Detroit law firm that handled a Wisconsin case which Sanimax settled for $915,000, is assisting with the South St. Paul suit. Odor long has been an issue in South St. Paul, a meatpacking center before its stockyards were closed in 2008. The Sanimax plant, at 505 Hardman Av., is located near two slaughterhouses and a tanning business in the city's former stockyards area, now the industrial district. The companies together conducted an independent study in 2013 to identify and monitor odors in the area and shared their findings with the city. In 2014, the City Council tagged Sanimax a "significant odor generator" and required the company to create and implement an odor-mitigation plan or face potential fines and restrictions. Sanimax fought back in its suit last year against the city, arguing that the ordinance was too vague and that an olfactory device called the "Nasal Ranger" -- used by the city to measure air quality -- couldn't determine the source of the smells. Sanimax dropped the lawsuit when South St. Paul withdrew its designation of Sanimax as a significant odor generator. South St. Paul City Administrator Steve King said there was an outpouring of comments on social media during the survey phase of the suit. "It is good to see the residents of the community are stepping forward on the issue and how it affects them," he said. [GN] SCHULTE HOSPITALITY: Georges, Rankins Sue over Biometric Data ------------------------------------------------------------- JANE GEORGE, VERONICA GEORGE, and ANGELA RANKINS individually, and on behalf) of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SCHULTE HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC., and MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC d/b/a SPRINGHILL SUITES BY MARRIOTT CHICAGO SOUTH\VEST AT BURR RIDGE/HINSDALE, the Defendant, Case No. 20l8-CH-04413 (S.D. Fla., April 4, 2018), seeks to redress and curtail Defendants' unlawful collection, use, storage, and disclosure of Plaintiffs' sensitive biometric data. The Defendant is a hotel management company located in Louisville, KY and operates throughout the United States, including Illinois and in this Circuit. Schulte manages affiliate properties of Marriott International, Inc. including Spring Hill Suites by Marriott Chicago Southwest at Burr Ridge/Hinsdale. When the Defendants hire an employee, he or she is enrolled in its employee database. The Defendants use the employee database to monitor the time worked by its hourly employees. While most employers use conventional methods for tracking time worked (such as ID badge swipes or punch clocks), Defendants' employees are required to have their fingerprints scanned by a biometric timekeeping device. Biometrics are not relegated to esoteric comers of commerce. Many businesses -- such as the Defendants -- and financial institutions have incorporated biometric applications into their workplace in the form of biometric timeclocks, and into consumer products, including such ubiquitous consumer products as checking accounts and cell phones. Unlike ID badges or time cards -- which can be changed or replaced if stolen or compromised -- fingerprints are unique, permanent biometric identifiers associated with each employee. This exposes Defendants' employees to serious and irreversible privacy risks. For example, if a database containing fingerprints or other sensitive, proprietary biometric data is hacked, breached, or otherwise exposed -- like in the recent Equifax and Uber data breaches -- employees have no means by which to prevent identity theft, unauthorized tracking or other unlawful or improper use of this highly personal and private information.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew C. Ficzko, Esq. Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. James B. Zouras, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 205 N. Michigan A venue Suite 2560 Chicago, IL 6060 Telephone: (312) 233 1550 Facsimile: (312) 233 1560 E-mail: aficzko@stephanzouras.com SIMM ASSOCIATES: Matsui Sues over Debt Collection Practices ----------------------------------------------------------- RIHITO MATSUI, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. SIMM ASSOCIATES, INC. & ACCESSLEX INSTITUTE, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 152513/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., March 21, 2018), seeks to recover damages under the Fair Debt Collection Practices. In an attempt to collect the purported debt, SIMM sent Plaintiff a collection letter dated June 15, 2017 concerning account number 149081927-01. The letter was written on "SIMM" letterhead. The letter lists the "Charge-Off Amount" as $0.00, "Total Interest Since C/O" as $0.00, "Total Non-interest/Fees Since C/O" as $0.00, and "Total Payment Post C/O" as $0.00. Upon information and belief, these numbers taken together would calculate the total current balance as $0.00. However, the letter lists the "Balance" as $40,717.34. Either the "Balance" is incorrect, or the "Charge-Off Amount," "Total Interest Since C/O," "Total Non- Interest/Fees Since C/O" and "Total Payment Post C/O" are incorrect, or all are incorrect. Nonetheless, this inaccuracy, upon information and belief, was misleading to the Plaintiff, as it would be to the "least sophisticated consumer," and furthermore misstates the character and amount of the alleged debt, in violation of the FDCPA and NYGBL. Additionally, the bottom of the letter provides the recipient with the same potentially incorrect balance, in further violation of the FDCPA and NYGBL.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Simon Croldenberg, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF SIMON GOLDENBERG PLLC Attorney(s) For Plaintiff 818 East 16th Street Brooklyn, NY, 11230 Telephone: (347) 640 4357 SOLID BIOSCIENCES: IPO Prospectus Misleading, "Walsh" Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL WALSH, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. SOLID BIOSCIENCES, INC., ILAN GANOT, and JENNIFER ZIOLKOWSKI, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv- 10639 (D. Mass., April 3, 2018), seeks to recover damages caused by defendants' violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired Solid's securities: (1) pursuant and/or traceable to Solid's false and misleading Registration Statement and Prospectus, issued in connection with the Company's initial public offering on or about January 25, 2018; and/or (2) on the open market between January 25, 2018 and March 14, 2018, both dates inclusive. Solid Biosciences Inc. is a biotechnology company that purportedly develops therapies and devices for patients with duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD). The Company's lead product candidate, SGT-001, is a gene transfer under development to restore functional dystrophin protein expression in patients' muscles. The Company's therapy uses adeno-associated virus (AAV) to deliver the transgene into the patient. Founded in 2013, the Company is headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts and its stocks trade on the NASDAQ Global Select Market under the ticker symbol "SLDB." According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Solid Biosciences' lead drug candidate SGT-001 had a high likelihood of causing adverse events in patients; (ii) Solid Biosciences misled investors regarding the toxicity of SGT-001; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, Solid's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On January 30, 2018, a report entitled "Severe Toxicity in Nonhuman Primates and Piglets Following High-Dose Intravenous Administration of an Adeno-Associated Virus Vector Expressing Human SMN," was published by prominent scientists, including researcher James Wilson. The report revealed safety concerns linked to high doses of gene therapies using adeno-associated virus (AAV). Wilson resigned from the scientific advisory board at Solid Biosciences shortly before the Company's IPO, citing "emerging concerns about the possible risks of high systemic dosing of AVV." On this news, Solid's share price fell $1.20, or 5.06%, to close at $22.50 per share on January 30, 2018. On March 14, 2018, post- market, Solid issued a press release entitled "Solid Biosciences Announces Clinical Hold On SGT-001 Phase I/II Clinical Trial for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy," announcing that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has placed a clinical hold on Solid's study of SGT-001, a treatment for Duchenne muscular dystrophy, after a patient experienced an unexpected adverse reaction. On this news, Solid's share price fell $16.99, or 64.57%, to close at $9.32 on March 15, 2018. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Daryl Andrews, Esq. Glen DeValerio, Esq. ANDREWS DEVALERIO LLP 265 Franklin Street, Suite 1702 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 936 2796 E-mail: glen@andrewsdevalerio.com daryl@andrewsdevalerio.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, New York 10016 Telephone: (212) 661 1100 Facsimile: (212) 661 8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com SONY CORP: PS3 Buyers Could Get $65 Following Class Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- Sam Blum, writing for Thrillist entertainment News, reports that it might seem like a pipe dream to be reimbursed after buying a gaming console. But, in a stroke of unforeseen luck for Call of Duty addicts, buyers of the original PS3 console have been awarded a sliver of financial reward from Sony, after a class- action lawsuit ruled the company pay a $3.75 million proposed settlement. The suit stems from a software hiccup that made original PS3s susceptible to hacking. Originally, Sony enabled users to install different operating systems on PS3s, with Linux becoming particularly popular. The Linux-enabled systems posed a security threat, the company claimed, after a hacker exploited the system's "OtherOS" feature, and, in March of 2010, Sony used a software update to remove the option to install third-party software "due to security reasons." It might seem like a pipe dream to be reimbursed after buying a gaming console. But, in a stroke of unforeseen luck for Call of Duty addicts, buyers of the original PS3 console have been awarded a sliver of financial reward from Sony, after a class- action lawsuit ruled the company pay a $3.75 million proposed settlement. The suit stems from a software hiccup that made original PS3s susceptible to hacking. Originally, Sony enabled users to install different operating systems on PS3s, with Linux becoming particularly popular. The Linux-enabled systems posed a security threat, the company claimed, after a hacker exploited the system's "OtherOS" feature, and, in March of 2010, Sony used a software update to remove the option to install third-party software "due to security reasons." Seven years later, the legal slog finally reached a settlement in which Sony is paying $3.75 million after being accused of false advertising and breaching warranty, among other offenses. While the pot is being split among lawyers, plaintiffs, and settlement organizers, there's still enough left over for aggrieved PS3 users to claim some form of compensation, which could be as high as $65. In 2016, the same settlement promised as much as $55 for entitled parties, but the payouts have apparently fattened. In order to claim eligibility, you need to have bought a "Fat" PS3 between November 1, 2006, and April 1, 2010 at an "authorized retailer," like Best Buy or Walmart -- definitely not through your neighbor on Facebook Marketplace. Through the claim form, you can submit multiple claims if you bought more than one console. You have about a month left to file a claim, as the deadline is April 15. Also, don't lie in any of the legal documents (duh!). You have to swear that you tried installing Linux, and provide your PS3's serial number and that you purchased it legally, among other requirements. This isn't likely to affect the majority of PS3 owners, although the savviest proponents of PlayStation are likely to finally receive payment for their fierce dedication to the art of gaming. And then probably spend it on more games.[GN] STRAD ENERGY: "Ruberto" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID RUBERTO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. STRAD ENERGY SERVICES USA LTD, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00377-MRH (W.D. Pa., March 22, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a Solids Control Technician. The Plaintiff and the other workers like them regularly worked for Defendant in excess of 40 hours each week. But these workers never received overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek. Instead of paying overtime as required by the FLSA and PMWA, Defendant improperly classified Plaintiff and those similarly situated workers as independent contractors and paid them a daily rate with no overtime compensation. Strad Energy provides industrial equipment and marchineries on lease and rental basis. The Company offers surface equipment, manufacturing, environmental and access matting, drill pipe machines, and solid control and waste management solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson Andrew W. Dunlap JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: 713 352 1100 Facsimile: 713 352 3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Joshua P. Geist, Esq. GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C. 3634 California Ave. Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: (412) 766 1455 Facsimile: (412) 766 0300 E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C. 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877 8788 Facsimile: (713) 877 8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com STARKIST CO: Warner Sues over Product Labels' Heart-Check Mark -------------------------------------------------------------- ABRAHAM JACOB WARNER, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. STARKIST CO., the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00406-GLS-ATB (N.D.N.Y., April 4, 2018), contends that StarKist's products contain a brazen misrepresentation that causes consumers to falsely believe that StarKist products are healthier than products made by other food manufacturers. Specifically, StarKist prominently displays the American Heart Association "Heart-Check Mark" on products. Reasonable consumers see the Heart-Check Mark and mistakenly believe that a product with a Heart-Check Mark is healthier than a product without a Heart-Check Mark. In fact, a food manufacturer must pay the American Heart Association in order to place the Heart-Check Mark on its products. The Heart-Check Mark is a paid endorsement. However, in violation of state and federal law, StarKist fails to disclose on product labels that the Heart- Check Mark is a paid endorsement. The Defendant is one of the largest producers of seafood products in the United States. Indeed, StarKist claims to make "America's favorite tuna." According to the lawsuit, StarKist was enriched at the expense of Plaintiff and the Class members. StarKist was unjustly enriched. It is against equity and good conscience to permit StarKist to retain the amount by which it has been unjustly enriched. As a direct and proximate result of StarKist's unjust enrichment Plaintiff and Class members have suffered injury-in-fact and/or actual damages.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd S. Garber, Esq. D. Gregg Blankinship, Esq. FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP 455 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 605 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 298 3283 Facsimile: (914) 908 6709 E-mail: tgarber@fbfglaw.com gblankinship@fbfglaw.com SWAN LAKE: Class Action Suit Explained -------------------------------------- Terri Russell, writing for Kolo TV, reports that in 2017, from January and for several months after, a dry lake bed called Swan Lake began to fill with water after one of the wettest winters on record. "A dust bowl, we used to drive across the lake to the other side. A lot of people did, take walks out here all the time," says Linda Walls, a class representative. Walls' home, close to the now-shore of Swan Lake, was heavily damaged by the water, and she and her husband can't live there anymore. But so was Donna Robinson's, and she lives about two blocks from shore, with a roadway separating her property from the lake. "To sit here and see all this water. Where is it coming from? It has got to be coming from somewhere. It's not just coming from rain. It's got to be coming from somewhere else," says Robinson, another class representative. Both Walls and Robinson looked into their options for filing a suit. Another neighbor filed first, however, intending it to be a class action suit. "So commonality means we have a big group of people who have the same claims. And numerosity means the number of those people. So we have a sufficient number of people to make sense of the judge to hear them all at once," says Kerry Doyle, Esq. an attorney who represents the group. The lawsuit claims an engineering study in 2007 alerted the city of Reno about the hazards of developing the North Valleys without water mitigation to go with it. The study said water imported into the area, along with runoff of existing build-out development, would end up in both Swan Lake and Silver Lake. The suit goes on to claim the city disregarded the warnings, continued with development, and even as Swan Lake was flooding last winter and early spring, and residents were being displaced because their homes were so heavily damaged, the city was pumping water out of Silver Lake and putting that water into Swan Lake as well. All in an effort to protect businesses located near Silver Lake, in the city of Reno. The lawsuit will have two components. First, liability will be looked at by the court by taking testimony and evidence from the class representatives. The court will determine if the city is responsible. If that portion of the case is proven, the damages part of the case will get underway. That is where a jury will decide how much money the city will pay, if any, to those who suffered damages by the flooding. This case will not be settled overnight and no matter what happens, residents involved say nothing will shake their feeling of uncertainty as they return to their homes every night in Lemmon Valley. "Well, this shouldn't happen And I don't feel safe here, when one of those five people that live with me is my 2-year-old granddaughter and I don't want her out here," says Jeff Johnson, another class representative. Flyers and mailers have been sent out to all Lemmon Valley residents about an informational meeting organized by attorneys representing residents. That meeting will take place April 3, 2018 at the Fellowship Church at 120 Hydraulic Street in Lemmon Valley. The meeting begins at 6:00PM. [GN] TEZOS: Judge Picks LTL Attorneys to Lead Groundbreaking Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Ben Hancock, writing for The Recorder, reports that a federal judge on March 16 selected the firms LTL Attorneys and Hung G. Ta, Esq. -- hta@hgtlaw.com -- to lead a group of groundbreaking securities class actions over digital tokens against the blockchain startup Tezos. U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg of the Northern District of California ruled that the attorneys met the requirements to lead the suits under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA) -- including that their client has the largest financial stake in the case. Their client is Arman Anvari, a former Perkins Coie associate in Chicago who says he poured $264,007.50 worth of ether into Tezos. Three other groups of law firms had vied to lead the class actions, including the firms Block & Leviton, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd and Levi & Korsinsky. Attorneys from those firms on March 15 had argued that Anvari's lawyers should not lead the case because they initially filed their motion to do so in the wrong docket, a day late. But Seeborg said those missteps were not sufficient to take them out of the running. "Under the circumstances, Anvari's filing [. . . ] appears best understood as a mistake made in good faith rather than as an act of legal gamesmanship of the sort the PSLRA was designed to prevent," he wrote. The entities behind the Tezos project raised some $232 million in cryptocurrency last year in an initial coin offering but have still yet to launch the promised blockchain network. The class actions that were filed last fall argue that the "Tezzies" issued were unregistered securities, and seek to allow investors to have their cryptocurrency refunded.[GN] THINK FINANCE: "Banks" Suit Moved to Northern District of Texas --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled India Banks, Alicia Patterson, JoAnn Griffiths, Anna C. Haac, and Jeri Brennan, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Kenneth Rees; Think Finance Inc.; Think Finance SPV LLC; TC Decision Sciences LLC; TC Loan Service LLC; Tail Wind Marketing LLC; TC Administrative Services, LLC; and GPL Servicing, Ltd., the Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-02201, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Dallas) on April 4, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-00816-M to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Chief Judge Barbara M.G. Lynn. Think Finance is a company that provides technology, analytics, and marketing services to financial businesses in the consumer lending industry.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq. Casey S. Nash, Esq. Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq. KELLY & CRANDALL, PLC 3925 Chain Bridge Rd Ste 202 Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 424 7572 Facsimile: (703) 591 0167 E-mail: aguzzo@kellyandcrandall.com casey@kellyandcrandall.com kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com - and - Andrew Silver, Esq. Anna C. Haac, Esq. Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 1828 L Street, N.W., Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 973 0900 Facsimile: (202) 973 0950 E-mail: asilver@tzlegal.com ahaac@tzlegal.com jkaliel@tzlegal.com - and - Manuel Santiago Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO PA 401 E Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 400 4713 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com Attorneys for Kenneth Rees: David F. Herman, Esq. Jonathan Boughrum, Esq. Richard L Scheff, Esq. MONTGOMERY, MCCRACKEN, WALKER & RHOADS, LLP Avenue of the Arts 123 S Broad St 24th Fl Philadelphia, PA 19109 Telephone: (215) 772 2201 Facsimile: (215) 731 3641 E-mail: dherman@mmwr.com jboughrum@mmwr.com - and - Kelli Ayers Edson, Esq. QUARLES & BRADY, LLP Suite 3400 101 E Kennedy Blvd Tampa, FL 33602-5195 Telephone: (813) 387 0300 Facsimile: (813) 387 1800 E-mail: kelli.edson@quarles.com Attorneys for Think Finance Inc.; Think Finance SPV LLC; TC Decision Sciences LLC; TC Loan Service LLC; Tail Wind Marketing LLC; and TC Administrative Services, LLC. Gustavo Javier Membiela, Esq. HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LLP 1111 Brickell Ave., Suite 2500 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 810 2500 Facsimile: (305) 810 2460 E-mail: gmembiela@hunton.com Attorneys for GPL Servicing, Ltd.: Bryan D. Hull, Esq. BUSH ROSS, PA 1801 N Highland Ave Tampa, FL 33601 Telephone: (813) 224 9255 E-mail: bhull@bushross.com - and - Ross Lee Weiner, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP (NY-NA) 601 Lexington Ave New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 446 4976 Facsimile: (212) 446 6460 E-mail: ross.weiner@kirkland.com U.S. SECURITY: "Burrola" Suit Moved to S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit titled Waldo Burrola, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. U.S. Security Associates, Inc., and Does 1 to 100, the inclusive, Case No. 37-02018-00005995-CU-OE- CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (San Diego) on Mar. 21, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-00594-BEN-JLB to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Roger T. Benitez. U.S. Security Associates provides uniformed security services, consulting and investigations, and specialized security solutions in the United States and internationally.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eduardo Martorell, Esq. MARTORELL LAW APC 6100 Center Drive, Suite 1130 Los Angeles, CA 90045 Telephone: (323) 840 1200 Facsimile: (323) 840 1300 E-mail: EMartorell@Martorell-Law.com The Defendant is represented by: Ross A. Boughton, Esq. FORD & HARRISON LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 1001 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 852 6900 Facsimile: (415) 852 6901 E-mail: rboughton@fordharrison.com UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Suit Says Firm Silences Sexually Abused Women ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jacob Siegal, writing for The Guardian, reports that Uber has been hit with a class-action lawsuit which argues that the ride- sharing company has attempted to silence passengers who have been assaulted by drivers by forcing them to settle cases through arbitration. As the publication notes, this process typically involves confidentiality agreements, which means that the victims are not allowed to speak out about what happened to them. The nine women who have joined the case say that they want to "force Uber to acknowledge that this is happening and to do something about it," according to attorney Jeanne M. Christensen, Esq. -- jchristensen@wigdorlaw.com -- But Uber argues that by signing up for the service in the first place, all riders agree to private arbitration. Thus, Uber says they have no case. By forcing everyone who uses its service to handles disputes privately, Uber can effectively silence victims and sweep any issues under the rug. Using arbitration, the public never has to hear about how some women have been sexually harassed or assaulted by Uber drivers, and Uber never has to confront the issue head on. "The allegations brought forth in this case are important to us and we take them very seriously," said Uber in an email response to The Guardian. "Arbitration is the appropriate venue for this case because it allows the plaintiffs to publicly speak out as much as they want and have control over their individual privacy at the same time." That's all well and good, but The Guardian points out that Uber didn't respond to questions about whether or not the company's settlement agreements include confidentiality clauses that bar victims from speaking up. [GN] ULTA BEAUTY: Claimsfiler Reminds of May 1 Lead Plaintiff Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------------- ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds investors that they have until May 1, 2018 to file lead plaintiff applications in a securities class action lawsuit against Ulta Beauty, Inc. (Nasdaq:ULTA), if they purchased the Company's securities between March 30, 2016 and February 23, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"). This action is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Get Help Ulta investors should visit us at https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-ulta-beauty-inc- securities-litigation or call to speak to our claim center toll- free at (844) 367-9658. About the Lawsuit Ulta and certain of its executives are charged with failing to disclose material information during the Class Period, violating federal securities laws. On February 9, 2018, media reports revealed a consumer class action lawsuit filed against Ulta based on a wide ranging scheme of reselling returned, used products as new ones and that "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." Then, on February 23, 2018, further media reports recounted statements from a former Ulta employee of being pressured by store managers to resell used products. On this news, the price of Ulta's shares plummeted. [GN] ULTA BEAUTY: Vincent Wong Files Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of investors who purchased Ulta Beauty, Inc. ("Ulta Beauty") (NASDAQ:ULTA) securities between March 30, 2016 and February 23, 2018. Click here to learn about the case: http://www.wongesq.com/pslra- c/ulta-beauty-inc?wire=3. There is no cost or obligation to you. According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period, the Company issued materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose 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 Beauty's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On February 23, 2018, CBS News published a story on the alleged restocking practice, citing a former employee who alleged that managers pressured store employees to clean and repackage returned cosmetics "to keep the dollar amount for damaged or returned goods down." If you suffered a loss in Ulta Beauty you have until May 1, 2018 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. To obtain additional information, contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email vw@wongesq.com, by telephone at 212.425.1140, or visit http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-c/ulta- beauty-inc?wire=3. Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney that has represented investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and violations of shareholder rights. Vincent Wong, Esq. 39 East Broadway Suite 304 New York, NY 10002 Tel. 212.425.1140 Fax. 866.699.3880 E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN] UNDER ARMOUR: Murray Sues over Consumer Data Breach --------------------------------------------------- REBECCA ELIZABETH MURRAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. UNDER ARMOUR, INC., a Maryland corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC700750 (S.D. Fla., April 4, 2018), seeks to recover equitable relief compelling under Armour to utilize appropriate methods and policies with respect to consumer data collection, storage, and safety and to disclose with specificity to Class Members the type of Private Identifiable Information. According to the complaint, Under Armour, Inc. was founded on or around 1996 and operates globally including in all 50 states OF the United States of America. UA had around $5.0 Billion in revenue in 2017. UA manufactures sports related apparel and, relevant to this case, owns and operates the MyFitnessPal and MapmyFitness applications and websites as well as related apps and websites. On or around 2013, UA began to offer subscriptions through the MyFitnessPal app and website. UA also collects credit/debit numbers from its users in order for those users to access premium features of these website(s) and app(s). For example, users would pay a premium for priority customer support and a no ad experience, among other features. On or around March 25, 2018, UA learned that an estimated 150 million consumers' private personal and financial information was obtained by an unauthorized third party in one of the largest data breaches to date.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class: Thomas V. Girardi, Esq. Keith D. Griffin, Esq. GIRARDI | KEESE 1126 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles CA 0017 Telephone: (213) 977 0211 Facsimile: (213) 481 1554 - and - Ebby S. Bakhtiar, Esq. LIVINGSTON & BAKHTIAR 3435 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1669 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 632 1550 Facsimile: (213) 632 3100 VENMO LLC: "Babar" Suit Alleges False Advertising ------------------------------------------------- Pravin Babar, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Venmo, LLC, and Does 1-10 inclusive, Case No. 3:18- cv-01555 (N.D. Calif., March 12, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the California False Advertising Act and Unfair Competition Law. Plaintiff brings this class action to stop Defendant's practice of falsely advertising the functions and capabilities of its mobile application and to obtain redress for a California class of consumers who changed position, within the applicable statute of limitations period, as a result of Defendant's false and misleading advertisements. Plaintiff Pravin Babar is a citizen and resident of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. Defendant Venmo, LLC, is a corporation with principal place of business in Delaware and state of incorporation in Delaware and is engaged in the development and distribution of mobile applications. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: 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 Tel: (877) 206-4741 Fax: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com twheeler@toddflaw.com WAGEWORKS INC: Has Issued False Financial Statements, GERS Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. WAGEWORKS, INC., JOSEPH L. JACKSON, and COLM M. CALLAN, Case No. 4:18-cv-01523-JSW (N.D. Cal., March 9, 2018), alleges that throughout the Class Period, the Defendants issued, or caused to be issued, a series of false and misleading financial statements, failing to disclose 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 that, (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, the Plaintiff alleges. WageWorks, Inc., is incorporated in Delaware and maintains its principal executive offices in San Mateo, California. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. WageWorks provides tax-advantaged programs for consumer-directed health, commuter, and other employee spending account benefits in the United States. The Company operates spending account management programs such as health and dependent care Flexible Spending Accounts (FSAs), Health Savings Accounts (HSAs), Health Reimbursement Arrangements (HRAs), and transit programs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen R. Basser, Esq. Samuel M. Ward, Esq. BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE 600 West Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 230-0800 Facsimile: (619) 230-1874 E-mail: sbasser@barrack.com sward@barrack.com - and - Jeffrey A. Barrack, Esq. BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE 3300 Two Commerce Square 2001 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 963-0600 Facsimile: (215) 963-0838 E-mail: lbarrack@barrack.com WELLS FARGO: Customers Could Have More Time to File Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- James Rufus Koren, writing for LA Times, reports that Wells Fargo & Co. failed to notify some customers about its $142-million class-action settlement over its unauthorized accounts scandal -- an error that could give customers more time to participate in the deal but contribute to months of delay in receiving payments. The bank told attorneys representing customers that it did not send required letters or emails to all current and former customers who should have been notified, according to a court filing last week. As a result, the two sides asked a federal judge overseeing the settlement to give the bank until mid-April to send the notices and give customers until July 7 to sign up for the settlement. The original deadline to file claims was Feb. 3. The parties also said that attorneys general in several states had requested that their constituents have more time to file. If U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria signs off on the extension, customers would be able to file settlement claims more than 15 months after the deal was announced. Wells Fargo spokesman Jim Seitz said an internal audit found that not all customers had received required notifications. "The audit gives us confidence we're now identifying all customers we believe may have been affected," he said, adding there is no indication there are more affected customers or more sham accounts than previously thought. Matthew Preusch, Esq. -- mpreusch@kellerorhrback.com -- an attorney representing bank customers, said the longer deadline would ensure more customers can be compensated. "We agreed that Wells Fargo should fix that mistake so that all of its potentially affected customers are properly notified," he said in an email. Wells Fargo agreed in March 2017 to settle a class-action lawsuit filed in 2015 by plaintiffs who said bank workers trying to meet onerous sales goals had opened unauthorized accounts in their name. The deal came about six months after federal regulators fined the bank $185 million for that practice, which was first uncovered by a Los Angeles Times investigation. Though it stems from a single lawsuit, the deal covers all current and former Wells Fargo customers who do not seek to exclude themselves from the settlement. If it is granted final approval, the settlement likely would put an end to several similar consumer lawsuits filed against the bank. Wells Fargo initially agreed to pay $110 million but later upped that amount to $142 million after an internal report found that unauthorized accounts might have been created as long ago as 2002, earlier than previously thought. The settlement will compensate customers for any fees they paid on sham accounts and also for damage to their credit caused by late fees, credit inquiries or other issues related to unauthorized accounts. After a demand from Chhabria, Wells Fargo pledged that the settlement would fully compensate customers, plus provide an additional payout of at least $25 million, even if that pushes the total payout beyond $142 million. Two law firms working on the case have requested fees of $25.6 million, a sum that is subject to approval by Chhabria. If that amount holds, and if Wells Fargo does not have to make additional payments, that would leave $116.4 million for the bank's victims. As of Jan. 17, 165,774 customers had filed settlement claims, according to court filings, suggesting an average payout of about $700. But payments could vary widely depending on several factors, such as the extent of damage to a customer's credit, and the number of claimants is likely to grow if the deadline is extended. The bank has estimated as many as 3.5 million unauthorized accounts could have been created, with some customers signed up for multiple accounts. [GN] WESTLAKE SERVICES: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages & OT, Yeganeh Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- SHAHROKH YEGANEH, an individual, WALTER FADAKARAN, an individual, DANIEL BENSIMON, an individual, GARY GOMEZ, an individual, for themselves and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. WESTLAKE SERVICES, LLC, a corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. (S.D. Fla., April 4, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and unpaid overtime wages under California Labor Code. According to its website, "[WSI] is the largest privately held finance company in the United States with demonstrated growth year over year. We continue to expand our teams, our diversified business model, and more importantly, we begin to cement our role as a future leader in the automotive industry, [WSI] is a member of the Hankey Group of Companies and has sister companies and subsidiaries such as: Westlake ALPS, Westlake Flooring, Wilshire Consumer Credit and Western Funding Asa result of Defendants' conduct in not paying Plaintiffs and the Class the legal minimum wage for all hours worked, Plaintiffs and the Class have been deprived of the legal minimum wage for all hours they worked, including but not limited to required work off the clock during their shifts. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' conduct as alleged above, Plaintiffs and the Class have sustained and will sustain damages in the amount the legal minimum wage for all hours they worked and for working split shifts.[BN] The Plaintiffs represented by: James H. Cordes, Esq. 831 State Street, Suite 205 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone: (805) 965 6800 Facsimile: (805) 965 5556 - and - Michael Baltaxe, Esq. Timothy Sottile, Esq. Jeremy D. Scherwin, Esq. Payam Aframian, Esq. SOTTILE/BALTAXE 4360 Park Terrace Drive, Suite 140 Westlake Village, CA 91367 Telephone: (818) 889 0050 Facsimile: (818) 889 6050 WHITE GLOVE: "Cedeno" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Law ------------------------------------------------------------- ROSALIE MORAN CEDENO, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated who were employed by WHITE GLOVE COMMUNITY CARE, INC., along with other entities affiliated or controlled by WHITE GLOVE COMMUNITY CARE, INC., the Plaintiffs, v. WHITE GLOVE COMMUNITY CARE, INC. and/or any other related entities, the Defendant, Case No. 153049/2018 (N.Y. Sup., April 4, 2018), seeks to recover to recover wages and benefits which Plaintiffs were statutorily and contractually entitled to receive pursuant to New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, beginning in April 2012, continuing through the present, Defendant has maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiffs to regularly work in excess of ten hours per day, without providing the proper hourly compensation for all hours worked, including failing to pay the lawful minimum wage rate for travel time between worksites, and overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in any given week, and "spread of hours" compensation. The Plaintiff has initiated this action seeking for herself, and on behalf of all similarly situated employees who are citizens of New York and who performed work within the State of New York, minimum wages, overtime compensation, "spread of hours" compensation, reimbursement for business expenses borne for the benefit and convenience of the Defendant, including purchasing and laundering of uniforms, as well as damages arising from Defendant's breach of contract, which they were deprived of, plus interest, attorneys' fees, and costs.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class: Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq. LaDonna M. Lusher, Esq. Milana Dostanitch, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP 40 Broad Street, Seventh Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 943 9080 Facsimile: (212) 943 9082 E-mail: llusher@vandallp.com - and Gennadiy Naydenskiy, Esq. NAYDENSKIY LAW FIRM LLC 281 Summerhill Road, Suite 210 East Brunswick, NJ 08816 Telephone: (212) 808 2224 Facsimile: (866) 261 5478 E-mail: naydenskiylaw@gmail.com WOOLERY PAINTING: "Almendares" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT -------------------------------------------------------------- Bayron Almendares and Jose Luis Garcia, on behalf of themselves and other persons similarly situated v. Woolery Painting, LLC, Adam Woolery Painting, LLC, and Adam Woolery, Case No. 2:18-cv- 02559 (E.D. La., March 12, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Bayron Almendares was hired to work as a painter for the Defendants from April 2013 to February 2018. He was employed by the Defendants at various jobsites in and around the Greater New Orleans Area. Plaintiff Jose Luis Garcia was hired to work as a painter for the Defendants from June 2014 to February 2018. He was employed by the Defendants at various jobsites in and around the Greater New Orleans Area. Defendants Woolery Painting, LLC and Adam Woolery Painting, LLC are limited liability companies organized under the laws of Louisiana with their principal places of business in Harahan, Louisiana. They are both owned and operated by Defendant Adam Woolery, are based out of the same address, and both specialize in providing painting and drywall services for residential and commercial projects. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roberto Luis Costales, Esq. William H. Beaumont, Esq. Emily A. Westermeier, Esq. BEAUMONT COSTALES LLC 3801 Canal Street, Suite 207 New Orleans, LA 70119 Tel: (504) 534-5005 E-mail: rlc@beaumontcostales.com whb@beaumontcostales.com eaw@beaumontcostales.com WOLVERINE WORLD: Cedar Springs Residents Part of New Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Shandra Martinez, writing for MLive, reports that a new class action lawsuit filed against Wolverine World Wide includes residents of Russell Ridge, a neighborhood near Cedar Springs. The plaintiffs are represented by the same group of law firms that filed suit on behalf of six families in the Wellington Ridge subdivision. Those Algoma Township residents have some of the highest levels of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, called PFAS or PFCs, found in north Kent county. But that isn't the case with the Russell Ridge neighborhood, where the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality has not been able to link what it describes as "low levels" of PFAS to water contamination tied to Wolverine's dumping of tannery waste decades ago. Nonetheless, "our clients have lost the ability to enjoy their homes and live with daily reminders that they and their families have been consuming water laced with toxic chemicals," said Esther Berezofsky, Esq. -- eberezofsky@eblawllc.com -- of the Berezofsky Law Group in a statement. Her firm also represents Flint residents harmed by lead- contaminated drinking water and residents of Hoosick Falls and Petersburgh in New York, which are also experiencing PFAS drinking water problems. The New Jersey-based Berezofsky Law is partnering on the case with Detroit area firm Sommers Schwartz and the South Carolina firm Motley Rice. The firms didn't return messages for comment on March 16. The suit filed March 6 in Kent County Circuit Court is seeking damages for economic loss and future health conditions. Exposure to PFOS and PFOA has been linked to various forms of cancer, thyroid problems and other diseases. Four of the plaintiffs live in Belmont, which sits squarely in the testing zones that encompass about 20 contiguous square miles of northern Kent County. Two plaintiffs own homes in the Russell Ridge neighborhood. The Algoma Township development is located in Cedar Rock -- the nickname for an area between Cedar Springs and Rockford. The 3-year-old development includes about 60 homes off Russell Road north of M-57. The White Pine Trail runs nearby. More houses are going up in the area. The neighborhood is about three miles northwest of the established zones where the DEQ has been finding high levels of PFAS in groundwater. The chemicals were in 3M Scotchgard, which Wolverine used to waterproof shoes at former Rockford tannery. The suit contends the contamination exists in the aquifer where the residents are drawing their well water, but it doesn't specify where the contamination originated, or the levels they are finding. "Once in the aquifers, the PFAS became subject to hydrogeographical forces and migration throughout the area inevitably resulted. The migration involved an ever-expanding contamination of area water suppliers, including class members' private wells," suit said. DEQ spokesperson Scott Dean said there's no evidence that's accurate. Kim Conner moved into the neighborhood in 2016. Her water tested positive for PFAS. She said she's joined the class action case. Conner, her husband and 8-year-old daughter are drinking bottled water after their well water tested at 7.9 parts per trillion (ppt) for PFOS and PFOA. It's below the Environmental Protection Agency's health advisory level of 70-ppt. Some of Conner's neighbors have told her their water tested higher. She said about 30 Russell Ridge homeowners have PFAS in their water. "Everyone is doing (the testing) out of their own pockets," said Conner, who had the family's well tested in the fall. "We decided to test because the homes are built on an old gravel pit and farmland." Tannery waste was primarily disposed at local dumps, but the sludge was also spread on Algoma Township farmland in as fertilizer. Neighborhood residents met in January with Algoma Township, EPA and DEQ officials. "They said 'we are an anomaly'," Conner said of comments made by DEQ staff. "They don't understand why we are having any readings." While the DEQ hasn't found a link between the low levels of PFAS in the Russell Ridge homes' wells, the agency's investigation remains opens, Dean said. As part of the investigation, the DEQ has studied aerial photos and historic data. Residents are encouraged to stay in touch with the agency, he added. The Wolverine PFAS investigation began last year with discovery of contaminated wells near the company's old sludge waste dump at 1855 House St. NE in Plainfield. It has since spread to Algoma Township and the city of Rockford. The Rogue River and Plainfield Township municipal drinking water have also tested positive for PFAS. In January, the EPA ordered Wolverine to conduct more investigations at the House Street dump and the company's former tannery grounds in Rockford, which are both highly contaminated with PFAS. Not counting Plainfield's municipal system, an area search for Wolverine dump sites has turned up more than 550 wells with detectable PFAS levels so far. More than 100 are above the EPA's health advisory level. The chemicals have been linked to a host of health care issues, including cancer and thyroid problems. Wolverine has been providing bottled water and whole-house PFAS filtration units to most homes in DEQ-established testing areas. Plainfield Township spent months trying to negotiate a deal with Wolverine to cover the project costs in hopes of starting main extensions this year, but the company walked away from the table last month. The decision delays work township hoped to complete this year. Plainfield and Algoma townships officially joined the state's lawsuit in order to formalize their seats at the table when it comes time for a judge to decide what the company needs to do to address the pollution. In addition to the latest legal action, the Rockford company is now facing one federal class action suit and more than 100 individual cases in Kent County Circuit Court. In a statement to MLive, Wolverine reiterated its commitment to working with local, state and federal regulators to develop a long-term solution to the contamination issue. "While we intend to remain a good partner and corporate citizen and address issues facing our community, we will simultaneously protect and vigorously defend our company against ongoing litigation," part of the statement read. Wolverine expects to spend $40 million this year addressing the contamination, which includes what's believed to be record PFAS levels in drinking water. [GN] WHOLE FOODS: Sued Over Kombucha Products False Advertising ---------------------------------------------------------- WholeFoods Magazine reports that some zombucha products are under fire for false advertising. As reported in Legal News Line by Food Navigator, a consumer has filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Health-Ade Zombucha and Whole Foods Market California Inc. The plaintiff alleges that she and numerous consumers purchased the beverages based on advertisements that they were non-alcoholic. The plaintiff alleges the beverages contain more than twice the alcohol allowed for nonalcoholic beverages, and that its sugar content is understated. Health-Ade told Food Navigator it was unable to comment on pending litigation. And according to a statement from Top Class Actions, other zombucha beverages are falsely advertising that they contain less probiotics and also have more sugar than is represented on their labels -- in one case, product testing reportedly demonstrated that one brand of kombucha included between four and six times the amount of sugar than was stated on the product label. Top Class Action is urging consumers who have purchased zombucha in the last four years based on faulty claims to sign up for a free class action investigation on their web site. This isn't the first time the popular beverage has been the subject of a lawsuit. Last year, the manufacturer of GT's Kombucha and Whole Foods Market reached an $8.2 million class action settlement over allegedly false claims that GT's Kombucha was non-alcoholic and that it contained antioxidants. The defendants did not admit wrongdoing in agreeing to the settlement. In addition to the financial restitution, the settlement required Millennium Products Inc., the Beverly Hills, Calif.-based parent company of GT's, to make changes to its product labels, specifically, to cease using the term "antioxidant" on packaging, as well as include warning that the product does contain alcohol, as reported in BevNet. Millennium agreed to ensure that the product's accurate sugar content was reflected on labels as well. And in October 2017, a false advertising class action lawsuit was filed against KeVita Inc. and Pepsico Inc. over allegations they deceived consumers into believing KeVita kombucha is a raw and unpasteurized product even though they are actually pasteurized after fermentation. Misleading nutrition labels have taken center stage since the FDA announced redesigned food nutrition labels earlier this month. It was the first time in decades the labels had undergone changes. As reported by WholeFoods Magazine, the new food labels now have an additional space for added sugars. While the old labels list total grams of sugars, they don't distinguish between sugars that are naturally occurring in foods like fruits and vegetables, and sugars that meet the definition of added sugars. The new labels now include added sugars in grams and as percent Daily Value. "Added sugars" are regarded as worse than sugars occurring naturally in products like fruit. Kombucha has been around for centuries but has become popular among health-conscious consumers in recent years. The beverage is derived from sweetened black or green tea that is mixed with a symbiotic colony of bacteria and yeast known as a SCOBY and given time to ferment. Kombucha is effervescent, tart and slightly sweet, with a flavor profile similar to sparkling apple cider. During the fermentation process, a large number of healthy bacteria known as probiotics develop in the product. Probiotics are touted for their purported health benefits, such as fighting illness and infection. The fermentation process often causes the alcohol content of kombucha to rise above 0.5 percent, causing most products on the market to be regulated by the Alcohol Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau. [GN] YANGTZE LLC: "Wang" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages & OT under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ Minghui Wang, individually and on behalf of all other employees similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Yangtze LLC d/b/a Yangtze Riverside Restaurant, Steven Zheng, and Siwen Zheng, the Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-00571 (D. Conn., April 4, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid wages for overtime work, liquidated damages, declaratory relief, costs, interest and attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants usually required Plaintiff to arrive at work about 20 minutes before the posted restaurant opening hour. The Plaintiff was required to work for Defendants well in excess of 40 hours per week, at about 70 hours per week, yet Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff all overtime compensation for hours he worked in excess of forty hours per week. The Plaintiff did not have any uninterrupted breaks nor meal time during work days. Occasionally the Plaintiff was required to work approximately 30 minutes past the posted closing hours of the restaurant when he was out making some end of the day deliveries. To perform the delivery duties, Plaintiff Wang spent at his own expense about $72 per week on gas and at least $800 on repair and maintenance of the vehicle. The Plaintiff was not reimbursed for any of the aforementioned expenses. For the purpose of making deliveries for the Defendants' business, the Plaintiff drove approximately 70 miles per day or about 27,300 miles for the relevant period.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jian Hang, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC. 136-20 38th Ave., Suite 10G Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (718) 353 8588 E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com * Legislation Bans Fed Workers From Staying at Trump Properties --------------------------------------------------------------- Ian Smith, writing for fedsmith.com ,reports that Congressman Jamie Raskin (D-MD) has introduced legislation that would prohibit the government from paying for federal employees's travel expenses if they are staying at a hotel owned by President Trump or his family when on official travel. In a press release, Raskin accused President Trump of being in violation of the Constitution's domestic emoluments clause because of his business holdings and said the legislation was needed as a result. The Emoluments Clause and Previous Lawsuits Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution reads, "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State." Regarding domestic emoluments, Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution says, "The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them." An emolument is a "salary, fee, or profit from employment or office." According to Bloomberg, the original intent of the foreign emoluments provision of the Constitution was to discourage early American leaders from being influenced by gifts from European governments. Two lawsuits brought against Trump for violating the emoluments clause were dismissed late last year by a federal judge who said the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue. U.S. District Court Judge George Daniels also said that the matter was one that should be decided by Congress, not the courts. One of the lawsuits was filed by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW, along with a group of employees and owners of hospitality businesses, and the other was a class action lawsuit on behalf of members of the public filed by New York attorney William Weinstein, Esq. -- https://lawyers.justia.com/lawyer/william-weinstein- 794959/contact-- According to Politico, the basis of the lawsuits ultimately dismissed by the judge were as follows: CREW claimed it had standing because Trump's failure to divest his businesses had cause the organization to expend resources it would have used elsewhere, but the judge said that claim was too weak to sustain the suit. The class-action case claimed that Trump was violating promises he made to distance himself from his businesses, but Daniels said that kind of promise wasn't enforceable in court. President Trump has pledged not to take a salary while in office, something not addressed by the lawsuits. He has donated his salary to several federal agencies for different purposes: the National Park Service for battlefield infrastructure, the Department of Education to fund a summer camp, the Department of Health and Human Services to battle opioid addiction, and most recently to the Department of Transportation for domestic infrastructure rebuilding. The HOTEL Act Raskin's bill represents an effort in Congress along the lines of what Judge Daniels was referencing, namely that any violation of the emoluments clause would have to be dealt with by Congress. Raskin, who has been a professor of constitutional law at American University's Washington College of Law for over 25 years, said in a statement, "If the President does not have enough respect for the Constitution to refuse extra government payments beyond his official salary, then we must cut the unlawful payments off at the source." The "source" in this case is the federal workforce. The legislation would accomplish its objectives by barring agencies from spending money at any Trump properties. Raskin says in his press release on the bill: The Constitution prohibits the President from receiving any emolument (any profit, benefit, gift, or payment) other than his salary while in office, but President Trump has continued to receive profits from his properties. These profits include taxpayer money paid to Trump properties by various federal government agencies patronizing Trump businesses. According to Raskin, "We must stop all executive branch officials, all of whom report ultimately to President Trump, from spending public dollars at Trump hotels, restaurants, golf courses and other businesses. This is a ludicrous situation." The Heightened Oversight of Travel, Eating, and Lodging (HOTEL) Act (H.R. 5304) would prohibit federal agencies from paying for federal employees' per diem allowances or travel reimbursements for lodging or dining services at any properties owned by the President or his family.[GN] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Marion Alcestis A. Castillon, Jessenius Pulido, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche Maricon Castillon-Lopez, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2018. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. * * * End of Transmission * * *