/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/180625.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, June 25, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 126 Headlines ACORDA THERAPEUTICS: "Hague" Suit Voluntarily Dismissed ADECCO USA: CMC in "Shepardson" Moved to Aug. 2 ALL STAR PAVING: Mendez Asserts FLSA, Wage and Hour Law Breach ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Court Dismisses Unreimbursed Expenses Suit AMERICOLLECT INC: "Beltre" Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation ARENA PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Grants Final Approval of Settlement ARMO BIOSCIENCES: Faces "Copp" Suit Over Merger With Eli Lilly ARMO BIOSCIENCES: Franchi Sues Over $1.6-Bil. Sale to Eli Lilly ATLANTA SUPERSOURCE: "Easton" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation BA PIZZA INC: Sued by Chavez for Not Paying Overtime Under FLSA BARNES & NOBLE: 7th Cir. Vacates Dismissal of "Dieffenbach" Suit BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Bid to Dismiss Illinois Suit Still Pending BCB BANCORP: Insurance Carrier Suit Related to "Kube" Concluded BELL TRANS: Court Partially Stays "Oliver" Until Aug. 30 BLUE CROSS: Sued by Dilworth Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls BLUETARP FINANCIAL: Brown Lumber Suit Asserts Breach of Contract BNP PARIBAS: Court Dismisses 2nd Amended "Kashef" Suit CARDINAL COMPLIANCE: Misclassifies Employees, "Moore" Suit Says CHALLENGE SECURITY: "Copeland" Suit Asserts FLSA Violation CHARLES WAGNER: "Barlow" Suit Seeks Insurance for Asbestos Claims CHICAGO, IL: CTU's Bid to Strike 3rd Affirmative Defense Denied COMMUNITY LOANS: Dietzen to Recoup OT Pay for Branch Managers CONVERGYS CORP: Accused by "Roush" Suit of Not Paying Overtime CORECIVIC INC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Dew" Suit Alleges CRICKET COMMS: Bid to Strike Renewed Removal Notice Denied CROSSCOUNTRY MORTGAGE: Bethea Sues for Wage & Hour Law Violations CVS HEALTH: Court Closes Suit Over HIV/AIDS Treatment DELLA NONA: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, "Moreno" Suit Alleges DR PEPPER/SEVEN UP: "Becerra" Suit Dismissed DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES: 2nd Amended Complaint Dismissed ENDOLOGIX INC: $750,000 "Ortiz" Settlement Funds Distributed ENERVEST ENERGY: 10th Cir. Reverses Atty. Fee, Incentive Awards ENHANCED RECOVERY: Accused by "Thibodeaux" of Violating FDCPA FACEBOOK INC: Burk Files Suit Over Data Breach FIVE STAR PIZZA: Fails to Refund Delivery Drivers, "Cheeney" Says FLUOR CORPORATION: Sued by Chun for Lying to the Investing Public FRONTLINE ASSET: Can Compel Arbitration in "Fuller" FDCPA Suit FULTON COUNTY, GA: "Moore" Suit Seeks Refund of Property Taxes GENCO SHIPPING: Dismissal of Baltic Stockholder Suit Upheld GEO GROUP: Court Resets Deadlines in "Chen" Suit GLOBAL EXCHANGE: Accused by "Deforest" Suit of Invading Privacy GLOBE LIFE: Faces "Eckstein" Suit Over Unsolicited Calls GOPRO INC: Court Enters Schedule for Filing Reply to "Park" Suit GUEST SERVICES: "Clarke" Suit Seeks to Recoup OT Pay Under FLSA HAVEN HEALTH: Faces "Downing" Class Suit Over Background Checks HESKA CORP: "Fauley" Class Action Still Pending in Illinois HOST INTERNATIONAL: "Estivene" Seeks to Recover Wages Under FLSA HOUSING MANAGEMENT: "Christian" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations HOUSTON NFL: PGG Suit Seeks to Recover Minimum & Overtime Wages ICTS INTERNATIONAL: Pays Out $1.9MM in Employees' Wage Suits JANUS HENDERSON: Unit Faces Velocity Shares Daily Inverse Suits KLONDEX MINES: Being Sold for Too Little, "Gunderson" Suit Claims LADENBURG THALMANN: Class Cert. Bid Granted in Suit vs. ARCP LADENBURG THALMANN: Still Defends Suit Over Miller Securities LADENBURG THALMANN: Bid to Dismiss All American Suit Granted LASHMAX LLC: Coleman Seeks to Recover Wages, OT Pay Under FLSA LOVETT FOOD: "Ahmed" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages MACQUARIE INFRASTRUCTURE: Fajardo Files Securities Class Action MATSON NAVIGATION: Unearned Wages Claim in "Dixon" Dismissed MDL 2777: Sept. 17 Hearing on Bid for Class Certification MEDICINES CO: Court Grants Final Approval of Class Action Deal MEDGUARD ALERT: Cunningham Files Suit Over Autodialed Calls MFS GLOBAL: Violates TCPA's Do-Not-Call Provision, Fabricant Says MICHIGAN: Court Denies Filing of Amended "Fowler" Suit MOMENTA PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Dismiss LOVENOX Suit Underway MTGE INVESTMENT: "Dell'Acqua" Suit Challenges Sale to Annaly MTGE INVESTMENT: Faces "Franchi" Suit Over Acquisition by Annaly NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: 4 Classes in "McNamee" FDCPA Suit Certified NATIONWIDE RECOVERY: "Gurto" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation NEW YORK: Partial Summary Judgment Bid in Youth Shelter Suit OK'd NORTEL NETWORKS: Ct. Dismisses Amended "Lucescu" Securities Suit NORTHLAND GROUP: Rodz Sues Over Illegal Collection Practices NICARAGUA: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Robertson" Suit OKLAHOMA: Court Reverses Certification of "Morehead" Class ONE FIFTY: Court Certifies Class of Waiters/Servers in "Maor" PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Plaintiffs to Appeal Case Dismissal POTBELLY CORP: Assistant Managers' Class Suit Pending in New York PTC THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Approve Class Settlement Underway QUANTA SERVICES: "Benton" Class Action Still Ongoing QUICK CAPITAL: Accused by Abante Rooter Suit of Violating TCPA RADIANT LOGISTICS: "Barahona" Class Suit Underway REAL ESTATE EMPIRE: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit for Invasion of Privacy RED WING: Web Site Not Blind-Accessible, "Olsen" Suit Says RITRAN INC: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, "Noain" Suit Claims ROME HOUSING: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss "Barber" Suit RURAL METRO: Bid to Compel RFPs Replies in "Calleros" Partly OKd SCHNUCK MARKETS: Dismissal of Community Bank Suit Affirmed SEALIFT INC: Partial Summary Judgment Bid in "Dziennik" OK'd SECURITY BENEFIT: Sued by Ogles on Behalf of Annuity Purchasers SENATOR CONSTRUCTION: "Encalada" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations STAGE STORES: "Crosby" Suit Seeks to Recover Minimum and OT Wages STANDARD FIRE: Summary Judgement Bid in "O'Hara" Suit Granted STEVENS SECURITY: Must Show Docs Responsive to "Gunn" RFPs SYMANTEC CORP: Faces "Broda" Securities Class Suit in California SYRACUSE, NY: Judgment on Pleadings in "Winston" Partly Affirmed TLRA DEBT: Collection Activities Violate FDCPA, "Day" Suit Says TOUCHPOINT 360: "Arugu" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Court Grants Summary Judgment Bid in "Razak" UNITED STATES: Court Allows "Pack" to Proceed in Forma Pauperis VASCO DATA: Continues to Defend "Rossbach" Suit VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Raul Files Suit Over Francisco Partners Merger VOYA FINANCIAL: Blinds Can't Access Web Site, "Matzura" Suit Says WEIS MARKETS: "Allen" Suit Alleges Civil Rights Act Violation WINKING LIZARD: "Barnes" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages WYNN RESORTS: Faces "Ferris" Securities Class Action ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Appellate Briefing to be Completed in July ********* ACORDA THERAPEUTICS: "Hague" Suit Voluntarily Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------- Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the District Court has granted the plaintiffs' motion to voluntarily dismiss a class action lawsuit without prejudice. On November 17, 2017, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against the company and certain of its current and former officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, by Michael Hague on behalf of stockholders who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between April 18, 2016 through November 14, 2017, which is referred to as the purported class period. The Company said, "The complaint asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, including allegations that the company's stock was artificially inflated during the class period because we and certain current and former officers allegedly made misrepresentations or did not make proper disclosures regarding tozadenant, a pharmaceutical product candidate the company acquired with Biotie Therapies in 2016." "Specifically, the lawsuit alleged that the company failed to disclose, throughout the class period, tozadenant's safety risks and approval prospects, and also that we overstated the benefits of the Biotie Therapies acquisition. The complaint sought, among other relief, class certification of the lawsuit, unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs." On March 13, 2018, the District Court granted the plaintiffs' motion to voluntarily dismiss the class action without prejudice. Acorda Therapeutics said "There is no settlement agreement between us and the plaintiff, and each party is responsible for its own costs and attorneys' fees." Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company focused on developing therapies that restore function and improve the lives of people with neurological disorders. The company is based in Ardsley, New York. ADECCO USA: CMC in "Shepardson" Moved to Aug. 2 ----------------------------------------------- In the case, KAITLYN SHEPARDSON, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ADECCO USA, INC, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-05102-EMC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward M. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California The Plaintiff filed the proposed class action on Aug. 18, 2015. The Defendant removed the action to the Court and filed a Motion to Compel single Plaintiff arbitration pursuant to the Dispute Resolution Agreement between the parties. The Court granted the Defendant's Motion to Compel pursuant to the arbitration agreement, which contains a class action waiver. After the Court ruled on the Motion to Compel in the case, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal in Morris v. Ernst & Young, LLP, held that class action waivers in arbitration agreements violate the National Labor Relations Act. The United States Supreme Court granted review of the Morris v. Ernst & Young decision. The matter was stayed pending the Supreme Court's decision. The Supreme Court held oral argument on Oct. 2, 2017, and, as of the date of the Stipulated Order, the Supreme Court has yet to render a decision. Further, the Plaintiff's counsel will be out of the country from June 14, 2018 through July 10, 2018. Accordingly, the parties request a 6-week continuance of the case management conference ("CMC"). Therefore, the parties stipulated, and Judge Chen granted, that the CMC be continued six weeks to a date after July 10, 2018. The CMC now scheduled for March 24, 2018 is continued and will be scheduled to take place on Aug. 2, 2018 at 10:30 a.m. A full-text copy of the Court's May 16, 2018 Order is available at https://bit.ly/2yh8j4K from Leagle.com. Kaitlyn Shepardson, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew Righetti -- matt@righettilaw.com -- Righetti Glugoski, P.C., John Glugoski -- jglugoski@righettilaw.com -- Righetti Glugoski, P.C. & Michael C. Righetti -- mike@righettilaw.com -- Righetti Glugoski, P.C. Adecco USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Allison Clare Eckstrom -- allison.eckstrom@bclplaw.com -- Bryan Cave LLP & Julie Westcott O'Dell -- Julie.odell@bryancave.com -- Bryan Cave LLP. ALL STAR PAVING: Mendez Asserts FLSA, Wage and Hour Law Breach -------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE ENRIQUE MENDEZ v. ALL STAR PAVING & MASONRY, LLP, and THOMAS CONNOR, individually, Case No. 2:18-cv-09521 (D.N.J., May 21, 2018), is brought against the Defendants as a collective action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated non- exempt laborers, for their alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law. All Star is headquartered in North Brunswick, Middlesex County, New Jersey. Thomas Connor has been an owner, partner, officer or manager of All Star. The Defendants own and operate a paving and masonry company servicing clients throughout the state of New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq. Andrew I. Glenn, Esq. JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A. 301 N. Harrison Street, Suite 9F, #306 Princeton, NJ 08540 Telephone: (201) 687-9977 Facsimile: (201) 595-0308 E-mail: JJaffe@JaffeGlenn.com AGlenn@JaffeGlenn.com ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Court Dismisses Unreimbursed Expenses Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the cases, MAO-MSO RECOVERY II, LLC, MSP RECOVERY, LLC, and MSPA CLAIMS 1 LLC, Plaintiffs, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, and ESURANCE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, Case Nos. 17-cv-01340, 17-cv-02370 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Andrea R. Wood of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, (i) granted without prejudice Defendants' motions to dismiss, and (ii) denied as moot the Defendants' motions to dismiss or strike the class allegations. The Plaintiffs, alleged assignees of legal claims held by numerous unidentified Medicare Advantage Organizations, have filed these two putative class action lawsuits against Allstate and Esurance. In both cases, the Plaintiffs seek double recovery under the Medicare Secondary Payer provisions of the Medicare Act ("MSP provisions"), for reimbursement of medical expenses that the Plaintiffs allege various Medicare Advantage Organizations paid on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries despite the Defendants' obligation to pay under the MSP provisions. The class action complaints are virtually identical, involving the same Plaintiffs, Defendants, allegations, and claims for relief, except for the presence of an additional contract claim in case number 1:17-cv-01340. The Plaintiffs purport to bring claims on behalf of putative classes that include entities that contracted directly with Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and/or their assignees pursuant to Medicare part C, including but not limited to, MAOs and other similar entities, to provide Medicare benefits through a Medicare Advantage Plan and that made payments for benefits that should have been paid by Defendants as primary plans under the MSP provisions. The Plaintiffs have brought at least 10 sets of nearly identical lawsuits against different insurer Defendants in various district courts across the country. The Defendants have moved to dismiss all claims in both cases pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that the Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for relief. In the alternative, they have also filed motions to dismiss or strike the class allegations in both complaints. Judge Wood notes that in the Auto Insurance Case, the necessity of sufficient factual allegations regarding an assignment of rights from an MAO to a Plaintiff applies with equal force to the breach of contract claim as it does to the MSP claim. While the Plaintiffs claim that the MAOs have subrogation rights pursuant to Medicare regulations to pursue their Medicare beneficiaries' breach of contract claims against the Defendants, the complaint still fails to plead facts sufficient to establish that the MAOs then properly assigned those rights to the Plaintiffs. The complaints in both the Auto Insurance Case and the Tort Settlement Case are therefore dismissed in their entirety without prejudice to the Plaintiffs filing amended complaints containing additional factual allegations regarding the alleged assignments. Given that the complaints are dismissed without prejudice, the Judge briefly touches on the merits in an attempt to conserve time and resources if the Plaintiffs do choose to re-plead. She finds that the complaint contains such a dearth of factual allegations regarding the contracts between the Defendants and their insureds that the Court does not even have a basis for analyzing the claim under any particular state's substantive contract law. At the very least, though, the Plaintiffs were required to plead some basic facts regarding the contracts themselves, the promises made, an insured's performance under the contract, and a Defendant's breach. Because the complaint contains virtually no factual allegations regarding any contract, this claim must be dismissed without prejudice as well. For these reasons, Judge Wood granted the Defendants' motions to dismiss. The complaints are dismissed without prejudice. The Defendants' alternative motions to dismiss or strike class allegations are therefore denied as moot. A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2018 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://goo.gl/wZxVEs from Leagle.com. MAO-MSO RECOVERY II, LLC & MSP RECOVERY, LLC, Plaintiffs, represented by Christopher L. Coffin -- ccoffin@pbclawfirm.com -- Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, L.L.P., R. Brent Wisner -- rbwisner@baumhedlundlaw.com -- Baum Hedlund Aristei & Goldman, P.c., Courtney Lynn Stidham -- cstidham@pbclawfirm.com -- Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, LLP, pro hac vice, David M. Hundley -- dhundley@pbclawfirm.com -- Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, L.L.P., Nicholas R. Rockforte -- nrockforte@pbclawfirm.com -- Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, L.L.P., pro hac vice & Pedram Esfandiary, Baum Hedlund Aristei & Goldman, P.C., pro hac vice. MSPA CLAIMS 1, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher L. Coffin, Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, L.L.P., R. Brent Wisner, Baum Hedlund Aristei & Goldman, P.c., Courtney Lynn Stidham, Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, LLP, pro hac vice, David M. Hundley, Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, L.L.P., Nicholas R. Rockforte, Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, L.L.P., pro hac vice & Pedram Esfandiary, Baum Hedlund Aristei & Goldman, P.C., pro hac vice. Allstate Insurance Company & Esurance Property and Casualty Insurance Company, Defendants, represented by Steven M. Levy -- steven.levy@dentons.com -- Dentons US LLP, Jeffrey P. Lennard -- jeffrey.lennard@dentons.com -- Dentons US LLP, Kristine Marie Schanbacher -- kristine.schanbacher@dentons.com -- Dentons US LLP & Mark L. Hanover -- mark.hanover@dentons.com -- Dentons US LLP. AMERICOLLECT INC: "Beltre" Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation ------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Beltre, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Americollect, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-02456 (E.D. N.Y., April 26, 2018), seeks damages for Defendant's violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff Jonathan Beltre is an individual who is a citizen of the State of New York residing in Queens County, New York. The Plaintiff is a consumer. The Defendant Americollect, Inc., is a Wisconsin Corporation with a principal place of business in Manitowoc County, Wisconsin. The Defendant is 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 ARENA PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Grants Final Approval of Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the District Court has entered its final approval order approving the settlement of a class action lawsuit. The Company said, "Beginning on September 20, 2010, a number of complaints were filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of California, or District Court, against the company and certain of its current and former employees and directors on behalf of certain purchasers of our common stock. The complaints were brought as purported stockholder class actions, and, in general, include allegations that the company and certain of its current and former employees and directors violated federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading statements regarding our BELVIQ program, thereby artificially inflating the price of our common stock. The plaintiffs sought unspecified monetary damages and other relief." "On August 8, 2011, the District Court consolidated the actions and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On November 1, 2011, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint. On March 28, 2013, the District Court dismissed the consolidated amended complaint without prejudice. On May 13, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed a second consolidated amended complaint. On November 5, 2013, the District Court dismissed the second consolidated amended complaint without prejudice as to all parties except for Robert E. Hoffman, who was dismissed from the action with prejudice. "On November 27, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the second consolidated amended complaint. On March 20, 2014, the District Court denied plaintiff's motion and dismissed the second consolidated amended complaint with prejudice. On April 18, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal, and on August 27, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed his appellate brief in the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, or Ninth Circuit. On October 24, 2014, we filed our answering brief in response to the lead plaintiff's appeal. On December 5, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed his reply brief. A panel of the Ninth Circuit heard oral argument on the appeal on May 4, 2016. "On October 26, 2016, the Ninth Circuit panel reversed the District Court's dismissal of the second consolidated amended complaint and remanded the case back to the District Court for further proceedings. On January 25, 2017, the District Court permitted us to submit a renewed motion to dismiss the second consolidated amended complaint. On February 2, 2017, the company filed the renewed motion to dismiss. On February 23, 2017, the lead plaintiff filed his opposition, and on March 2, 2017, the company filed its reply. On April 28, 2017, the District Court denied the company's renewed motion to dismiss. On November 3, 2017, the company and the lead plaintiff signed a stipulation and agreement of settlement, or Stipulation, to resolve the consolidated class action. Under the terms of the Stipulation, and in exchange for a release of all claims by class members and a dismissal of the consolidated class action with prejudice, the company has agreed (i) the company's insurers will pay class members and their attorneys a total of approximately $12.025 million and (ii) Arena will pay class members and their attorneys approximately $11.975 million in either shares of the company's common stock or cash at the company's election. On November 30, 2017, the District Court preliminary approved the settlement and the form of notice to potential class members of the proposed settlement and the procedure by which they can become class members. On April 12, 2018, the District Court entered its final approval order approving the settlement and the plan of allocation and request for attorneys' fees and expense. "In the third quarter of 2017, the company recognized $11.975 million of net expense for the portion of the settlement that we will pay in either common stock or cash, and $24.0 million as a current liability presented in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheets for the gross settlement liability, with a corresponding $12.025 million insurance recovery receivable." Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company focused on developing novel, small-molecule drugs with optimized receptor pharmacology designed to deliver broad clinical utility across multiple therapeutic areas. The company is based in San Diego, California. ARMO BIOSCIENCES: Faces "Copp" Suit Over Merger With Eli Lilly -------------------------------------------------------------- JOANNE COPP, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ARMO BIOSCIENCES, INC., PETER VAN VLASSELAER, PH.D., XIANGMIN CUI, PH.D., CARL GORDON, PH.D., PIERRE LEGAULT, NAIYER RIZVI, M.D., BETH SEIDENBERG, M.D., and STELLA XU, PH.D., Case No. 3:18-cv-03109 (N.D. Cal., May 24, 2018), arises from the proposed merger between ARMO and Eli Lilly and Company. On May 10, 2018, the Company announced that it had entered into an agreement and plan of merger with Lilly, by which Lilly will acquire all of the outstanding shares of ARMO common stock through an all-cash tender offer at a purchase price of $50 per share. The Tender Offer commenced on May 23, 2018, and the Company concurrently filed a Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9 with the Securities and Exchange Commission, recommending that the Company's stockholders tender their shares for the Tender Offer price. The Plaintiff alleges that the 14D-9 is materially false and/or misleading because, inter alia, it fails to disclose certain material internal financial information about the Company, relied on by the Individual Defendants to recommend the Tender Offer and by the Company's financial advisor to render an opinion that the Tender Offer is fair to ARMO stockholders, and certain material information regarding the sale process leading up to the Tender Offer, which omissions render the 14D-9 incomplete and/or misleading. ARMO is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive offices located in Redwood City, California. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. ARMO is a bio-technology company that develops immunotherapies for treating cancer, as well as cardiovascular, fibrosis, and inflammation diseases in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin Heikali, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (424) 256-2884 Facsimile: (424) 256-2885 E-mail: bheikali@faruqilaw.com - and - James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 Third Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-9330 Facsimile: (212) 983-9331 E-mail: jwilson@faruqilaw.com ARMO BIOSCIENCES: Franchi Sues Over $1.6-Bil. Sale to Eli Lilly --------------------------------------------------------------- ADAM FRANCHI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. ARMO BIOSCIENCES, INC., PETER VAN VLASSELAER, XIANGMIN CUI, CARL GORDON, PIERRE LEGAULT, NAIYER RIZVI, BETH SEIDENBERG, STELLA XU, ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, and BLUEGILL ACQUISITION CORPORATION, Case No. 1:18-cv-00805-UNA (D. Del., May 29, 2018), stems from a proposed transaction, pursuant to which ARMO will be acquired by Eli Lilly and Company ("Parent") and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Bluegill Acquisition Corporation. On May 9, 2018, ARMO's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger and reorganization with Eli Lilly. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub commenced a tender offer, that was set to expire June 21, 2018, to acquire all of ARMO's outstanding common stock for $50 in cash for each share of ARMO common stock, or approximately $1.6 billion, in an all-cash transaction. ARMO is a Delaware corporation and maintains its principal executive offices in Redwood City, California. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. ARMO is a late-stage immuno-oncology company that is developing a pipeline of novel, proprietary product candidates that activate the immune system of cancer patients to recognize and eradicate tumors. Eli Lilly is an Indiana corporation and is a party to the Merger Agreement. Merger Sub is a Delaware corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent, and a party to the Merger Agreement. Eli Lilly discovers, develops, manufactures, and markets pharmaceutical products worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com - and - Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (484) 324-6800 Facsimile: (484) 631-1305 E-mail: rm@maniskas.com ATLANTA SUPERSOURCE: "Easton" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation --------------------------------------------------------- James Corey Eaton and Steven Paul Smith, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Atlanta SuperSource, Inc., and Tim Martin, Case No. 1:18-cv-01791 (N.D. Ga., April 25, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay regular wages and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. James Corey Eaton began working for the Defendants on September 28, 2015 as a service technician. Steven Paul Smith began working for the Defendants on July 25, 2017 as a service technician. The Plaintiffs' job duties consisted of performing maintenance and repair work on dish washers and laundry equipment for clients of SuperSource, including restaurants, golf clubs, hotels, and other businesses within Georgia. The Defendants operate a domestic corporation registered and licensed to do business in the State of Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: M. Travis Foust, Esq. J. Daniel Cole PARKS, CHESIN & WALBERT, P.C. 75 Fourteenth Street, 26th Floor Atlanta, GA 30309 Tel: (404) 873-8000 Fax: (404) 873-8050 E-mail: tfoust@pcwlawfirm.com dcole@pcwlawfirm.com BA PIZZA INC: Sued by Chavez for Not Paying Overtime Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- RAFAEL CHAVEZ, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals v. BA PIZZA INC., a Florida Profit Corporation; BA PIZZA II, INC., a Florida Profit Corporation; BA PIZZA III, INC., a Florida Profit Corporation; and TOM VENITIS, individually, Case No. 2:18-cv-00375-UA-MRM (M.D. Fla., May 29, 2018), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mr. Chavez alleges that the Defendants implemented illegal pay procedures that deprived him of proper overtime compensation for his hours worked in excess for 40 hours each week. BA Pizza was a Florida Profit Corporation with a principal place of business in Lee County, Florida. BA Pizza II was a Florida Profit Corporation with a principal place of business in Collier County, Florida. BA Pizza III was a Florida Profit Corporation with a principal place of business in Lee County. The Corporate Defendants were doing business as Leoni's Pizzeria. Tom Venitis owned and jointly operated three pizzerias, doing business as Leoni's Pizzeria, throughout Lee and Collier counties.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chanelle J. Ventura, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PA. 600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) 318-0268 Facsimile: (954) 327-3016 E-mail: cventura@forthepeople.com BARNES & NOBLE: 7th Cir. Vacates Dismissal of "Dieffenbach" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, HEATHER DIEFFENBACH and SUSAN WINSTEAD, Plaintiffs- Appellants, v. BARNES & NOBLE, INC., Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 17-2408 (7th Cir.), Judge Frank H. Easterbrook of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit vacated the district court's dismissal of the complaint, and remanded the case for proceedings consistent with his Opinion. In 2012, Barnes & Noble discovered that scoundrels had compromised some of the machines, called PIN pads, that it used to verify payment information. They acquired details such as customers' names, card numbers and expiration dates, and PINs. Some customers temporarily lost the use of their funds while waiting for banks to reverse unauthorized charges to their accounts. Some spent money on credit-monitoring services to protect their financial interests. Some lost the value of their time devoted to acquiring new account numbers and notifying businesses of these changes. In this suit under state law, the Plaintiffs seek to collect damages not from the data thieves but from Barnes & Noble. The district court initially held that the representative Plaintiffs had suffered no loss at all -- that they did not even have standing to sue. After the Court held in Remijas v. Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, and Lewert v. P.F. Chang's China Bistro, Inc., that consumers who experience a theft of their data indeed have standing, the district court (acting through a different judge) concluded that the complaint alleges injury. But district court judge nonetheless dismissed the complaint, ruling that it does not adequately plead damages. Judge Easterbrook finds that this seems a new label for an old error. To say that the Plaintiffs have standing is to say that they have alleged injury in fact, and if they have suffered an injury then damages are available (if Barnes & Noble violated the statutes on which the claims rest). The Plaintiffs have standing because the data theft may have led them to pay money for credit- monitoring services, because unauthorized withdrawals from their accounts cause a loss (the time value of money) even when banks later restore the principal, and because the value of one's own time needed to set things straight is a loss from an opportunity- cost perspective. These injuries can justify money damages, just as they support standing. The fact that the federal rules do not require the Plaintiffs to identify items of loss (except for special damages) means that the complaint cannot be faulted as insufficient. Still, a district court could grant judgment on the pleadings, if none of the Plaintiffs' injuries is compensable, as a matter of law, under the statutes on which they rely. He therefore turns to state law. The Judge explains that Dieffenbach dealt with Barnes & Noble in California and contends on appeal that she suffered four kinds of injury: (1) her bank took three days to restore funds someone else had used to make a fraudulent purchase; (2) she had to spend time sorting things out with the police and her bank; (3) she could not make purchases using her compromised account for three days; and (4) she did not receive the benefit of her bargain with Barnes & Noble. The fourth of these is not a loss; it is the failure to obtain a gain from the transaction. But the first three are losses, at least in economic terms. Dieffenbach invokes two statutes: California's Customer Records Act and its Unfair Competition Law. The Records Act does not define injury, nor does any state decision the Judge could find. The district judge took this absence of a definition as equivalent to conditioning recovery on satisfaction of the Unfair Competition Law, which provides that "lost money or property" supports recovery. That's a problematic move; the statutes are distinct, after all, as is their language. But this does not matter, because the first three losses that Dieffenbach identifies fit within the phrase "lost money or property". Now for Illinois, Judge Easterbrook explains that Winstead, the second representative Plaintiff, alleges that (1) her bank contacted her about a potentially fraudulent charge on her credit card statement and deactivated her card for several days; and (2) the security breach at Barnes & Noble "was a decisive factor" when she renewed a credit-monitoring service for $16.99 per month. An Illinois appellate court has held that a person who purchases credit-monitoring services after a merchant discloses personal information has not suffered actual damages. To get damages, the plaintiffs must show that a culpable data breach caused the monthly payments, but the complaint cannot be dismissed before giving the class an opportunity to do so. Everything the Judge explained about California and Illinois law concerns injury. He has not considered whether Barnes & Noble violated any of these three state laws by failing to prevent villains from stealing the Plaintiffs' names and account data. Barnes & Noble was itself a victim. Its reputation took a hit, it had to replace the compromised equipment plus other terminals that had been shown to be vulnerable, and it lost business. None of the state laws expressly makes merchants liable for failure to crime-proof their point-of-sale systems. He finds that the Plaintiffs may have a difficult task showing an entitlement to collect damages from a fellow victim of the data thieves. It is also far from clear that this suit should be certified as a class action; both the state laws and the potential damages are disparate. These and other questions need consideration on remand. That the case has been pending for five and a half years without a decision by the district court whether the proposed class can be certified is problematic under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1)(A). All he holds is that the complaint cannot be dismissed on the ground that the Plaintiffs do not adequately allege compensable damages. Accordingly, Judge Easterbrook vacated the judgment, and remanded the case for proceedings consistent with his Opinion. A full-text copy of the Seventh Circuit's April 11, 2018 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/0Lq7Lk from Leagle.com. Peter V. Baugher -- pbaugher@baugherlegal.com -- for Defendant- Appellee. Ben Barnow -- b.barnow@barnowlaw.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellant. Joseph Siprut -- jsiprut@siprut.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellant. Erich Schork -- e.schork@barnowlaw.com -- for Plaintiff- Appellant. Allyson Himelfarb -- allyson.himelfarb@arnoldporter.com -- for Defendant-Appellee. Kenneth L. Chernof -- kenneth.chernof@arnoldporter.com -- for Defendant-Appellee. BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Bid to Dismiss Illinois Suit Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Baxter International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the company's motion to dismiss a consolidated complaint in the Northern District of Illinois district court is still pending. In November 2016, a purported antitrust class action complaint seeking monetary and injunctive relief was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The complaint alleges a conspiracy among manufacturers of IV solutions to restrict output and affect pricing in connection with a shortage of such solutions. Similar parallel actions subsequently were filed. In January 2017, a single consolidated complaint covering these matters was filed in the Northern District of Illinois. The company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint in February 2017. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Baxter International Inc. provides a portfolio of healthcare products. The company operates through North and South America; Europe, Middle East and Africa; and Asia-Pacific segments. It offers peritoneal dialysis and hemodialysis, and additional dialysis therapies and services; renal replacement therapies and other organ support therapies focused in the intensive care unit; sterile intravenous (IV) solutions, IV therapies, infusion pumps, administration sets, and drug reconstitution devices; and parenteral nutrition therapies. The company is based in Deerfield, Illinois. BCB BANCORP: Insurance Carrier Suit Related to "Kube" Concluded --------------------------------------------------------------- BCB Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that a lawsuit in relation to the Kube v. Pamrapo Bancorp, Inc., et al., case has been concluded. The Company, as the successor to Pamrapo Bancorp, Inc., and in its own corporate capacity, was a named defendant in a shareholder class action lawsuit, Kube v. Pamrapo Bancorp, Inc., et al., filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Hudson County, Chancery Division, General Equity (the "Action"). On September 21, 2015, the court entered an Order and Final Judgment ("Judgment"), whereby the Stipulation of Settlement ("Stipulation") agreed to by the plaintiff class, the Company and the remaining defendants was approved. Pursuant to the Judgment, and in consideration for the full settlement and release of all Released Claims (as that term is defined in the Stipulation) and the dismissal of the Action with prejudice as against the Company and the remaining defendants, the Company, on its own behalf and on behalf of the remaining defendants, would pay $1,950,000 to the Class. This settlement amount was paid in November 2015. Pursuant to the Stipulation, the plaintiff class's counsel reserved the right to seek an award of counsel fees and litigation expenses ("Fees Motion"). The maximum amount which could have been awarded as a result of the Fees Motion was $1,000,000. The plaintiff class's counsel made a Fees Motion to the court seeking a final award of counsel fees and litigation expenses of approximately $1,000,000. The Company and the remaining defendants vigorously opposed that motion. By Order, dated July 5, 2017, the court awarded counsel fees and litigation expenses to the plaintiff's class counsel in the amount of $1,000,000. The Company satisfied the Order by July 31, 2017. The Company and the other defendants in the Action ("Plaintiffs") brought suit (the "Carrier Suit") against Progressive Insurance Company ("Progressive"), the Directors' and Officers' Liability insurance carrier for Pamrapo Bancorp, Inc., at the time of its merger with the Company on July 6, 2010, and Colonial American Insurance Company ("Colonial"), the Directors' and Officers' Liability insurance carrier for the Company at the time of the merger. The Carrier Suit sought, among other claims, indemnification, payment of and/or contribution toward the above settlement, payment of and/or contribution toward the award of attorney's fees to the plaintiff class's counsel, and reimbursement of the attorney's fees and defense costs incurred by the Plaintiffs in defending the Action and pursuing the Carrier Suit. Progressive made a motion to dismiss the Carrier Suit in 2014. The Plaintiffs opposed that motion. That motion was administratively terminated by Order of the court, dated December 3, 2014. By Order of the court, dated December 3, 2014, the Plaintiffs' motion to file an Amended Complaint was granted. On or about January 6, 2015, Progressive again made a motion to dismiss the Carrier Suit. The Plaintiffs opposed that motion. That motion was denied by oral decision on October 22, 2015, and by written Order, dated January 20, 2016. A Mediation session ("Mediation") was held on March 11, 2015, among the parties. Following the Mediation, the Plaintiffs and Colonial agreed to settle the Plaintiffs' claims against Colonial for $1,750,000. A Settlement Agreement and Release, dated June 30, 2015, was entered into by the Plaintiffs and Colonial. The Plaintiffs received the settlement amount of $1,750,000 from Colonial on July 9, 2015. The Plaintiffs and Progressive did not settle their respective claims at the Mediation. The Carrier Suit continued with respect to these parties. By Order of the court, dated August 10, 2016, the parties were granted permission to serve and file motions for summary judgment by November 9, 2016. Prior to consideration of these motions, a Settlement Conference was held before the court on November 16, 2016. The Plaintiffs and Progressive did not settle their respective claims at that Settlement Conference. The Plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment. Progressive filed a motion for summary judgment. These motions were returnable before the court on December 5, 2016. By Order, dated September 18, 2017, the court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, and denied Progressive's motion for summary judgment. A Status Conference was held before the court on October 26, 2017. As a result thereof, a Settlement Conference was scheduled for December 1, 2017, before the court. A Settlement Conference in the Carrier Suit was conducted on December 1, 2017, before the court. At the Settlement Conference, the terms of a preliminary settlement were discussed by the Plaintiffs and Progressive. A proposed Settlement Agreement and Release ("Release") was circulated among the parties for review. The last party to the Carrier Suit executed the Release on February 20, 2018. Pursuant to the Release, in consideration for the full settlement and release of all claims (as that term is defined in the Release) and the dismissal of the Carrier Suit with prejudice, Progressive agreed to pay the Company $2,200,000 by on or about March 10, 2018. Progressive timely made that payment to the Company. The Carrier Suit is concluded. BCB Bancorp, Inc. is a New Jersey corporation, and is the holding company parent of BCB Community Bank, or the Bank. The Company has not engaged in any significant business activity other than owning all of the outstanding common stock of BCB Community Bank. The company is based in Bayonne, New Jersey. BELL TRANS: Court Partially Stays "Oliver" Until Aug. 30 -------------------------------------------------------- Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada has entered the stipulated order partially staying the case, CAMERON E. OLIVER, Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BELL TRANS, a Nevada Corporation, and BRENT J. BELL, ECF Nos. 56, 63, 64, 70, 75 Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00305-JAD-PAL (D. Nev.), until Aug. 30, 2018, except for the Plaintiff's motion at ECF 67; and withdrawing the Plaintiff's motion at ECF 56. The parties, through their counsel of record, stipulated to partially stay proceedings in the matter and withdraw without prejudice the Plaintiff's motion at ECF 56 seeking to circulate a notice of pendency. The Stipulation is submitted as part of the parties' good faith efforts to present to the Court a class action settlement of the litigation for the Court's approval. Those efforts included the Court's Order of June 19, 2017, ECF 45, granting the parties' stipulation to stay the matter until July 27, 2017 in order to allow the parties time to set forth in greater detail the terms of the parties' proposed settlement, as well as to allow the Plaintiff's counsel time to file a motion seeking the Court's approval of the settlement terms. That Order, ECF 45, was the result of the parties' agreement during a mediation held on June 12, 2017 to present to the Court a proposal to settle, on a collective and class-wide basis, all disputes and claims related to this litigation and a related litigation (the related litigation being Case No. 2:15-cv-01066-MMDPAL, Willie Thurmond v. Presidential Limousine). Owing to certain disagreements between the parties, the settlement proposal contemplated by the parties at their mediation was not presented to the Court for its approval. As a result, at a status conference held on Feb. 12, 2018 with District Judge Dorsey, a minute order was issued and the case returned to active litigation. As a result of the return of the case to active litigation, the Plaintiff re-filed a motion seeking to circulate a notice of pendency under the Fair Labor Standards Act (ECF 56), that motion having originally been filed prior to the parties' mediation on April 26, 2017 (ECF 29), and denied without prejudice by the stay effectuated by the Court's Order at ECF 45. The Defendants in turn filed opposition to that motion (ECF 59) and a now withdrawn motion for sanctions (ECF 65 withdrawn at ECF 74) with the Plaintiff filing a reply in support of their motion for notice of pendency (ECF 66) and a motion to strike ECF 59 (ECF 67) and an opposition to the Defendants' motion for sanctions (ECF 72). Since the Court's Feb. 12, 2018 status conference, and the foregoing sequence of motion filings, oppositions, and replies, the parties have further conferred and committed to participate in a binding mediation session on July 31, 2018 with JAMS mediator and retired Judge Stewart Bell who also officiated at the July 2017 mediation session. The parties, except for one issue discussed infra, have pledged to resolve their outstanding differences, which the parties also agree are limited in scope, and present to the Court a settlement proposal based upon their agreement and whatever rulings Judge Bell makes at the mediation session that are necessary to fully finalize such agreement. The one issue that the parties cannot resolve is the Plaintiff's pending motion ECF 67 which seeks to strike from the record the Defendants' filing of certain materials at ECF 59 and 66 (along with the striking of ECF 65 and 72 of the necessary response to those materials). They do not agree to stay the disposition of the Plaintiffs' motion at ECF 67 and the parties request the Court suitably rule on that motion in due course. In light of this, the parties believe the litigation, with the exception of the Court's consideration and disposition of the Plaintiffs' motion at ECF 67, should be stayed until Aug. 30, 2018, which is 30 days after the currently scheduled July 31, 2018 binding mediation session and the status quo of the litigation otherwise maintained without prejudice to any of the parties' litigation positions. The parties are confident that a proposed class action settlement will be presented to the Court for its consideration prior to the expiration of that stay. They therefore stipulated that the case is stayed, except for the Plaintiff's motion at ECF 67 which will be decided by the Court, until Aug. 30, 2018; and that the Plaintiff's motion at ECF 56 is withdrawn without prejudice. Based on the parties' stipulation, Judge Dorsey ordered that the Motion for Circulation of Notice is deemed withdraw without prejudice. She denied as moot the stipulations for extension of time to respond to that motion, and the Motion for Leave to File Supplement re: Reply (ECF Nos. 63, 64, 70. The Court will address the Motion to Strike (65), Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 67) in due course. The Judge stayed the action is for all other purposes until Aug. 30, 2018. A full-text copy of the Court's May 18, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/jSw7M5 from Leagle.com. Cameron E. Oliver, Plaintiff, represented by Dana Sniegocki -- dana@overtimelaw.com -- Leon Greenberg & Leon Marc Greenberg -- leongreenberg@overtimelaw.com -- Leon Greenberg Professional Corporation. Bell Trans & Brent J. Bell, Defendants, represented by Anthony L. Hall -- ahall@hollandhart.com -- Holland and Hart LLP, Rico Cordova -- rncordova@hollandhart.com -- Holland & Hart LLP & Peter D. Navarro, Holland & Hart LLP. BLUE CROSS: Sued by Dilworth Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls ------------------------------------------------------------- ANGELA DILWORTH, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF ILLINOIS, A DIVISION OF HEALTH CARE SERVICE CORPORATION, A MUTUAL LEGAL RESERVE COMPANY, Case No. 1:18-cv-03732 (N.D. Ill., May 29, 2018), accuses the Defendant of causing multiple telemarketing calls to be made using an automatic telephone dialing system to the Plaintiff's cellular phone. Ms. Dilworth contends that she never consented to receive these calls, and the Defendant failed to honor her request to be placed on its do-not-call list. She brings this class action for damages and other equitable and legal remedies resulting from the Defendant's violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Illinois, a health insurance company, provides health plans for customers in Illinois, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas. The Company offers individual and family, Medicare, student health, and Medicaid and Medicare- Medicaid plans. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Illinois was formerly known as Hospital Service Corporation and changed its name to Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Illinois in 1939. The Company was founded in 1936 and is based in Chicago, Illinois. The Company operates as a subsidiary of Health Care Service Corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James B. Zouras, Esq. Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 233-1550 E-mail: jzouras@stephanzouras.com rstephan@stephanzouras.com - and - Daniel C. Girard, Esq. Simon S. Grille, Esq. GIRARD GIBBS LLP 601 California Street, 14th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 981-4800 E-mail: dcg@girardgibbs.com sg@girardgibbs.com BLUETARP FINANCIAL: Brown Lumber Suit Asserts Breach of Contract ---------------------------------------------------------------- Brown Lumber and Building Supply, Inc., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. BlueTarp Financial, Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-00173 (D. Maine, April 26, 2018), seeks damages for Defendant's breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff alleges that BlueTarp cheated its customers by failing to return money it collected from fees on items that were returned to Dealers. The fee at issue in this case is established in a written, pre-printed contract - which BlueTarp drafted - which is uniform in all relevant aspects. This uniform contract, known as the Purchase Account Agreement, states that the Dealer will pay BlueTarp a fee based on a percentage of the sales transaction to a Customer. Brown Lumber and Building Supply, Inc. is an Alabama corporation with its principal place of business in Shelby County, Alabama. The Plaintiff is a construction and building material supply companies. BlueTarp Financial, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Cumberland County, Maine. BlueTarp does business in this judicial district. The Defendant sells construction supplies to a local customer then provides accounts receivable financing, also known as factoring, to its over 2,000 clients across the nation. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard L. O'Meara, Esq. MURRAY, PLUMB & MURRAY 75 Pearl Street, P.O. Box 9785 Portland, ME 04104-5085 Tel: (207) 773-5651 Fax: (207) 773-8023 E-mail: romeara@mpmlaw.com - and - Luke Montgomery, Esq. J. Bradley Ponder, Esq. MONTGOMERY PONDER, LLC 2226 1st Avenue South, Suite 105 Birmingham, AL 35233 Tel: (205) 201-0303 Fax: (205) 208-9443 E-mail: luke@montgomeryponder.com brad@montgomeryponder.com BNP PARIBAS: Court Dismisses 2nd Amended "Kashef" Suit ------------------------------------------------------ In the case, Entesar Osman Kashef et al., Plaintiffs, v. BNP Paribas SA et al., Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-3228 (AJN) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Alison J. Nathan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint. The putative class action case arises out of atrocities committed by the Government of Sudan against its citizens between 1997 and 2009. Victims of the Sudanese government's human rights abuses bring a variety of state law claims against BNPP and its subsidiaries and branches alleging that the bank funded the Government of Sudan and assisted the government in circumventing U.S. economic sanctions, allowing the Government of Sudan to continue its genocidal campaign against the people of Sudan. Beginning in 1997 and continuing through 2007, BNPP became the primary bank of the Government of Sudan, through which it accessed U.S. financial markets and circumvented U.S. sanctions. BNPP created several schemes to avoid the sanctions, including removing information from financial documents identifying that a Sudanese entity was one of the parties involved in the financial transaction, and using satellite banks in the United States through which to funnel money. According to the Second Amended Complaint, Sudan's access to U.S. financial markets was critical to funding the Government, including its continued atrocities against its people. BNPP's actions were investigated by numerous state and federal agencies in the United States, and in 2014, BNPP pled guilty to conspiring to violate the laws of the United States in connection with circumventing U.S. sanctions on behalf of Sudan, Iran, and Cuba. BNPP also pled guilty to falsifying business records and conspiracy under New York law. Following the criminal actions against BNPP, the Plaintiffs initiated the present action on April 29, 2016 by filing its initial complaint. On Jan. 20, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint. In it, the Plaintiffs bring 20 state- law claims on which they seek to hold BNPP liable. The Plaintiffs allege that BNPP is liable for negligence per se (Counts 1 and 2), conspiracy to commit battery (Count 3), aiding and abetting battery (Count 4), conspiracy to commit battery in performance of a public duty or authority (Count 5), aiding and abetting battery in performance of a public duty or authority (Count 6), conspiracy to commit assault (Count 7), aiding and abetting assault (Count 8), conspiracy to commit false arrest and false imprisonment (Count 9), aiding and abetting false arrest and false imprisonment (Count 10), conspiracy to commit conversion -- wrongful taking (Count 11), aiding and abetting conversion -- wrongful taking (Count 12), conspiracy to commit conversion -- wrongful detention, use, or disposal (Count 13), aiding and abetting conversion -- wrongful detention, use, or disposal (Count 14), intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count 15), negligent infliction of emotional distress (Count 16), commercial bad faith (Count 17), unjust enrichment (Count 18), conspiracy to commit wrongful death (Count 19), and aiding and abetting wrongful death (Count 20). On March 21, 2017, the Defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in its entirety. They argue that the Plaintiffs' claims should be dismissed under the act of state doctrine. Judge Nathan concludes that the act of state doctrine is applicable in the case and bars its consideration of nearly all of the Plaintiffs' claims because ruling on them would require the Court to pass judgment on the acts of the Government of Sudan. The act of state doctrine provides that every sovereign state is bound to respect the independence of every other sovereign state, and the courts of one country will not sit in judgment on the acts of the government of another, done within its own territory. Under the act of state doctrine, claims against private entities may be barred when the causal chain between a defendant's alleged conduct and plaintiff's injury cannot be determined without an inquiry into the motives of the foreign government. In sum, the Judge concludes that the Plaintiffs' claims alleged in Counts 1-16 and 19-20 should be dismissed based on the act of state doctrine. Moreover, he concludes that the Plaintiffs' claims contained in Counts 3-10 and 15 would also, alternatively, be dismissed as untimely for all the Plaintiffs who were 18 or older at the time of their alleged injuries. Finally, he concludes that Claims 17 and 18 are dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. For these reasons, Judge Nathan granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss as to all the Plaintiffs on all claims. The Order resolves Docket Number 65. The Clerk of Court is ordered to close the case and enter judgment. A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2018 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://goo.gl/V3zAVA from Leagle.com. Entesar Osman Kashef, Alfadel Mosabal, Abubakar Abakar, Siama Abdelnabi Hamad, Abbo Ahmed Abakar, Hawa Mohamed Omar, Jane Doe, Nyanriak Tingloth, Reverend Anderia Lual, Nicolas Hakim Lukudu, Turjuman Ramadan Adam, Johnmark Majuc & Joseph Jok, Plaintiffs, represented by Deborah Drooz -- deb@droozlegal.com -- Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP, Matthew Philip Rand -- mrand@mckoolsmith.com -- McKool Smith Hennigan, P.C., Robert Louis Palmer -- rpalmer@mckoolsmith.com -- McKool Smith, Thomas Bernard Watson -- twatson@mckoolsmith.com -- McKool Smith, PC & Kathryn Lee Crawford -- lboyd@bhfs.com -- Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP. Rose Abraham Wulle & Clara Erneo Tabor, Plaintiffs, represented by Deborah Drooz, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP, Robert Louis Palmer, McKool Smith, Thomas Bernard Watson, McKool Smith, PC & Kathryn Lee Crawford, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP. Halima Samuel Khalifa, Ambrose Martin Ulau, Sandi (Sunday) Georgari Marjan & Shafika G. Hassan, Plaintiffs, represented by Matthew Philip Rand, McKool Smith Hennigan, P.C., Robert Louis Palmer, McKool Smith, Thomas Bernard Watson, McKool Smith, PC & Kathryn Lee Crawford, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP. Jane Roe, Judy Doe, Sara Noureldirz Abdalla & Amir Ahmed, Plaintiffs, represented by Matthew Philip Rand, McKool Smith Hennigan, P.C., Robert Louis Palmer, McKool Smith & Kathryn Lee Crawford, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP. BNP Paribas SA, a French corporation & BNP Paribas North America, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendants, represented by Lawrence B. Friedman -- lfriedman@cgsh.com -- Cleary Gottlieb, Avram E. Luft -- aluft@cgsh.com -- Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP & Jonathan I. Blackman -- jblackman@cgsh.com -- Cleary Gottlieb. CARDINAL COMPLIANCE: Misclassifies Employees, "Moore" Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- ANGELICA MOORE, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. CARDINAL COMPLIANCE CONSULTANTS, LLC, Case No. 3:18- cv-00155 (S.D. Tex., May 21, 2018), alleges that the Defendant misclassified the Plaintiff as exempt from the overtime protections and benefits of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Ms. Moore, a former employee of Cardinal, performed work as a health and safety employee. She alleges that she worked more than 40 hours in a work week for the Defendant but was not compensated at a rate of time and a half her regular rate of compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a work week. Cardinal is a foreign corporation that does business in the state of Texas and Galveston County. Cardinal is a staffing company focused on placing health and safety employees, who provide safety support for short-term and long-term projects throughout multiple industries nationwide, including Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Moises Cedillos, Esq. CEDILLOS LAW FIRM, PLLC 3801 Kirby Dr., Suite 510 Houston, TX 77098 Telephone: (832) 900-9456 Facsimile: (832) 900-9456 E-mail: moises@cedilloslaw.com CHALLENGE SECURITY: "Copeland" Suit Asserts FLSA Violation ---------------------------------------------------------- ZUKEYNA COPELAND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CHALLENGE SECURITY SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:18-cv-01435-TLN-CKD (E.D. Cal., May 24, 2018), is brought for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, California Labor Code, the California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 4 and the California Business & Professional Code. Ms. Copeland alleges that the Defendant does not have sufficient staffing to provide their security guards with timely meal and rest breaks mid shift. She contends that the Defendant fails to pay its security guards for the additional premium wages that result from the overtime and missed meal and rest periods, as required by federal and state law, or for the additional time that its guards are left waiting for their replacements. Challenge Security Services, Inc., is a California corporation located in Sacramento, California. The Company provides professional security services through licensed, trained, uniformed guards. Services performed by the Defendant's security guards include: securing corporate, industrial, and retail premises; patrolling and guarding residential complexes; and providing event security.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey R. Krinsk, Esq. Trenton R. Kashima, Esq. FINKELSTEIN & KRINSK LLP 550 West C St., Suite 1760 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 238-1333 Facsimile: (619) 238-5425 E-mail: jrk@classactionlaw.com trk@classactionlaw.com - and - Jason J. Thompson, Esq. Charles R. Ash IV, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, Suite 1700 Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com crash@sommerspc.com CHARLES WAGNER: "Barlow" Suit Seeks Insurance for Asbestos Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- HERBERT BARLOW v. CHARLES A. WAGNER CO., INC.; TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA; TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY; and THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, Individually and as Successors-In-Interest to THE ST. PAUL COMPANIES, INC., as Successor-in-Interest to LONDON GUARANTEE INSURANCE COMPANY; CNA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, Individually and as Successor-In-Interest to NATIONAL-BEN FRANKLIN INSURANCE COMPANY OF ILLINOIS; THE CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Individually and as Successor-In-Interest to NATIONAL-BEN FRANKLIN INSURANCE COMPANY OF ILLINOIS; FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY; RESOLUTE MANAGEMENT INC. as administrator of certain liabilities assumed from FFG INSURANCE COMPANY prior to sale; CHUBB INA HOLDINGS INC; FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY; NATIONAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, Individually as Successor-In-Interest to ATLANTA INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2018-0393- (Del. Ch. Ct., May 31, 2018), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated journeymen, contractors, workers, and DuPont employees at the Seaford Plant, and household members of same, who were exposed to asbestos, who have not yet developed, but are likely to develop, diseases resulting from asbestos exposure. Mr. Barlow asks the Court to order the Defendants, insurers of Wagner and Wagner, to hold all remaining insurance policy proceeds for asbestos-related claims against Wagner in constructive trust for members of the Class. He contends that this class action seeks to prevent the unjust enrichment of the Defendants, to the detriment of the Class, as a result of the dissolution of Wagner. Charles A. Wagner Company, Inc., is a Pennsylvania corporation who conducted business in the state of Delaware. Wagner ceased to transact business in Pennsylvania in May 2014, but continued its corporate existence in Pennsylvania until June 2, 2016. Between 1958 and 1973, Wagner supplied the Seaford Plant with approximately 38 raw tons of a "sweeping compound" that was comprised of and laden with asbestos. Travelers Property Casualty Company of America, Travelers Property Casualty Insurance Company, and The Travelers Indemnity Company are insurance companies licensed to do business in the state of Delaware. Travelers insured Charles A. Wagner Co., Inc. from January 2, 1963, to January 2, 1968. CNA Financial Corporation is a Delaware corporation. CNA Financial Corporation is successor-in-interest to National-Ben Franklin Insurance Company of Illinois, who insured Charles A. Wagner Co., Inc. from January 2, 1968, to January 2, 1971. The Continental Insurance Company is an insurance company licensed to do business in the state of Delaware. The Continental Insurance Company is a successor-in-interest to National-Ben Franklin Insurance Company of Illinois, who insured Charles A. Wagner Co., Inc. from January 2, 1968, to January 2, 1971. Fireman's Fund Insurance Company is an insurance company licensed to do business in the state of Delaware. Fireman's Fund Insurance Company insured Charles A. Wagner Co., Inc. from January 1, 1971, to January 2, 1972. Resolute Management, Inc., is a Nebraska corporation transacting business in Delaware. Resolute Management is the administrator of certain liabilities assumed from FFG Insurance Company prior to sale and has paid claims relating to asbestos-related diseases caused by exposure to the asbestos-laden sweeping compound supplied by Wagner. Chubb INA Holdings, Inc., is a Delaware corporation. Chubb INA Holdings, Inc., has paid claims relating to asbestos-related diseases caused by exposure to the asbestos-laden sweeping compound supplied by Wagner. Federal Insurance Company is an insurance company licensed to do business in the state of Delaware. Federal Insurance Company has paid claims relating to asbestos-related diseases caused by exposure to the asbestos- laden sweeping compound supplied by Wagner. National Indemnity Company is an insurance company licensed to do business in the state of Delaware. National Indemnity Company has paid claims relating to asbestos-related diseases caused by exposure to the asbestos-laden sweeping compound supplied by Wagner.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raeann C. Warner, Esq. Patrick C. Gallagher, Esq. JACOBS & CRUMPLAR, P.A. 750 Shipyard Drive, Suite 200 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 656-5445 Facsimile: (302) 656-5875 E-mail: raeann@jcdelaw.com pat@jcdelaw.com CHICAGO, IL: CTU's Bid to Strike 3rd Affirmative Defense Denied --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CHICAGO TEACHERS UNION LOCAL 1, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, AFL-CIO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO, a body politic and corporate, Defendants, Case No. 12 C 10338 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Jorge L. Alonso of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, (i) granted CTU's motion to dismiss the counterclaim of the Board; and (ii) denied CTU's motion to strike the Board's third affirmative defense. In 2012, CTU, a labor organization representing teachers employed by the Board, brought the class action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. CTU alleges the Board violated Title VII by engaging in a pattern and practice of racial discrimination through its layoff policy, which had a disparate impact on African American teachers and para-professionals. After CTU filed its Second Amended Complaint, the Board filed its Answer, which included affirmative defenses and a counterclaim. The Board's counterclaim alleges that CTU breached the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing arising out of the 2007-2012 collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") between CTU and the Board by filing the class action case, which allegedly interferes with the Board's right to receive the "fruits" of the CBA and violates CTU's own constitution and bylaws to the extent it advocates on behalf of some members to the detriment of others. In its answer, the Board pleaded three affirmative defenses, the third alleging that CTU lacks standing to be a class representative. The crux of the third affirmative defense, which overlaps with parts of the counterclaim, is that CTU violated its own constitution in bringing its lawsuit because CTU's House of Delegates did not authorize the lawsuit and because the lawsuit promotes the interest of some CTU members to the possible detriment of other members. CTU has moved to dismiss the Board's counterclaim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and (6) and to strike the Board's third affirmative defense pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). CTU argues that the Board's allegations that CTU breached the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing in the CBA by filing the lawsuit fail to state a claim. It argues that there is a still more fundamental reason why the Board's counterclaim must be dismissed: the claim is "preempted" by the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Act ("IELRA"), the labor statute that governs the CBA. The Board's third affirmative defense states that CTU lacks standing to be a class representative. CTU moves to strike the Board's affirmative defense, arguing essentially that CTU has already been found to have standing and to be an adequate class representative. CTU argues the affirmative defense is therefore an improper attempt to relitigate the issue and should be stricken. Judge Alonso holds that the Board does not identify any provisions of the CBA that vest CTU with discretion either that CTU exercised unfairly or that might have served as the basis for the action that the Board complains of in its counterclaim, i.e., filing the lawsuit. This deficiency warrants dismissal. He agrees with CTU that the Board does not state a claim for breach of contract based on a theory of breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in the CBA. The Judge also holds that in Cessna v. City of Danville, in which the Illinois Appellate Court held that an employee complaining that she was discharged in violation of the terms of a collective bargaining agreement governed by the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act ("IPLRA"), could not assert a breach of contract claim against her former employer in an Illinois circuit court. Although the Board argues that cases like Cessna, decided under the IPLRA, do not apply to the case because the CBA is governed by the IELRA, the IPLRA was adopted in the same legislative session as the IELRA, and the two acts together were an attempt to provide a comprehensive regulatory scheme for public sector bargaining in Illinois. The policy rationale driving the decision in Cessna is applicable here, despite the fact that Cessna addressed a different labor statute. Because he concludes that the IELRA divests trial courts of jurisdiction over claims such as the Board's, he says he needs not address the parties' arguments concerning supplemental jurisdiction. With respect to the Motion to Strike, the Judge disagrees with CTU's argument. The Board's allegations, taken as true as they must be, plausibly state that the instant suit could create a direct detriment to the interest of some of CTU's members and that the instant suit is not properly authorized. In arguing to the contrary, CTU's reliance on earlier decisions in the case is misplaced. Lastly, insofar as CTU argues the Board's affirmative defense is not proper because it is not listed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(c), the list is, of course, nonexhaustive. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Alonso granted in part and denied in part CTU's motion. It is granted as to the counterclaim, which is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. It is denied as to the Board's third affirmative defense. A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2018 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://goo.gl/6rHGsr from Leagle.com. Chicago Teachers Union, Local 1 American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO, Plaintiff, represented by Robin B. Potter -- robin@potterlaw.org -- Potter Bolanos LLC & Patrick James Cowlin -- patrick@potterlaw.org -- Potter Bolanos LLC. Terri Fells, Lillian Edmonds & Josephine Hamilton Perry, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, represented by Robin B. Potter, Potter Bolanos LLC, Patrick James Cowlin, Potter Bolanos LLC & Randall D. Schmidt -- r-schmidt@uchicago.edu -- Mandel Legal Aid Clinic. Board Of Education City Of Chicago, a body politic and corporate, Defendant, represented by Cary E. Donham -- cdonham@taftlaw.com - - Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, John J. Hagerty -- jhagerty@taftlaw.com -- Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, Allison Emma Czerniak -- aczerniak@taftlaw.com -- Taft Stettinius & Hollister Llp, Daniel Reza Saeedi -- dsaeedi@taftlaw.com -- Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, J. Ernest Mincy, III, Board of Education, City of Chicago & Lisa A. Dreishmire, Board of Education of the City of Chicago Law Department. Board Of Education City Of Chicago, a body politic and corporate, Counter Claimant, represented by Cary E. Donham, Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, John J. Hagerty, Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, Allison Emma Czerniak, Taft Stettinius & Hollister Llp, Daniel Reza Saeedi, Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, J. Ernest Mincy, III, Board of Education, City of Chicago & Lisa A. Dreishmire, Board of Education of the City of Chicago Law Department. Chicago Teachers Union, Local 1 American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO, Counter Defendant, represented by Robin B. Potter, Potter Bolanos LLC & Patrick James Cowlin, Potter Bolanos LLC. COMMUNITY LOANS: Dietzen to Recoup OT Pay for Branch Managers ------------------------------------------------------------- NICOLE DIETZEN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. COMMUNITY LOANS OF AMERICA, INC., Case No. 1:18-cv- 00818-WCG (E.D. Wisc., May 29, 2018), is brought on behalf of the Defendant's non-exempt branch managers for purposes of obtaining relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act for alleged unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees and declaratory and injunctive relief. Headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, Community Loans of America is a United States-based consumer lending organization, specializing in auto title and payday loans. The Company has operated approximately 1,000 consumer lending institutions across the United States. The vast majority of the Company's consumer lending institutions operate under regional-specific names, such as: Fast Auto Loans; Cash Cow; Georgia Auto Pawn; Texas Care Title and Payday Loan Services; and Wisconsin Auto Title Loans, Inc.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Walcheske, Esq. Scott S. Luzi, Esq. Matthew J. Tobin, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 15850 W. Bluemound Rd., Suite 304 Brookfield, WI 53005 Telephone: (262) 780-1953 Facsimile: (262) 565-6469 E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com mtobin@walcheskeluzi.com CONVERGYS CORP: Accused by "Roush" Suit of Not Paying Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- PAULA ROUSH v. CONVERGYS CORPORATION and CONVERGYS CUSTOMER MANAGEMENT GROUP INC., Case No. 1:18-cv-00777-WCG (E.D. Wisc., May 22, 2018), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated current and former non-exempt Customer Service employees of the Defendants in the state of Wisconsin, who were denied overtime compensation for each hour worked in excess of 40 in a workweek because the Defendants failed to: (1) compensate said employees for computer "boot up" time prior to their scheduled shift start times; and (2) include all non-discretionary forms of compensation in said non-exempt employees' regular rates of pay for overtime calculation purposes. The Defendants provide customer management and information management services for clients (third party companies) across the United States, including in the state of Wisconsin. The Defendants manage and operate a Wisconsin location, located in Appleton, Wisconsin. The Defendants' corporate headquarters are located in Cincinnati, Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Walcheske, Esq. Scott S. Luzi, Esq. David M. Potteiger, Esq. Matthew J. Tobin, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 15850 W. Bluemound Rd., Suite 304 Brookfield, WI 53005 Telephone: (262) 780-1953 Facsimile: (262) 565-6469 E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com mtobin@walcheskeluzi.com CORECIVIC INC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Dew" Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- JOSHUA DEW Individually, and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. CORECIVIC, INC., A Maryland Corporation, Case No. 8:18-cv-01500-GJH (D. Md., May 24, 2018), arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act for the Defendant's alleged failure to pay the Plaintiff and others all earned overtime wages, and to compensate them for all time worked. CoreCivic is a public corporation organized under the laws of Maryland. CoreCivic is a company that provides private prison services across the U.S. CoreCivic manages more than 65 state and federal correctional and detention facilities with a capacity of more than 90,000 beds in 19 states and the District of Columbia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Don J. Foty, Esq. KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P. 4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 E-mail: DFoty@kennedyhodges.com - and - Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq. THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC 920 Rockefeller Building 614 W. Superior Avenue Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 696-5000 Facsimile: (216) 696-7005 E-mail: anthony@lazzarolaw.com - and - Kelly E. Cook, Esq. WYLY & COOK 4101 Washington Avenue, 2nd Floor Houston, TX 77007 Telephone: (713) 236-8330 Facsimile: (713) 863-8502 E-mail: kcook@wylycooklaw.com CRICKET COMMS: Bid to Strike Renewed Removal Notice Denied ---------------------------------------------------------- In the cases, MICHAEL A. SCOTT, Plaintiff, v. CRICKET COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Defendant. MICHAEL A. SCOTT, Plaintiff, v. CRICKET COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Defendant, Civil Action Nos. GLR-15- 3330, GLR-15-3759 (D. Md.), Judge George L. Russell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland (i) denied Scott's Motion to Strike Renewed Notice of Removal and to Remand; (ii) denied without prejudice Cricket's Motions to Vacate State Court Class Certification Order and State Court Order Denying Cricket's Motion to Compel Arbitration; and denied without prejudice Cricket's Motion to Compel Arbitration. Between July 2013 and March 2014, Scott purchased two mobile phones from Cricket. The phones were only usable on networks that utilized Code Division Multiple Access ("CDMA") technology. The phones were also "locked" by Cricket so they could not be used on an alternate network. Cricket shut down its CDMA network in 2015, and allegedly had planned on shutting it down as early as July 2013, when AT&T acquired Cricket. After Cricket shut down its CDMA network, the phones Scott purchased stopped working. The phones could no longer be used for making telephone calls or for other forms of mobile communication. The phones also could not be transferred to and used on another network because Cricket had locked the devices exclusively to its own network. As a result, Scott's devices, which he purchased for hundreds of dollars each, are now unusable. Scott initiated a class action against Cricket in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland on Sept. 24, 2015 ("Scott I"). The Complaint defined the class of persons on behalf of whom this action was brought as all Maryland citizens who, between July 12, 2013 and March 13, 2014, purchased a CDMA mobile telephone from Cricket which was locked for use only on Cricket's CDMA network. In his Original Complaint, Scott alleges that Cricket knew the phones it sold to Scott and similarly situated customers were obsolete at the time of the sale. Scott pleads that Cricket continued to sell the CDMA phones as part of a systematic scheme to sell customers defective phones that would have to be replaced when the CDMA network shut down. Scott maintains that this scheme breaches express warranties and the implied warranty of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose in violation of the MMWA. On Oct. 30, 2015, Cricket removed Scott I to the Court. Scott filed a Motion to Remand to the state court on Nov. 23, 2015. Cricket then filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration on Dec. 16, 2015. On Aug. 19, 2016, the Court granted Scott's Motion to Remand. On Aug. 29, 2016, Cricket filed for leave to appeal to the Fourth Circuit which was granted with leave to appeal on Nov. 8, 2016. On July 28, 2017, the Fourth Circuit issued an opinion vacating the Court's judgment and remanding the case for further proceedings. It concluded that this Court had failed to make any finding of fact as to the amount in controversy. It held that Cricket does not need to make a definitive determination of domicile to show that at least 100 Maryland citizens purchased at least $5 million worth of CDMA phones; Cricket only needs to provide enough facts to allow the Court to determine that it is more likely than not that Scott's case should be in federal court. Meanwhile, on Aug. 30, 2016, one day after Cricket filed its petition to for leave to appeal with the Fourth Circuit, Cricket filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City a Motion to Stay the proceedings in until the Fourth Circuit renders a final decision on Cricket's appeal. Scott filed a Consent to Stay on Sept. 2, 2016. The Circuit Court instituted a 90-day stay on Sept. 29, 2016, pending the Fourth Circuit's ruling on Cricket's petition. On Jan. 13, 2017, while Cricket's appeal was still pending, Scott filed a Motion to Lift Stay with the Circuit Court. Cricket opposed Scott's Motion, citing the still-pending Fourth Circuit appeal. On Feb. 3, 2017, the Circuit Court issued a one-page Order lifting the stay. On Feb. 17, 2017, Cricket filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration in the Circuit Court. Scott filed an Opposition to Cricket's Motion to Compel Arbitration on March 7, 2017. The Circuit Court ultimately issued an Order denying Cricket's Motion to Compel Arbitration on May 11, 2017. On March 31, 2017, Scott filed a Motion for Certification of the Class in the Circuit Court. Cricket filed an Opposition on May 1, 2017. On June 9, 2017, the Circuit Court issued an Order certifying the Maryland class. On July 28, 2017, the same day the Fourth Circuit issued its opinion in the case, Scott filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint. The First Amended Complaint contains allegations identical to the Original Complaint, except it adds a nationwide class. The nationwide class is defined as all persons within the United States who, between July 12, 2013 and March 13, 2014, purchased a CDMA mobile telephone from Cricket which was locked for use only on Cricket's CDMA network. On Aug. 11, 2017, Cricket filed a Renewed Notice of Removal in the Court. The Renewed Notice of Removal alleges that the Court has jurisdiction under CAFA. Scott filed a Motion to Strike Renewed Notice of Removal and to Remand on Sept. 8, 2017. Also on Aug. 11, 2017, Cricket filed a Motion to Vacate State Court Class Certification Order, Motion to Vacate State Court Order Denying Cricket's Motion to Compel Arbitration, Motion to Compel Arbitration, and Motion to Stay Proceedings in Part. All Motions are opposed. Judge Russell concludes that it will deny Scott's Motion to Remand because Cricket's Renewed Notice of Removal was timely and proper and Cricket establishes CAFA jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. He finds that Scott amending his Original Complaint to add a nationwide class was a new fact that permitted Cricket to file another Notice of Removal, regardless of when the Fourth Circuit's mandate issued. The nationwide class gives the Court a new basis for assessing federal jurisdiction separate from the issue on appeal. In short, the Court will not protect Scott from the adverse consequences of his own voluntary acts. The Judge also finds that in citing Scott's addition of the nationwide class in its Renewed Notice of Removal, Cricket is able to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy for the nationwide class is at minimum $9,552,000. This amount in controversy satisfies CAFA's $5 million jurisdictional requirement. Consequently, the Court can exercise federal jurisdiction over Scott's class action under CAFA. At the outset, the Judge notes the inappropriateness of Cricket conditioning the consummation of a settlement in Bond upon the Court vacating the Circuit Court's order certifying a Maryland class. He will not permit its decision on a motion to be a bargaining chip in the process of settlement. Therefore, he will deny Cricket's request to vacate the Circuit Court's order certifying Scott's Maryland class on the basis of facilitating the Bond settlement. The Judge further finds that the Bond class encompasses both Scott's Maryland class and his nationwide class. A settlement in Bond would, therefore, resolve Scott's claims. Thus, he concludes that a stay is warranted pending resolution of Bond's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement. Accordingly, he will grant Cricket's Motion to Stay Proceedings in Part. Because he will stay the case, the Judge will deny without prejudice Cricket's Motion to Vacate State Court Class Certification Order, Motion to Vacate State Court Order Denying Cricket's Motion to Compel Arbitration, and Motion to Compel Arbitration. If the Bond settlement is not consummated and the stay in the case is lifted, Cricket may file a line with the Court renewing its Motions. Based on these reasons, Judge Russell denied Scott's Motion to Strike Renewed Notice of Removal and Remand, and granted Cricket's Motion to Stay Proceedings in Part. He denied Cricket's Motion to the extent that it is premised on the Court granting its Motion to Vacate State Court Class Certification Order. He granted Cricket's Motion to the extent that it seeks to stay the case. The Judge also denied without prejudice Cricket's Motion to Vacate State Court Class Certification Order, Motion to Vacate State Court Order Denying Cricket's Motion to Compel Arbitration, and Motion to Compel Arbitration. A separate Order follows. A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2018 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://goo.gl/e77e4s from Leagle.com. Michael A. Scott, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin Howard Carney -- bcarney@GWCfirm.com -- Gordon, Wolf & Carney, Chtd & Martin Eugene Wolf -- mwolf@gordon-wolf.com -- Gordon, Wolf & Carney, Chtd. Cricket Communications, LLC, Defendant, represented by Archis A. Parasharami -- aparasharami@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP & John Edward McCann, Jr. -- jmccann@milesstockbridge.com -- Miles and Stockbridge PC. CROSSCOUNTRY MORTGAGE: Bethea Sues for Wage & Hour Law Violations ----------------------------------------------------------------- EBONY BETHEA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. CROSSCOUNTRY MORTGAGE, INC., Case No. 1:18-cv-01242 (N.D. Ohio, May 31, 2018), challenges policies and practices of the Defendant that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, as well as the Ohio wage-and-hour statute. The Plaintiff, the Putative Class, and the Ohio Class on numerous occasions worked more than 40 hours in a single workweek, entitling them to overtime compensation under the FLSA and the Ohio wage-and-hour statute, Ms. Bethea alleges. The Company is a corporation organized under the laws of Ohio, with a principal place of business located in Cuyahoga County, Ohio. The Defendant is a mortgage company with numerous offices and/or branches throughout the United States and thousands of employees.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher J. Lalak, Esq. Michaela M. Calhoun, Esq. Hans A. Nilges, Esq. Shannon M. Draher, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 7266 Portage Street, N.W., Suite D Massillon, OH 44646 Telephone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: clalak@ohlaborlaw.com mcalhoun@ohlaborlaw.com hans@ohlaborlaw.com sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com CVS HEALTH: Court Closes Suit Over HIV/AIDS Treatment ----------------------------------------------------- Judge Sale S. Fischer of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California closed the case, JOHN DOE ONE, JOHN DOE TWO, JOHN DOE THREE, and JOHN DOE FOUR, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CVS HEALTH CORPORATION; CVS PHARMACY, INC.; CAREMARK RX, L.L.C.; CAREMARK, L.L.C.; CAREMARK CALIFORNIA SPECIALTY PHARMACY, L.L.C.; NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION d/b/a AMTRAK; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-01280-DSF-JPR (C.D. Cal.). Having considered the Plaintiffs' Notice of Erroneously Filed Action and Request to Close File, the Judge ordered the action be closed, having been erroneously filed in the District. A full-text copy of the Court's April 11, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/mBoIdK from Leagle.com. John Doe One, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, John Doe Two, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, John Doe Three, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated & John Doe Four, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Alan M. Mansfield -- amansfield@whatleykallas.com -- The Consumer Law Group of California, Benjamin Reese Powell -- ben@consumerwatchdog.org -- Consumer Watchdog & Gerald Sinclair Flanagan -- jerry@consumerwatchdog.org -- Consumer Watchdog. DELLA NONA: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, "Moreno" Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- ALFONSO MORENO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. DELLA NONA CORP. (D/B/A BOCCA), IM WOO LEE, and E RAE JO, Case No. 1:18-cv-04488 (S.D.N.Y., May 21, 2018), alleges that the Plaintiff worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate overtime and spread of hour's compensation for the hours that he worked. Della Nona Corp. is a domestic corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of New York. The Individual Defendants serve or served as owners, managers, principals, or agents of the Defendant Corporation. The Defendants own, operate, or control an Italian Restaurant, located at 135 West 50th Street, in New York City, under the name "Bocca."[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@employmentcompliance.com DR PEPPER/SEVEN UP: "Becerra" Suit Dismissed -------------------------------------------- In the case, SHANA BECERRA, Plaintiff, v. DR PEPPER/SEVEN UP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-05921-WHO (N.D. Cal.), Judge William H. Orrick of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied Dr Pepper's motion to transfer venue but granted its motion to dismiss with leave to amend. Becerra alleges that she is a consumer of the soft drink product Diet Dr Pepper. She believed that Diet Dr Pepper would assist in weight loss or healthy weight management due to the use of the term "diet" in the name of the product and on its label, but has since learned that studies and articles suggest that artificial sweeteners, including those used in Diet Dr Pepper, may instead cause weight gain. She brings the putative class action on behalf of herself and a California class of similarly-situated consumers for damages and equitable relief, including an injunction to stop Dr Pepper from marketing its Diet Dr Pepper product as "diet." The Plaintiff brings suit on behalf of herself and a California class alleging false and misleading advertising, in violation of California's False Advertising Law ("FAL"), Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), and Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), as well as breach of both express and implied warranty. The Defendant moves to transfer venue to its home state of Texas and to dismiss the action in its entirety. While Dr Pepper moves to transfer the action to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a), the case belongs here -- it has a California Plaintiff who was injured in California and chose the venue. Dr Pepper also moves to dismiss the Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") in its entirety. Judge Orrick agrees with Dr Pepper's contention that it is not plausible that a reasonable consumer would believe that drinking Diet Dr Pepper would assist in weight loss, beyond the fact that it has no calories. Accordingly, he denied Dr Pepper's motion to transfer venue but granted its motion to dismiss with leave to amend. The Judge finds that the Plaintiff's choice is entitled to some deference, especially given the significant local interest in the controversy. She, as well as each member of the proposed class, is either a resident of the district or a district within California. Moreover, her alleged injuries are the result of purchasing and consuming Diet Dr Pepper within the state's boundaries, and the action is based on California consumers relying on California-specific marketing and sale efforts. The Defendant's strongest argument in favor of transfer is that it will serve judicial economy, as it has also moved to transfer the New York-based Excevarria v. Dr Pepper Snapple Group, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-07957 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) action to the Eastern District of Texas. That has not happened yet. Given that any such transfer is speculative at this stage, and considering the local interest in the controversy and deference to the Plaintiff's choice of forum, the Defendant has failed to make the strong showing of inconvenience necessary to grant transfer. As to Dr Pepper's motion to dismiss, the Judge also finds, that (i) given that California law is entirely consistent with and indeed identical to the NLEA, there is no preemption of the Plaintiff's claims; (ii) California's safe harbor doctrine does not bar the Plaintiff's claims; (iii) the SAC fails to cite even a single study that concludes that there is a causative link between aspartame and weight gain; and (iv) because the Plaintiff acknowledges in opposition that her implied warranty claims are coextensive with her express warranty claims, her implied warranty claim also fails. The Plaintiff may file an amended complaint. A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2018 Order is available at https://goo.gl/vHYUY1 from Leagle.com. Ms. Shana Becerra, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiff, represented by Jack Fitzgerald -- jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com -- The Law Office of Jack Fitzgerald, PC, Andrew B. Sacks, Sacks Weston Diamond, LLC, pro hac vice, John Kerry Weston, Sacks Weston Diamond, LLC, pro hac vice, Melanie Rae Persinger -- melanie@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com -- The Law Office of Jack Fitzgerald, PC & Trevor Matthew Flynn - - trevor@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com -- The Law Office of Jack Fitzgerald, PC. Dr Pepper/Seven Up, Inc., Defendant, represented by Ariel D. House -- ariel.house@bakerbotts.com -- Baker Botts LLP, Jessica Elaine Underwood -- jessica.underwood@bakerbotts.com -- Baker Botts L.L.P., Monica Hughes Smith -- monica.smith@bakerbotts.com -- Baker Botts L.L.P., pro hac vice & Stuart Christopher Plunkett -- stuart.plunkett@bakerbotts.com -- Baker Botts L.L.P. DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES: 2nd Amended Complaint Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------- Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on June 4, 2018, entered an order granting the Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Second Amended Complaint without leave to amend in the case, In re Dynavax Securities Litigation, Case No. 4:16-cv-06690 (N.D. Cal.). Dynavax Technologies Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that on November 18, 2016, two substantially similar securities class action complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and two of its executive officers, in Soontjens v. Dynavax Technologies Corporation et. al., ("Soontjens") and Shumake v. Dynavax Technologies Corporation et al., ("Shumake"). The Soontjens complaint alleges that between March 10, 2014 and November 11, 2016, the Company and certain of its executive officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, in connection with statements related to HEPLISAV-B. The Shumake complaint alleges violations of the same statutes related to the same subject, but between January 7, 2016 and November 11, 2016. The plaintiffs in both actions are seeking an unspecified amount of damages and attorneys' fees and costs. On January 17, 2017, these two actions and all related actions that subsequently may be filed in, or transferred to, the District Court were consolidated into a single case entitled In re Dynavax Technologies Securities Litigation. On January 31, 2017, the court appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel. Lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint on March 17, 2017. Dynavax said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on May 1, 2017. On September 12, 2017, the District Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss, but gave lead plaintiff an opportunity to amend his complaint. On October 3, 2017, plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint. Defendants' motion to dismiss was due on November 3, 2017. In its recent report, the Company disclosed that Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on November 3, 2017. A hearing on Defendants' motion to dismiss was set for January 23, 2018, but the hearing was vacated by the Court on January 18, 2018. On April 24, 2018, the Court reset the hearing on Defendants' motion to dismiss for May 8, 2018. Dynavax Technologies Corporation is a fully-integrated biopharmaceutical company focused on leveraging the power of the body's innate and adaptive immune responses through toll-like receptor ("TLR") stimulation. The company is based in Berkeley, California. ENDOLOGIX INC: $750,000 "Ortiz" Settlement Funds Distributed ------------------------------------------------------------ Endologix, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the $750,000 in settlement funds that were deposited with the Class Administrator have been distributed in the case, Steven M. Ortiz v. Endologix, Inc. On September 9, 2016, former employee Steven M. Ortiz filed a class action lawsuit against the Company in Orange County Superior Court, claiming the Company's failure to pay all overtime wages owing; failure to provide meal periods and failure to pay meal period premiums; failure to pay all wages owed at time of termination seeking waiting time penalties under Labor Code section 203; failure to provide accurate wage statements; violations of Business and Professions Code section 17200 and alleging claims for penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004. While the Company contests the allegations asserted in the litigation, a mediation was held on February 24, 2017 at which time the parties agreed to settle the case for $750,000. The court gave final approval to the settlement agreement and the $750,000 in settlement funds that were deposited with the Class Administrator have been distributed. Endologix, Inc. develops, manufactures, markets, and sells innovative medical devices for the treatment of aortic disorders. The company is based in Irvine, California. ENERVEST ENERGY: 10th Cir. Reverses Atty. Fee, Incentive Awards --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Harris Hartz of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (i) reversed the attorney-fee and incentive awards, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with his Opinion; and (ii) affirmed the district court's Order and Judgment Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement. These matters are before the Court on Chieftain's Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc. The Court also has a joint response from the Appellants. Upon consideration, the request for panel rehearing is denied by the original panel members. The underlying class action alleged underpayment of royalties by the Defendants on gas from wells in Oklahoma. The parties reached a settlement for a cash payment of $52 million, to be distributed pro rata to the class members after payment of expenses and fees. The Class counsel moved for attorney fees in the amount of 40% of the settlement fund, plus interest; and the Lead Plaintiff, Chieftain, requested an incentive award of 1% of the fund. Appellants Nutley and George were class members who objected to these requests. After a hearing on the settlement and fee requests, the court awarded the class counsel 33 1/3% of the fund ($17,333.333.33) as attorney fees and awarded Chieftain 1/2% of the fund ($260,000) as an incentive award. The objectors appealed each award. Judge Hartz finds that the district court did not use the lodestar method to calculate the class counsel's fee in the case. The class counsel failed to provide the information necessary to apply that method. As already noted, in 1979 the Oklahoma Supreme Court stated that attorneys seeking fees must present detailed time records and evidence as to the reasonable value for the services performed. The class counsel did not come close to performing this task. Therefore, the Judge must set aside the attorney-fee award. The district court will have to decide in the first instance whether any award can be made in light of the absence of contemporaneous time records. He says it is unfortunate that the class counsel did not do the necessary homework on Oklahoma law. Turning to the incentive award, the Judge finds that the record before him is devoid of evidence from which a computation could be made. The district court was not provided supporting documents either when deciding to grant the incentive award or when determining the amount of the award. Instead, as can be seen in the excerpt from the transcript, the counsel spoke broadly about the tasks Mr. Abernathy had performed in the case and offered an anecdote about a class member in a previous suit who was grateful for his work there. When discussing the time Mr. Abernathy had expended on the case, the counsel did not provide detailed contemporaneous records but offered only approximations and generalities. Therefore, in keeping with his prediction of what the Oklahoma Supreme Court would command, he must reverse for abuse of discretion and remand for further fact- finding. For these reason, Judge Hartz reversed the attorney-fee and incentive awards, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with his Opinion. The Judge affirmed the district court's Order and Judgment Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement. The appeals cases are CHIEFTAIN ROYALTY COMPANY, Plaintiff- Appellee, v. ENERVEST ENERGY INSTITUTIONAL FUND XIII-A, L.P.; ENERVEST ENERGY INSTITUTIONAL FUND XIII-WIB, L.P.; ENERVEST ENERGY INSTITUTIONAL FUND XIII-WIC, L.P.; ENERVEST OPERATING, L.L.C.; FOURPOINT ENERGY, L.L.C., Defendants-Appellees, and SM ENERGY COMPANY, (including predecessors, successors and affiliates), Defendant. DANNY GEORGE, personally and as Executor of the Estate of Beverly Joyce George, Objector-Appellant. CHIEFTAIN ROYALTY COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ENERVEST ENERGY INSTITUTIONAL FUND XIII-A, L.P.; ENERVEST ENERGY INSTITUTIONAL FUND XIII-WIB, L.P.; ENERVEST ENERGY INSTITUTIONAL FUND XIII-WIC, L.P.; ENERVEST OPERATING, LLC; FOURPOINT ENERGY, LLC, Defendants- Appellees, and SM ENERGY COMPANY, including predecessors, successors and affiliates, Defendant. CHARLES DAVID NUTLEY, Objector-Appellant, Case Nos. 16-6022, 16-6025 (10th Cir.). In the case, A full-text copy of the Court's April 11, 2018 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/B6KVqa from Leagle.com., John J. Pentz, Sudbury, Massachusetts, for Objector-Appellant Danny George. Eric Alan Isaacson, La Jolla, California (C. Benjamin Nutley, Pasadena, California, and John W. Davis, San Diego, California, with him on the briefs), for Objector-Appellant Charles David Nutley. Daniel S. Volchok -- daniel.volchok@wilmerhale.com -- WilmerHale, Washington, D.C. (Bradley E. Beckworth -- bbeckworth@nixlaw.com - -Susan Whatley -- swhatley@nixlaw.com -- and Jeffrey J. Angelovich -- jangelovich@nixlaw.com -- Nix, Patterson & Roach, LLP, Austin, Texas, and Robert N. Barnes , and Patranell Britten Lewis , Barnes & Lewis, LLP, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, on the briefs), for Plaintiff-Appellee Chieftain Royalty Company. Mark D. Christiansen -- mark.christiansen@mcafeetaft.com -- McAfee & Taft, P.C., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Defendants- Appellees, Enervest Energy Institutional Fund XIII-A, L.P., et al. ENHANCED RECOVERY: Accused by "Thibodeaux" of Violating FDCPA ------------------------------------------------------------- Jason Thibodeaux, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC d/b/a ERC and John Does 1-25, Case No. 1:18-cv-00470 (M.D.N.C., May 31, 2018), alleges that the Defendant's debt collection efforts attempted and directed towards the Plaintiff violated various provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. ERC is a "debt collector" with an address in Jacksonville, Florida. ERC is a company that uses the mail, telephone, and facsimile and regularly engages in business the principal purpose of which is to attempt to collect debts alleged to be due another. The identities of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown to the Plaintiff.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Asa C. Edwards, Esq. MAGINNIS LAW 4801 Glenwood Ave., Suite 310 Raleigh, NC 27612 Telephone: (919) 526-0450 Facsimile: (919) 882-8763 E-mail: aedwards@maginnislaw.com - and - Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com FACEBOOK INC: Burk Files Suit Over Data Breach ---------------------------------------------- Bridgett Burk, Mary Beth Grisi, and Jason Ariciu, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Facebook, Inc., and Cambridge Analytica LLC, Case No. 3:18-cv-02504 (N.D. Calif., April 26, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Stored Communications Act and the Unfair Competition Law. The Plaintiffs file this class action on behalf of all Facebook users who, without their consent and contrary to their privacy settings, had their Facebook profile data misappropriated by Cambridge Analytica, LLC. This personal profile data included hometown, relationship status, friends, family, political views, website visits and "likes" - electronic thumbs up or down on articles, pictures, and comments. This personal information has great value to researchers, as well as advertisers, and political campaigns. The Plaintiffs, without their knowledge, consent, and without compensation, had their personal information taken by Cambridge Analytica and its agents, says the complaint. Bridgett J. Burk is a citizen and resident of Orlando, Florida. Mary Beth Grisi is a citizen and resident of Moseley, Virginia. Jason Ariciu is a citizen and resident of Kansas City, Missouri. The Defendant Facebook, Inc., is incorporated in Delaware, and its principal place of business is in Menlo Park, California. Facebook has operated www.facebook.com since at least 2004. This social networking platform allows users to create online profiles with personalized content such as their name, photos, videos, messages, comments, names of other users they consider to be "friends," and interest groups. Users can interact with each other or the platform in a variety of ways, including by posting comments, sharing photos or video, chatting, using apps, playing online games, taking personality quizzes, or "liking" content by pressing a thumbs-up icon. The Defendant Cambridge Analytica LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with headquarters in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Charles Reichmann, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES REICHMANN 16 Yale Circle Kensington, CA 94708 Tel: (415) 373-8849 E-mail: charles.reichmann@gmail.com - and - Andrew N. Friedman, Esq. Douglas J. McNamara, Esq. Sally M. Handmaker, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Ave. NW - Fifth Floor Washington, DC 20005 Tel: (202) 408-4600 E-mail: afriedman@cohenmilstein.com dmcnamara@cohenmilstein.com shandmaker@cohenmilstein.com FIVE STAR PIZZA: Fails to Refund Delivery Drivers, "Cheeney" Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH CHEENEY, On behalf of himself and those similarly situated v. FIVE STAR PIZZA CO., INC.; 5 STAR PIZZA, LLC; DEFT BROTHERS, LLC; E.R.A. PIZZA LLC; EAT PIZZA, and ERIC ARNTSON, Case No. 1:18-cv-00606 (W.D. Mich., May 30, 2018), alleges that the Defendants have repeatedly and willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Workforce Opportunity Wage Act by failing to adequately reimburse delivery drivers for their delivery- related expenses, thereby, failing to pay drivers the legally mandated minimum wages for all hours worked. Five Star Pizza Co., Inc., is a Michigan corporation headquartered in St. Johns, Michigan. 5 Star Pizza LLC is a Michigan limited liability corporation headquartered in St. Johns. Deft Brothers, LLC, is a limited liability corporation with its headquartered in St. Johns. E.R.A. Pizza LLC is a limited liability corporation headquartered in St. Johns. Eat Pizza LLC is a limited liability corporation headquartered in St. Johns. Eric Arntson owns and operates the Corporate Defendants. The Defendants operate approximately nine pizza restaurants -- Domino's Pizza Stores -- in the Lansing, Michigan area. The Defendants are part of a single integrated enterprise. The restaurants shared common management and were centrally controlled and/or owned by Five Star Pizza. Five Star Pizza stores sells pizza and other food items to customers, whether they dine in, carry out, or have their food delivered.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Biller, Esq. Andrew Kimble, Esq. Philip Krzeski, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DeMARCO, LLC 3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650 Cincinnati, OH 45209 Telephone: (513)651-3700 E-mail: abiller@msdlegal.com akimble@msdlegal.com pkrzeski@msdlegal.com - and - Bradley K. Glazier, Esq. Robert M. Howard, Esq. BOS & GLAZIER, P.L.C. 990 Monroe Avenue, N.W. Grand Rapids, MI 49503 Telephone: (616) 458-6814 E-mail: bglazier@bosglazier.com rhoward@bosglazier.com FLUOR CORPORATION: Sued by Chun for Lying to the Investing Public ----------------------------------------------------------------- KIN-YIP CHUN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. FLUOR CORPORATION, DAVID T. SEATON, BIGGS C. PORTER and BRUCE A. STANSKI, Case No. 3:18-cv-01338-S (N.D. Tex., May 25, 2018), accuses the Defendants of perpetrating a fraudulent scheme and course of business that operated as a fraud or deceit on purchasers of Fluor common stock by disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts. According to the complaint, the scheme: (i) deceived the investing public regarding Fluor's business, operations, management and the intrinsic value of its securities, and (ii) caused the Plaintiff and other shareholders to purchase Fluor securities at artificially inflated prices. Fluor is incorporated in Delaware with its principal offices located in Irving, Texas. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. Fluor is a holding company providing through various entities engineering, procurement, construction, fabrication and modularization, commissioning and maintenance and management services for clients (including the U.S. federal government) in industries such as oil and gas, chemicals and petrochemicals, mining and metals, transportation, power, life sciences and advanced manufacturing.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian P. Lauten, Esq. Laurie G. Flood, Esq. BRIAN LAUTEN, P.C. 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1450 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 414-0996 Facsimile: (214) 744-3015 E-mail: blauten@brianlauten.com - and - Eduard Korsinsky, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 30 Broad Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: ek@zlk.com FRONTLINE ASSET: Can Compel Arbitration in "Fuller" FDCPA Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Janis Fuller, individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Frontline Asset Strategies, LLC, LVNV Funding LLC, and Resurgent Capital Services, L.P., Defendants, Case No. 17 C 7901 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Ronald A. Guzman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted the Defendants' motion to stay the individual claims, dismiss the class claims, and compel arbitration. Fuller applied for and received a credit card from Credit One Bank, N.A. She ultimately defaulted on the amount owed, and Credit One sold her account, which was ultimately transferred and assigned to LVNV Funding, LLC. The Plaintiff alleges LVNV is a debt collector as defined by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"). Frontline was hired to collect the debt. On Nov. 1, 2016, Frontline sent the Plaintiff a collection letter, which she alleges threatened legal action against her that could not be taken, and thus violated various subsections of the FDCPA. The Plaintiff sues the Defendants on behalf of herself and a class of similarly situated individuals. The Defendants move to stay the individual claims, dismiss the class claims, and compel arbitration. They assert that the terms and conditions of the Cardholder Agreement, Disclosure Statement, and Arbitration Agreement that governs the Plaintiff's account with Credit One, which is now owned by LVNV, prohibits lawsuits and requires binding arbitration. Judge Guzman finds, among other things, that because Credit One sold its right, title, and interest in the account to LVNV, and Frontline agreed to perform debt collection services through Resurgent Capital Services, L.P. ("RCS"), then, under the terms of the Agreement, a valid agreement to arbitrate between the Plaintiff and the Defendants exists. The Judge holds that the Plaintiff's arguments to the contrary are unavailing. In the first instance, he notes that the Plaintiff alleges in her complaint that LVNV subsequently purchased the alleged debt, and through its servicer Resurgent began collecting the alleged debt from the Plaintiff, which constitutes a binding admission. Even without this admission, the Defendants have met their burden of demonstrating that the arbitration agreement exists and was validly assigned. The Defendants attach to their memorandum in support of their motion an affidavit by Gary Harwood, a Vice President of Credit One, who attests that on or about July 13, 2015, Credit One sold all rights, title, and interest in the Plaintiff's account, which were ultimately transferred and assigned to LVNV. In addition, the Judge finds that the arbitration portion of the Agreement expressly provides that claims subject to arbitration include not only Claims that relate directly to the Defendants, a parent company, affiliated company, and any predecessors and successors, but also Claims for which we may be directly or indirectly liable. Thus, the Judge finds that the Plaintiff's claims fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement. For these reasons, Judge Guzman granted the Defendants' motion to stay the individual claim, dismiss the class claims, and compel arbitration. A full-text copy of the Court's April 11, 2018 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/HmHksD from Leagle.com. Janis Fuller, individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Celetha Chatman -- cchatman@communitylawyersgroup.com -- Community Lawyers Group, Ltd., Andrew Finko, Andrew Finko P.C. & Michael Jacob Wood -- mwood@communitylawyersgroup.com -- Community Lawyers Group, Ltd. Frontline Asset Strategies, LLC, LVNV Funding, LLC & Resurgent Capital Services, L.P., Defendants, represented by George D. Sax -- gsax@scharfbanks.com -- Scharf Banks Marmor LLC, Manuel H. Newburger -- mnewburger@bn-lawyers.com -- Barron & Newburger PC & Corinne Cantwell Heggie -- cheggie@wochnerlawfirm.com -- The Wochner Law Firm. FULTON COUNTY, GA: "Moore" Suit Seeks Refund of Property Taxes -------------------------------------------------------------- FELICIA MOORE, TRAVIS CARROLL, KRISTEN MAZOLA, FONG YUEN NG, and MARIO ARTEISANO v. FULTON COUNTY, GEORGIA, CITY OF ATLANTA, CITY OF ALPHARETTA, CITY OF JOHNS CREEK, CITY OF MILTON, CITY OF ROSWELL, CITY OF MOUNTAIN PARK, CITY OF SANDY SPRINGS, CITY OF CHATTAHOOCHEE HILLS, CITY OF COLLEGE PARK, CITY OF EAST POINT, CITY OF FAIRBURN, CITY OF HAPEVILLE, CITY OF PALMETTO, and CITY OF UNION CITY, Case No. 2018CV305778 (Ga. Super. Ct., Fulton Cty., May 29, 2018), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated, seeking a refund of taxes erroneously or illegally assessed and collected on real property for tax year 2016. The Defendants are the taxing entities in Fulton County, Georgia. The Plaintiffs assert that the taxing entities collected property taxes from the Class in 2016 based on assessments provided by the Fulton County Board of Assessors. They allege that for tax year 2016, the FCBA illegally and dramatically increased assessments on those homes sold during 2015 while leaving unchanged assessments for neighboring properties. This "sales chasing" resulted in assessments that were not uniform, in violation of the Georgia Constitution, the Plaintiffs argue.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ranse M. Partin, Esq. CONLEY GRIGGS PARTIN, LLP 4200 Northside Parkway, N.W. Building One, Suite 300 Atlanta, GA 30327 Telephone: (404) 809-2591 E-mail: ranse@conleygriggs.com - and - Lindsey Walker Hillis, Esq. THE HILLIS FIRM 201 17th Street, NW #300 Atlanta, GA 30363 Telephone: (404) 445-6783 Facsimile: (404) 602-0144 E-mail: lhillis@hillisfirm.com - and - Jonathan M. Palmer, Esq. JONATHAN PALMER LAW, LLC 4200 Northside Parkway, NW Building One, Suite 200 Atlanta, GA 30327 Telephone: (404) 720-0750 Mobile: (202) 674-4667 E-mail: Jonathan@JonathanPalmerLaw.com GENCO SHIPPING: Dismissal of Baltic Stockholder Suit Upheld ----------------------------------------------------------- Genco Shipping & Trading Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the New York State Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the dismissal of the amended complaint. In April 2015, six class action complaints were filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York. On May 26, 2015, the six actions were consolidated under the caption In Re Baltic Trading Ltd. Stockholder Litigation, Index No. 651241/2015, and a consolidated class action complaint was filed on June 10, 2015 (the "Consolidated Complaint"). The Consolidated Complaint is purported to be brought by and on behalf of Baltic Trading's shareholders and alleges that the then-proposed July 2015 merger did not fairly compensate Baltic Trading's shareholders and undervalued Baltic Trading. The Consolidated Complaint names as defendants the Company, Baltic Trading, the individual members of Baltic Trading's board, and the Company's merger subsidiary. The claims generally allege (i) breaches of fiduciary duties of good faith, due care, disclosure to shareholders, and loyalty, including for failing to maximize shareholder value, and (ii) aiding and abetting those breaches. Among other relief, the complaints seek an injunction against the merger, declaratory judgments that the individual defendants breached fiduciary duties, rescission of the merger agreement, and unspecified damages. On July 9, 2015, plaintiffs in that action moved to enjoin the merger vote, scheduled to take place on July 17, 2015. The motion was thereafter fully briefed and argued on July 15, 2015. The motion to enjoin the vote was denied on July 15, 2015. Plaintiffs sought an emergency injunction and temporary restraining order from the New York State Appellate Division, First Department the following day, on July 16, 2015. The Appellate Division denied the request, and the vote, and subsequent merger, proceeded as scheduled on July 17, 2015. Plaintiffs thereafter withdrew that appeal. On June 30, 2015, defendants had moved to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint in its entirety. Plaintiffs subsequently served an Amended Consolidated Complaint, and defendants directed their motion to dismiss to that amended complaint. The motion to dismiss was granted and the Amended Consolidated Complaint was dismissed with prejudice on August 29, 2016. By a Decision and Order dated April 26, 2018, the New York State Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the dismissal of the amended complaint. The plaintiffs have the ability to file a motion for leave to appeal to the New York State Court of Appeals. Genco Shipping & Trading Limited is a Marshall Islands company that transports iron ore, coal, grain, steel products and other drybulk cargoes along worldwide shipping routes through the ownership and operation of drybulk carrier vessels. GEO GROUP: Court Resets Deadlines in "Chen" Suit ------------------------------------------------ In the case, CHAO CHEN, Plaintiff, v. THE GEO GROUP INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-05769-RJB (W.D. Wash.), Judge Robert J. Bryan of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Tacoma, granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's Motion for Relief From Deadlines and For Status Conference. The Plaintiff seeks relief from deadlines for the class certification, joinder, and the Defendant's Motion to Deny Class Certification. He also requests a status conference to establish new dates. The Amended Scheduling Order set out deadlines of March 25, 2018 and March 30, 2018 for class certification and joinder motions, respectively. The Plaintiff timely filed his motion for class certification on March 23, 2015. The Court re-noted the motion to May 7, 2018 for consideration after reaching the merits of a motion to dismiss filed by the Defendant. The Defendant's motion to dismiss was denied on April 26, 2018. The Defendant deposed Plaintiff Chao Chen, the proposed class representative, on April 25, 2018. At the deposition, Mr. Chen invoked his right to remain silent in response to questions about criminal conduct, inquired into under the theory that GEO could not "employ" Mr. Chen due to his unsuitable background. The Plaintiff's counsel represents that he notified the opposing counsel on April 27, 2018 that, following his deposition, Mr. Chen decided it would not be in his best interest to continue as the proposed class representative. The Defendant filed a Motion to Deny Class Certification on April 30, 2018, a decision that its counsel represents she made based on assurances by the Plaintiff's counsel about the timing of his withdrawal of the motion for class certification. On May 1, 2018, the Plaintiff withdrew the motion for class certification and filed the instant motion for relief. The Plaintiff's Response to the motion for class certification was due by May 2, 2018. Judge Bryan finds that the Plaintiff has made a sufficient showing of diligence, and there is minimal prejudice to the Defendant for deadlines to be extended as set out. The Plaintiff formally filed the motion for relief from deadlines on May 1, 2018, less than one week after he withdrew as the proposed class representative. The Defendant criticizes the competency of the Plaintiff's counsel, arguing that the Plaintiff knew or should have known of Mr. Chen's liabilities undermining his ability to be a class representative. The Judge finds the Defendant's argument speculates with no basis in the record. The broader procedural history of the case supports the Plaintiff's counsel's diligence, and the Court lacks a record to the contrary. The only prejudice the Defendant points to, he says, is the delay of discovery and need for more depositions. Under the new deadlines, the delay will amount to approximately two months, which, viewed in the broader context of a typical class action case and in light of the time remaining for discovery, until Nov. 5, 2018, is minimal prejudice. He is cognizant of the increase in costs to the Defendant. To minimize costs, only a brief extension of deadlines should be granted. The Plaintiff's counsel represents that he has already begun conversations with other prospective class representatives, so only minimal extensions are necessary to maintain the flow of litigation. Therefore, Judge Bryan granted in part the Plaintiff's Motion for Relief from Deadlines. The deadlines are reset as follows: i. Motion for Joinder and/or Motion to Amend: May 24, 2018 ii. Motion for Class certification: June 21, 2018 iii. Defendant's Motion to Deny Class Certification: Renoted to July 13, 2018 The deposition of any proposed class representative should occur prior to the filing of a motion for class certification by the Plaintiff. The Judge denied in part the Plaintiff's motion as to the request for a Status Conference. He directed the Clerk to send uncertified copies of the Order to all the counsel of record and to any party appearing pro se at said party's last known address. A full-text copy of the Court's May 15, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/3MGFRk from Leagle.com. Chao Chen, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Berger -- berger@sgb- law.com -- SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER, Devin T. Theriot-Orr -- devin@sunbird.law.com -- SUNBIRD LAW PLLC, Jamal N. Whitehead -- whitehead@sgb-law.com -- SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER, Lindsay Halm -- halm@sgb-law.com -- SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER & R. Andrew Free -- andrew@immigrantcivilrights.com -- LAW OFFICE OF R. ANDREW FREE, pro hac vice. The GEO Group Inc, a Florida corporation, Defendant, represented by Charles A. Deacon -- charlie.deacon@nortonrosefulbright.com -- NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP, pro hac vice, Joan K. Mell -- info@3brancheslaw.com -- III BRANCHES LAW PLLC & Mark Emery -- mark.emery@nortonrosefulbright.com -- NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP, pro hac vice. The GEO Group Inc, a Florida corporation, Counter Claimant, represented by Joan K. Mell, III BRANCHES LAW PLLC, Andrea D'Ambra, NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP, pro hac vice, Charles A. Deacon, NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP, pro hac vice & Mark Emery, NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP, pro hac vice. Chao Chen, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Counter Defendant, represented by Adam J. Berger, SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER, Devin T. Theriot-Orr, SUNBIRD LAW PLLC, Jamal N. Whitehead, SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER, Lindsay Halm, SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER & R. Andrew Free, LAW OFFICE OF R. ANDREW FREE, pro hac vice. GLOBAL EXCHANGE: Accused by "Deforest" Suit of Invading Privacy --------------------------------------------------------------- DAN DEFOREST, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GLOBAL EXCHANGE VACATION CLUB d/b/a SUNSET GETAWAYS and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 8:18-cv-00895 (C.D. Cal., May 23, 2018), accuses the Defendants of negligently, knowingly and willfully contacting the Plaintiff on his cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby, invading his privacy. Global Exchange Vacation Club, doing business as Sunset Getaways, is a marketing company. The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown to the Plaintiff.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. 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 GLOBE LIFE: Faces "Eckstein" Suit Over Unsolicited Calls -------------------------------------------------------- CAMERON ECKSTEIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GLOBE LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 3:18-cv-01037-JM-JMA (S.D. Cal., May 24, 2018), seeks damages and remedies resulting from the Defendant's alleged illegal actions in negligently, knowingly and willfully contacting the Plaintiff in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Globe Life is a telemarketer, who sells life and accident insurance policies. The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown to the Plaintiff.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. Thomas E. Wheeler, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com twheeler@toddflaw.com GOPRO INC: Court Enters Schedule for Filing Reply to "Park" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JONG MIN PARK, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. GOPRO, INC., NICHOLAS D. WOODMAN AND BRIAN T. MCGEE, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00193- EMC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward M. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, has entered an order setting schedule for filing response to consolidated complaint, and continuing case management conference and associated deadlines. The action is a proposed class action alleging violations of the federal securities laws against the Defendants. Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, which sets forth specialized procedures for the administration of securities class actions, on April 19, 2018, the Court issued a Minute Order conditionally appointing the Lead Plaintiffs and the Lead Counsel, and ordering that the Consolidated Amended Complaint be filed within 60 days (i.e., June 18, 2018). On April 26, 2018, the Court gave final approval of the appointment of Julie Wiegand and Michael Birlenbach as the Lead Plaintiffs. Following that appointment, the parties have met and conferred and agreed on a schedule for the Defendants' responses to the Consolidated Amended Complaint. Pursuant to the proposed briefing schedule, the parties respectfully submit that good cause exists to vacate the July 12, 2018 initial case management conference and associated ADR deadlines until such time as the Court has the opportunity to rule on Defendants' anticipated motion to dismiss. Accordingly, they stipulated and Judge Chen approved, that the Defendants will answer, move or otherwise respond to the Consolidated Amended Complaint on Aug. 12, 2018. In the event that the Defendants file a motion to dismiss, the Lead Plaintiffs will file an opposition to the motion on Aug. 23, 2018. The Defendants will file any reply on Sept. 6, 2018. The Defendants' anticipated motion to dismiss will be noticed for hearing on Sept. 20, 2018 at 1:30 p.m. Pursuant to Civil L.R. 16-2, the initial case management conference scheduled for July 12, 2018 will be vacated, along with any associated deadlines under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules, to be rescheduled for Sept. 20, 2018 at 1:30 p.m. and all associated ADR Multi-Option Program deadlines likewise be deferred. Neither the Plaintiffs nor the Defendants waive their rights to seek from each other or the Court adjournments or extensions of the deadlines. A full-text copy of the Court's May 11, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/HnCBSp from Leagle.com. Jong Min Park, Plaintiff, represented by Laurence M. Rosen -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. Larry Ladd, Plaintiff, represented by Patrice L. Bishop -- pbishop@ssbla.com -- Stull, Stull & Brody. Julie Wiegand & Michael Birlenbach, Plaintiffs, represented by Jacob Alexander Goldberg -- jgoldberg@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., pro hac vice, Jennifer Pafiti -- jpafiti@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP & Laurence M. Rosen, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. Nathan Dye, Plaintiff, represented by Danielle Suzanne Myers -- danim@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Shawn A. Williams -- shawnw@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP. Vikas Aora, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer Pafiti, Pomerantz LLP, Hui M. Chang -- hchang@pomlaw.com-- Pomerantz, LLP, pro hac vice, J. Alexander Hood, II -- ahood@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Jeremy A. Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Leigh H. Smollar -- lsmollar@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Patrick V. Dahlstrom -- pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice & Peretz Bronstein -- peretz@bgandg.com -- Bronstein Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, pro hac vice. GoPro, Inc., Nicholas Woodman & Brian McGee, Defendants, represented by Catherine Duden Kevane -- ckevane@fenwick.com -- Fenwick & West LLP, Marie Caroline Bafus -- mbafus@fenwick.com -- Fenwick and West LLP, Susan Samuels Muck -- smuck@fenwick.com -- Fenwick & West LLP & Vincent Barredo -- vbarredo@fenwick.com -- Fenwick & West LLP. GUEST SERVICES: "Clarke" Suit Seeks to Recoup OT Pay Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- Devon Clarke, Jessica Williams, Katerina Skordas, and Kyon Brown, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Guest Services, Inc., Guest Services Company of Virginia, LLC, and Guest Services Management, LLC, Case No. 3:18-cv-00353-HEH (E.D. Va., May 23, 2018), seeks to recover alleged unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs arising out of the Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Guest Services, Inc., is a Washington, D.C. corporation. Guest Services Company of Virginia, LLC, is a Delaware limited liability company. Guest Services Management, LLC, is a Delaware limited liability company. The Defendants, which purport to have its principal office in Fairfax, Virginia, are related entities in the hospitality industry that operate the Fairfield Inn & Suites in Ashland, Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Craig Juraj Curwood, Esq. Philip Justus Dean, Esq. CURWOOD LAW FIRM 530 E. Main Street, Suite 710 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 788-0808 Facsimile: (804) 767-6777 E-mail: pdean@curwoodlaw.com ccurwood@curwoodlaw.com HAVEN HEALTH: Faces "Downing" Class Suit Over Background Checks --------------------------------------------------------------- JUSTIN DOWNING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HAVEN HEALTH GROUP, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company, Case No. 3:18-cv-08109-DLR (D. Ariz., May 23, 2018), alleges that the Defendant fails to provide lawful notices and disclosures to its job applicants and employees when obtaining background checks about them, in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Haven Health Group, LLC, is an Arizona limited liability company with its principal place of business located in Phoenix, Arizona. Haven Health operates numerous long-term care facilities throughout Arizona.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Penny L. Koepke, Esq. MAXWELL & MORGAN, P.C. 4854 E. Baseline Road, Suite 104 Mesa, AZ 85206 Telephone: (480) 833-1001 E-mail: pkoepke@hoalaw.biz - and - Steven L. Woodrow, Esq. Patrick H. Peluso, Esq. Taylor T. Smith, Esq. WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC 3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 300 Denver, CO 80210 Telephone: (720) 213-0675 Facsimile: (303) 927-0809 E-mail: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com tsmith@woodrowpeluso.com HESKA CORP: "Fauley" Class Action Still Pending in Illinois ----------------------------------------------------------- Heska Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the company continues to face a class action suit filed by Shaun Fauley. The Company said, "On March 12, 2015, a complaint was filed against us by Shaun Fauley in the United States District Court Northern District of Illinois alleging that the company's transmittal of unauthorized faxes in violation of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005, as a class action seeking stated damages of the greater of actual monetary loss or five hundred dollars per violation." The Company intends to defend itself vigorously in this matter and at this time is unable to estimate a possible loss or range of loss. Heska Corporation sells advanced veterinary diagnostic and specialty products. The company offerings include Point of Care diagnostics laboratory instruments and consumables, Point of Care digital imaging diagnostics products, vaccines, local and cloud- based data services, allergy testing and immunotherapy, and single-use offerings such as in-clinic diagnostic tests and heartworm preventive products. The company is based in Loveland, Colorado. HOST INTERNATIONAL: "Estivene" Seeks to Recover Wages Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- GERALD ESTIVENE and other similarly-situated individuals v. HOST INTERNATIONAL, INC. a/k/a HMS HOST RESTAURANT, Case No. 1:18-cv- 22088-CMA (S.D. Fla., May 24, 2018), seeks to recover regular wages, liquidated damages, and the costs and reasonable attorney's fees under the provisions of Fair Labor Standards Act. Host International, Inc., also known as HMS Host Restaurant, is a foreign corporation authorized to perform business in Florida. The Company is a chain of restaurants doing business at prime locations in Florida and throughout United States.[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 HOUSING MANAGEMENT: "Christian" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations ------------------------------------------------------------ Julia Christian, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Housing Management Corp., Case No. 1:18-cv-00347 (W.D. Tex., April 26, 2018), seeks damages for Defendant's violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Texas Labor Code. The Plaintiff is a citizen of Hays County, Texas. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a Property Manager from approximately May 16, 2017 to March 19, 2018. The Defendant is a nonprofit corporation, which operates, maintains, and manages approximately 42 housing properties within the state of Texas. These properties are located in Burnet, Llano, Blanco, Gillespie, Williamson, Brazos, Lubbock, Hemphill, McLennan, and Midland counties. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jay D. Ellwanger, Esq. Holt M. Lackey, Esq. Ellwanger Law LLLP 8310-1 N. Capital of Texas Hwy., Ste. 190 Austin, TX 78731 Tel: (737) 808-2260 Fax: (737) 808-2262 E-mail: jellwanger@equalrights.law hlackey@equalrights.law HOUSTON NFL: PGG Suit Seeks to Recover Minimum & Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- P.G.G., PLAINTIFF for herself and on behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. HOUSTON NFL HOLDINGS, L.P. D/B/A HOUSTON TEXANS and ALTOVISE GARY, Case No. 4:18-cv-01662 (S.D. Tex., May 21, 2018), is primarily a collective action to recover compensation for hours worked but not recorded or paid ("off-the- clock work"), and for failure to pay minimum wage and overtime compensation. Houston NFL Holdings is a Delaware limited partnership doing business in Texas. Coach Alto is an individual and manager of the Houston Texas Cheerleading squad. The Defendants collectively own, operate, and manage the NFL football team known as the Houston Texans. The Houston Texans are in the business of promoting and playing professional football games.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bruse Loyd, Esq. JONES, GILLASPIA & LOYD, L.L.P. 4400 Post Oak Pkwy, Suite 2360 Houston, TX 77027 Telephone: (713) 225-9000 Facsimile: (713) 225-6126 E-mail: bruse@jgl-law.com ICTS INTERNATIONAL: Pays Out $1.9MM in Employees' Wage Suits ------------------------------------------------------------ ICTS International N.V. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that the company has paid out approximately $1.9 million in a class action suits related to proper minimum wage. A class action lawsuit was filed against the Company in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, by an employee of the Company. The employee alleges the Company failed to pay the proper minimum wage in violation of the City of Sea Tax Municipal Code. Additional two lawsuits were filed against the Company in the District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Huston Division and in the Superior Court of Washington, King County, on the same subject. During the year ended December 31, 2017 the three legal disputes for back wages due to the SeaTac, WA Minimum Wage ordinance were settled in the courts and the Company paid out approximately $1.9 million. As of December 31, 2017, the Company has an accrued amount of approximately $1.6 million (inclusive of interest amounting to approximately $0.3 million) for the reminder of the settlement. Approximately $1.1 million (including interest) of this amount is included in accrued expenses and other current liabilities and is due in 2018. The additional $0.5 million (including interest) is shown as a long term liability in other liabilities since payment is due in 2019. ICTS International N.V., together with its subsidiaries, provides airport security and other aviation services in the United States, the Netherlands, Germany, and internationally. It operates through Airport Security and Other Aviation Services; and Technology segments. JANUS HENDERSON: Unit Faces Velocity Shares Daily Inverse Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- Janus Henderson Group plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the company's subsidiary faces multiple class action suits related to Velocity Shares Daily Inverse. On March 15, 2018, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Janus Index & Calculation Services LLC ("Janus Index"), a subsidiary of the Group, on behalf of a proposed class consisting of investors who purchased Velocity Shares Daily Inverse VIX Short-Term ETN (Ticker: XIV) between January 29, 2018 and February 5, 2018 (Eisenberg v. Credit Suisse AG and Janus Index). Credit Suisse, the issuer of the XIV notes, is also named as a defendant in the lawsuit. The plaintiffs allege Credit Suisse and Janus Index disseminated and/or approved materially false and misleading intraday indicative values for XIV, causing inflated values of XIV at market close on February 5, 2018. On April 17, 2018, a second lawsuit was filed against Janus Index and Credit Suisse in the United States District Court of the Northern District of Alabama by certain investors in XIV (Halbert v. Credit Suisse AG and Janus Index). On May 4, 2018, a third lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Credit Suisse and Janus Index. The Halbert and Qui allegations generally mirror the Eisenberg complaint, although the Halbert claim is not a class action lawsuit. Janus Henderson said "The Group believes the claims in these lawsuits are without merit and is strongly defending the actions." Janus Henderson Group plc operates as an investment management company. The Company provides investment advisors for equities, fixed income, property, and private equity sectors. Janus Henderson Group serves customers worldwide. KLONDEX MINES: Being Sold for Too Little, "Gunderson" Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID GUNDERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KLONDEX MINES LTD., RICHARD J. HALL, BLAIR SCHULTZ, RODNEY COOPER, MARK DANIEL, JAMIE HAGGARTY, PAUL ANDRE HUET, WILLIAM MATLACK, CHARLES OLIVER, HECLA MINING COMPANY, and 1156291 B.C. UNLIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Case No. 3:18-cv-00256- LRH-VPC (D. Nev., May 31, 2018), alleges that the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders by agreeing to a proposed sale transaction, which undervalues Klondex and is the result of a flawed sales process. Mr. Gunderson brings the lawsuit for alleged violations of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and for breaches of fiduciary duty as a result of the Defendants' efforts to sell the Company to Hecla Mining Company ("Parent") and 1156291 B.C. Unlimited Liability Company (the "Merger Sub" and collectively with Parent, "Hecla"), as a result of an unfair process for an unfair price, and to enjoin the stockholder vote on a proposed stock for stock transaction valued at approximately $462 million. Klondex is organized under the laws of the Canadian Province of British Columbia and has its United States' principal place of business in Reno, Nevada. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. Klondex acquires, explores, develops, and produces mineral properties in the United States and Canada. The Company primarily explores for gold and silver deposits. Parent is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters located in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho. Parent is a mining company that discovers, acquires, develops, produces, and markets silver, gold, lead, and zinc. Merger Sub is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent that was created for the purposes of effectuating the Proposed Transaction.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John P. Aldrich, Esq. ALDRICH LAW FIRM, LTD. 1601 S. Rainbow Blvd., Suite 160 Las Vegas, NV 89146 Telephone: (702) 853-5490 Facsimile: (702) 227-1975 E-mail: jaldrich@aldrichlawfirm.com - and - Evan Smith, Esq. Marc L. Ackerman, Esq. BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC Two Bala Plaza, Suite 510 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: (610) 667-6200 Facsimile: (610) 667-9029 E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com mackerman@brodsky-smith.com LADENBURG THALMANN: Class Cert. Bid Granted in Suit vs. ARCP ------------------------------------------------------------ Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the case related to American Realty Capital Partners, Inc.'s (ARCP) note offerings has been granted. In December 2014 and January 2015, two purported class action suits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against American Realty Capital Partners, Inc. ("ARCP"), certain affiliated entities and individuals, ARCP's auditing firm, and the underwriters of ARCP's May 2014 $1,656,000 common stock offering ("May 2014 Offering") and three prior note offerings. The complaints have been consolidated. Ladenburg was named as a defendant as one of 17 underwriters of the May 2014 Offering and as one of eight underwriters of ARCP's July 2013 offering of $300,000 in convertible notes. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the offering materials were misleading based on financial reporting of expenses, improperly-calculated AFFO (adjusted funds from operations), and false and misleading Sarbanes-Oxley certifications, including statements as to ARCP's internal controls, and that the underwriters are liable for violations of federal securities laws. The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, as well as other relief. In June 2016, the court denied the underwriters' motions to dismiss the complaint. In August 2017, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Ladenburg intends to vigorously defend against these claims. Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. is a diversified financial services company engaged in independent advisory and brokerage services, asset management services, investment research, investment banking, institutional sales and trading, wholesale life insurance and annuity brokerage and trust services through its principal subsidiaries, Securities America ("Securities America"), Triad Advisors ("Triad"), Securities Service Network ("SSN"), Investacorp ("Investacorp"), KMS Financial Services ("KMS"), Ladenburg Thalmann & Co. ("Ladenburg"), Ladenburg Thalmann Asset Management ("LTAM"), Premier Trust ("Premier Trust"), Highland Capital Brokerage ("Highland") and Ladenburg Thalmann Annuity Insurance Services ("LTAIS"). The company is based in Miami, Florida. LADENBURG THALMANN: Still Defends Suit Over Miller Securities ------------------------------------------------------------- Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the company continues to defend itself in two purported class action complaints filed in state court in Tennessee against officers and directors of Miller Energy Resources, Inc. In November 2015, two purported class action complaints were filed in state court in Tennessee against officers and directors of Miller Energy Resources, Inc. ("Miller"), as well as Miller's auditors and nine firms that underwrote six securities offerings in 2013 and 2014, and raised approximately $151,000. Ladenburg was one of the underwriters of two of the offerings. The complaints allege, among other things, that the offering materials were misleading based on the purportedly overstated valuation of certain assets, and that the underwriters are liable for violations of federal securities laws. The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, as well as other relief. In December 2015 the defendants removed the complaints to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee; in November 2016, the cases were consolidated. In August 2017, the court granted in part and denied in part the underwriters' motion to dismiss the complaint. Ladenburg intends to vigorously defend against these claims. Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. is a diversified financial services company engaged in independent advisory and brokerage services, asset management services, investment research, investment banking, institutional sales and trading, wholesale life insurance and annuity brokerage and trust services through its principal subsidiaries, Securities America ("Securities America"), Triad Advisors ("Triad"), Securities Service Network ("SSN"), Investacorp ("Investacorp"), KMS Financial Services ("KMS"), Ladenburg Thalmann & Co. ("Ladenburg"), Ladenburg Thalmann Asset Management ("LTAM"), Premier Trust ("Premier Trust"), Highland Capital Brokerage ("Highland") and Ladenburg Thalmann Annuity Insurance Services ("LTAIS"). The company is based in Miami, Florida. LADENBURG THALMANN: Bid to Dismiss All American Suit Granted ------------------------------------------------------------ Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the court has granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the second amended complaint with prejudice and entered final judgment for the defendants. In January 2016, an amended complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas against Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. and related entities as well as their officers and directors. The amended complaint added Ladenburg and other underwriters of securities offerings in 2013 and 2014 that in the aggregate raised approximately $2,900,000 as defendants to the purported class action. Ladenburg was one of the underwriters of the October 2013 initial public offering. The complaints allege, among other things, that the offering materials were misleading based on representations concerning the maintenance and integrity of the issuer's pipelines, and that the underwriters are liable for violations of federal securities laws. In April 2018, the court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the second amended complaint with prejudice and entered final judgment for the defendants. Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. is a diversified financial services company engaged in independent advisory and brokerage services, asset management services, investment research, investment banking, institutional sales and trading, wholesale life insurance and annuity brokerage and trust services through its principal subsidiaries, Securities America ("Securities America"), Triad Advisors ("Triad"), Securities Service Network ("SSN"), Investacorp ("Investacorp"), KMS Financial Services ("KMS"), Ladenburg Thalmann & Co. ("Ladenburg"), Ladenburg Thalmann Asset Management ("LTAM"), Premier Trust ("Premier Trust"), Highland Capital Brokerage ("Highland") and Ladenburg Thalmann Annuity Insurance Services ("LTAIS"). The company is based in Miami, Florida. LASHMAX LLC: Coleman Seeks to Recover Wages, OT Pay Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- SANDRA COLEMAN v. LASHMAX, LLC; LASH INVESTMENT GROUP ONE, INC.; LASH INVESTMENT GROUP TWO, INC.; LASH INVESTMENT GROUP THREE, INC.; LASH INVESTMENT GROUP, FOUR, INC.; LAN AI NGUYEN, AN INDIVIDUAL; HA THI LE, AN INDIVIDUAL; TRUNG QUY NGUYEN, AN INDIVIDUAL, Case No. 4:18-cv-01747 (S.D. Tex., May 25, 2018), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated employees to recover unpaid wages and overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Lashmax, LLC, is a Texas limited liability company. Lash Investment Group One, Inc., Lash Investment Group Two, Inc., Lash Investment Group Three, Inc., and Lash Investment Group Four, Inc., are Texas for profit corporations. The Individual Defendants are employees, officers or agents of the Corporate Defendants. The Lash Defendants own and operate six "Amazing Lash Studio" franchises in the Houston area. "Amazing Lash Studios" are beauty salons that apply false eyelashes on people. The Lash Defendants' corporate headquarters are in Houston, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicola Thompson Drake, Esq. THE DRAKE LAW FIRM, PC 4101 Washington Ave Houston, TX 77007 Telephone: (713) 230-8712 Facsimile: (713) 456-2084 E-mail: nicola@nicoladrake.com LOVETT FOOD: "Ahmed" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Syed Owais Ahmed, and all others similarly situated v. Lovett Food, LLC, Akber Ali Allauddin and Abid Ali Allauddin, Case No. 4:18-cv-01307 (S.D. Tex., April 25, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Syed Owais Ahmed is a resident of Harris County, Texas. Plaintiff was an employee who worked as a gas station/convenience store clerk owned and operated by the Defendants. The Defendants own and operate related business establishments engaged in interstate commerce or in the production of goods for interstate commerce in Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Salar Ali Ahmed, Esq. ALI S. AHMED, P.C. One Arena Place 7322 Southwest Frwy., Suite 1920 Houston, TX 77074 Tel: (713) 223-1300 Fax: (713) 255-0013 E-mail: aahmedlaw@gmail.com MACQUARIE INFRASTRUCTURE: Fajardo Files Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Fajardo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Macquarie Infrastructure Corporation, James Hooke, Jay Davis, Liam Stewart, and Richard D. Courtney, Case No. 1:18-cv-03744 (S.D. N.Y., April 27, 2018), seeks damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities law and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. This is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired Macquarie's securities between February 22, 2016 and February 21, 2018, both dates inclusive. The complaint says the Plaintiff acquired Macquarie securities at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period and was damaged upon the revelation of alleged corrective disclosures. Macquarie Infrastructure Corporation owns, operates, and invests in a portfolio of infrastructure businesses. The Company's businesses consist of its IMTT business, a bulk liquid terminals business, airport services, gas processing and distribution, and a portfolio of contracted power and energy investments. The Individual Defendants are officers of Macquarie. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 661-1100 Fax: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Tel: (212) 697-6484 E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com MATSON NAVIGATION: Unearned Wages Claim in "Dixon" Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, ALPHONSE DIXON, and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MATSON NAVIGATION COMPANY, INC., Defendant, Civil 17-00368 LEK-KJM (D. Haw.), Judge Leslie E. Kobayashi of the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint. The putative class action arises under admiralty law. The Plaintiff alleges he has suffered illness or injury in the service of the Defendant's vessel(s) on high seas voyages wherefore unearned wages were payable, and proceeds to assert two claims. First, the Plaintiff claims the Defendant wrongfully calculated the amount of unearned wages owed in breach of its general maritime law obligations. Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges the Defendant failed to include in his unearned wages the amount of overtime wages, which he would have earned, had he not been prevented from working by his illness or injury ("Count I"). Second, the Plaintiff alleges Defendant improperly determined the duration of its obligation to pay him unearned wages ("Count II"). Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that, because he has dependents, he was entitled to unearned wages until his sickness or incapacity was declared to be of a permanent character, per the Shipowners' Liability Convention. On Oct. 23, 2017, the Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint. It seeks dismissal of Count II, arguing that shipowners are only obliged to pay unearned wages until the end of the voyage. The Plaintiff filed his memorandum in opposition on Oct. 25, 2017, and the Defendant filed its reply on Jan. 12, 2018. The matter came on for hearing on Jan. 29, 2018. Judge Kobayashi finds that the Plaintiff has made no reference to the parties' employment contract. The Plaintiff relies solely on the Convention as authority for his alleged entitlement to relief. Because the Convention was not enacted to change materially American standards, Count II is premised on a legal theory contrary to controlling authority. Count II therefore fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and must be dismissed. The Judge holds that the dismissal must be with prejudice because it is clear that any amendment would be futile. On the basis of the foregoing, Judge Kobayashi granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint, filed on Oct. 23, 2017, and dismissed with prejudice Count II of the Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint under Rule 9(h), filed July 28, 2017. A full-text copy of the Court's April 11, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/ATAaTN from Leagle.com. Alphonse Dixon, and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Dennis M. O'Bryan -- info@obryanlaw.ne -- O'Bryan Baun Karamanian. Matson Navigation Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Marker E. Lovell, Jr. -- mlovell@gibsonrobb.com -- Gibson Robb & Lindh LLP. MDL 2777: Sept. 17 Hearing on Bid for Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE CHRYSLER-DODGE-JEEP ECODIESEL MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, Case No. 3:17-md- 02777-EMC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward M. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, has entered an order establishing deadlines regarding the Class Plaintiffs' amended complaint, and the Defendants' anticipated motion to dismiss. On March 15, 2018, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motions to dismiss the Class Plaintiffs' Amended Consolidated Consumer Class Action Complaint, and granted leave to amend certain of their claims. The Class Plaintiffs intend to amend certain of their claims, and the Defendants may move to dismiss some or all of the claims. The parties previously raised a dispute in the April 3, 2018 Joint Case Management Conference Statement concerning the scheduling of class certification depositions, the schedule for class certification briefing, and the Class Plaintiffs' request to bifurcate class certification briefing. They've met and conferred and resolved the dispute in an attempt to avoid any undue delay in these proceedings, such that, subject to Court approval, the Class Plaintiffs will file their amended complaint and then move for class certification on all claims asserted in the amended complaint during the pendency of the Defendants' anticipated motion to dismiss claims in the amended complaint. The agreed-upon schedule sets forth a briefing schedule for the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Class Plaintiffs' amended complaint and a revised schedule for briefing class certification of all claims. The parties stipulated and the Judge Approved the following deadlines are established regarding the Class Plaintiffs' amended complaint and the Defendants' anticipated motion to dismiss: a. April 23, 2018: The Class Plaintiffs will file the Second Amended Consolidated Consumer Class Action Complaint ("SAC"). b. May 23, 2018: The Defendants will answer, move to dismiss, or otherwise respond to the SAC. c. June 22, 2018: The Plaintiffs will file any response in opposition to any motion to dismiss made by Defendants. d. July 13, 2018: The Defendants will file any reply(ies) in support of their motions to dismiss. The Class Plaintiffs will move for class certification of all claims in the SAC, and the following deadlines are revised in that regard: a. April 16, 2018 -- June 6, 2018: The Class Plaintiffs will file their motion for class certification of all claims in the SAC. All remaining class-certification depositions of Defendants will be completed sufficiently in advance of this deadline. b. May 14, 2018 -- June 22, 2018: The Defendants will disclose experts on which they will rely for their opposition to the class certification motion. c. May 29, 2018 -- July 23, 2018: the Defendants will file their brief(s) in opposition to the Class Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. All remaining class-certification depositions of the Class Representatives will be completed sufficiently in advance of this deadline. d. June 25, 2018 -- Aug. 20, 2018: The Class Plaintiffs will file a reply brief in support of their motion for class certification. e. Sept. 17, 2018 at 2:15 p.m.: Hearing on motion for class certification A full-text copy of the Court's April 11, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/WlA938 from Leagle.com. Jose Chavez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica Thompson -- jessicat@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Shana E. Scarlett -- shanas@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, E. Powell Miller -- epm@millerlawpc.com -- The Miller Law Firm, P.C., James E. Cecchi -- jcecchi@carellabyrne.com -- Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., Jeffrey Scott Goldenberg -- jgoldenberg@gs- legal.com -- Goldenberg Schneider, LPA, Lindsey H. Taylor -- ltaylor@carellabyrne.com -- Carella Byrne, Peter B. Fredman -- peter@peterfredmanlaw.com -- Law Office of Peter Fredman & Sharon S. Almonrode -- ssa@millerlawpc.com -- The Miller Law Firm, P.C. Benjamin Greenberg, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated & Andrew Loescher, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, E. Powell Miller, The Miller Law Firm, P.C., James E. Cecchi, Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., Jeffrey Scott Goldenberg, Goldenberg Schneider, LPA, Lindsey H. Taylor, Carella Byrne & Sharon S. Almonrode, The Miller Law Firm, P.C. Miguel Fragoso, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Derek William Loeser -- dloeser@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback, LLP, Gretchen Freeman Cappio -- gcappio@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback, LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey Greg Lewis -- jlewis@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback L.L.P., Lynn Lincoln Sarko -- lsarko@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback L.L.P., pro hac vice, Ryan McDevitt -- rmcdevitt@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback L.L.P., Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Benjamin L. Bailey -- bbailey@baileyglasser.com -- Bailey and Glasser, LLP, E. Powell Miller, The Miller Law Firm, P.C., Elizabeth Joan Cabraser -- ecabraser@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, James E. Cecchi, Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., James Gerard Stranch, IV -- gerards@bsjfirm.com -- Branstetter Stranch & Jennings, Jeffrey Scott Goldenberg, Goldenberg Schneider, LPA, Joe P. Leniski, Jr. -- joeyl@bsjfirm.com -- Branstetter Stranch Jennings, PLLC, Lesley Elizabeth Weaver -- Lweaver@bfalaw.com -- Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP, Lindsey H. Taylor, Carella Byrne, Lisa Faye Petak -- lpetak@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback L.L.P. & Sharon S. Almonrode, The Miller Law Firm, P.C. Mathue Fasching, Plaintiff, represented by Lynn Lincoln Sarko , Keller Rohrback L.L.P., James E. Cecchi, Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., James Gerard Stranch, IV, Branstetter Stranch & Jennings, Jeffrey Greg Lewis, Keller Rohrback L.L.P. & Lindsey H. Taylor, Carella Byrne. Thomas McGann, Jr. & Joseph Neupert, Plaintiffs, represented by Derek William Loeser, Keller Rohrback, LLP, Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Keller Rohrback, LLP, pro hac vice, Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Keller Rohrback L.L.P., pro hac vice, Ryan McDevitt, Keller Rohrback L.L.P., Benjamin L. Bailey, Bailey and Glasser, LLP, Elizabeth Joan Cabraser, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, James E. Cecchi, Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., James Gerard Stranch, IV , Branstetter Stranch & Jennings, Jeffrey Greg Lewis , Keller Rohrback L.L.P., Joe P. Leniski, Jr, Branstetter Stranch Jennings, PLLC, Lesley Elizabeth Weaver, Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP, Lindsey H. Taylor, Carella Byrne & Lisa Faye Petak, Keller Rohrback L.L.P. Bryan Muckenfuss & John Radziewicz, Plaintiffs, represented by Joseph F. Rice -- jrice@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC, pro hac vice, Benjamin L. Bailey, Bailey and Glasser, LLP, Elizabeth Joan Cabraser, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, James E. Cecchi, Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., James Gerard Stranch, IV, Branstetter Stranch & Jennings, Jeffrey Greg Lewis, Keller Rohrback L.L.P., Joe P. Leniski, Jr., Branstetter Stranch Jennings, PLLC, Lesley Elizabeth Weaver, Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP, Lindsey H. Taylor, Carella Byrne & Lisa Faye Petak, Keller Rohrback L.L.P. Satyanam Singh & Binh Quoc Tran, Plaintiffs, represented by Benjamin L. Bailey, Bailey and Glasser, LLP, Elizabeth Joan Cabraser, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, James E. Cecchi, Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, P.C., James Gerard Stranch, IV, Branstetter Stranch & Jennings, Jeffrey Greg Lewis, Keller Rohrback L.L.P., Joe P. Leniski, Jr., Branstetter Stranch Jennings, PLLC, Lesley Elizabeth Weaver, Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP, Lindsey H. Taylor, Carella Byrne & Lisa Faye Petak, Keller Rohrback L.L.P. Luke Kitchel, Plaintiff, represented by Peter Prieto -- pprieto@podhurst.com -- Podhurst Orseck, P.A., pro hac vice, David Brian Fernandes -- dfernandes@baronbudd.com -- Baron & Budd, P.C., David S. Stellings -- DSTELLINGS@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein, pro hac vice, Elizabeth Joan Cabraser, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Kevin R. Budner -- kbudner@lchb.com -- Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann and Bernstein, LLP, Mark P. Pifko -- MPifko@baronbudd.com -- Baron and Budd PC, Paul J. Geller -- pgeller@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Phong-Chau Gia Nguyen - - pgnguyen@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Rachel Lynn Jensen, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Roland K. Tellis -- rtellis@baronbudd.com -- Baron Budd, P.C. & Wilson McClelland Dunlavey -- wdunlavey@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser. Gregory Wilkerson, Joseph Moynihan, Mark Richards, Timothy Green, Jeff Parisi, Adam Burwell, Louis Bodie, Jamie Broom, Walter Swan, Craig McCully, Aaron Carter, Daniel Brown, Nelson Delgado, Bobby Reichert, Christopher Mattingly, Micah Martin, Leslie Ghrist, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated & Michah Williams, Plaintiffs, represented by Peter Prieto, Podhurst Orseck, P.A., pro hac vice, David Brian Fernandes, Baron & Budd, P.C., Elizabeth Joan Cabraser, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Kevin R. Budner, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann and Bernstein, LLP, Mark P. Pifko, Baron and Budd PC, Paul J. Geller, Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Phong-Chau Gia Nguyen, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Rachel Lynn Jensen, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Roland K. Tellis, Baron Budd, P.C. & Wilson McClelland Dunlavey, Lieff Cabraser. Travis Morgan, Plaintiff, represented by Peter Prieto , Podhurst Orseck, P.A., pro hac vice, David Brian Fernandes, Baron & Budd, P.C., Elizabeth Joan Cabraser, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Kevin R. Budner, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann and Bernstein, LLP, Mark P. Pifko, Baron and Budd PC, Paul J. Geller, Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Phong-Chau Gia Nguyen, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Rachel Lynn Jensen, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Roland K. Tellis, Baron Budd, P.C. FCA US LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Defendant, represented by Amie Adelia Vague -- avague@lightfootlaw.com -- Lightfoot Franklin & White, Kyle Allen Niemi -- niemik@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, Samuel H. Franklin -- sfranklin@lightfootlaw.com -- Lightfoot Franklin & White LLC, Wesley B. Gilchrist -- wgilchrist@lightfootlaw.com -- Lightfoot Franklin & White LLC, Darrell Scott Cafasso -- cafassod@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan Cromwell LLP, Gary G. Hebert -- ghebert@mcglinchey.com -- McGlinchey Stafford, Marshall Thomas Cox -- mcox@mcglinchey.com -- McGlinchey Stafford, Robert J. Giuffra, Jr. -- giuffrar@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, pro hac vice, Sharon L. Nelles -- nelless@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan and Cromwell LLP & William B. Monahan -- monahanw@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, pro hac vice. Robert Bosch GmbH, a corporation organized under the laws of Germany, Defendant, represented by Matthew D. Slater -- mslater@cgsh.com -- Cleary Gottlieb Steen and Hamilton LLP. Robert Bosch LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Defendant, represented by Matthew D. Slater, Cleary Gottlieb Steen and Hamilton LLP & Carmine D. Boccuzzi, Jr. -- cboccuzzi@cgsh.com -- Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V., Defendant, represented by Amie Adelia Vague, Lightfoot Franklin & White, Kyle Allen Niemi, Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, Robert J. Giuffra, Jr., Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, Samuel H. Franklin, Lightfoot Franklin & White LLC, Wesley B. Gilchrist, Lightfoot Franklin & White LLC & William B. Monahan, Esq., Sullivan & Cromwell, pro hac vice. Melvin McConnell, Defendant, represented by James C. Shah, Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLP, Andrew Sciolla, Pogust Braslow & Millrood LLC & Harris L. Pogust, Pogust Braslow & Millrood, LLC. VM Motori S.p.A., VM North America, Inc. & Sergio Marchionne, Defendants, represented by Robert J. Giuffra, Jr. -- giuffrar@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan and Cromwell LLP. Brandon Automotive, Inc., a Colorado Corporation, doing business as Brandon Dodge on Broadway, Defendant, represented by Rebecca Jean Boyle, Dietze & Davis, P.C. Brandon Automotive, Inc., a Colorado Corporation, Defendant, represented by William A. Rogers, III, Dietze & Davis, P.C. Michael Everett Heygood, Movant, pro se. The People of the State of California, Interested Party, represented by Jon F. Worm, Office of the Attorney General. MEDICINES CO: Court Grants Final Approval of Class Action Deal -------------------------------------------------------------- Medicines Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the Court has granted final approval of the settlement of a class action lawsuit. In February 2014, a class action lawsuit was filed against the company and certain of its current and former officers alleging, among other things, that the company and certain of its current and former officers violated federal securities laws because the company and certain current and former officers allegedly made misrepresentations or did not make proper disclosures regarding the results of clinical trials which tested the efficacy and safety of one of our recently divested products. On February 12, 2016, the parties executed a stipulation for a proposed class settlement, subject to court approval, and on June 7, 2016, the Court granted final approval of the settlement. Medicines Company is a biopharmaceutical company driven by our purpose to solve major medical, societal and economic challenges in healthcare. The company is based in Parsippany, New Jersey. MEDGUARD ALERT: Cunningham Files Suit Over Autodialed Calls ----------------------------------------------------------- CRAIG CUNNINGHAM, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. MEDGUARD ALERT, INC., Case No. 3:18-cv-00897 (D. Conn., May 29, 2018), alleges that the Defendant, using an autodialer, called the Plaintiff and the class using a prerecorded or artificial-voice, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Medguard is a Connecticut corporation with its principal place of business located in Middletown, Connecticut. The Company tried to sell to the Plaintiff a medical alert system.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq. BELLIN & ASSOCIATES LLC 50 Main Street, Suite 1000 White Plains, NY 10606 Telephone: (914) 358-5345 Facsimile: (212) 571-0284 E-mail: aytan.bellin@bellinlaw.com MFS GLOBAL: Violates TCPA's Do-Not-Call Provision, Fabricant Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- TERRY FABRICANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MFS GLOBAL, INC. d/b/a FLOWRICH CAPITAL; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:18-cv-04381 (C.D. Cal., May 23, 2018), arises from the Defendants' alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, specifically the National Do-Not-Call provisions. MFS Global, Inc., doing business as Flowrich Capital, is loan provider. The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown to the Plaintiff.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com MICHIGAN: Court Denies Filing of Amended "Fowler" Suit ------------------------------------------------------ In the case, ADRIAN FOWLER and KITIA HARRIS, Plaintiffs, v. RUTH JOHNSON, Michigan Secretary of State, Defendant, Civil Case No. 17-11441 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Linda V. Parker of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, (i) denied the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file an amended complaint, and (ii) denied the Plaintiffs' request to file their motion for class certification at this time. This is a putative class action lawsuit challenging the Defendant's practice, pursuant to Michigan Compiled Laws Section 257.321a, of suspending the driver's licenses of individuals who fail to pay court-ordered fines, costs, fees and assessments resulting from traffic violations. Plaintiffs Fowler and Harris are Michigan residents who claim to have had their driver's licenses suspended pursuant to Michigan Compiled Laws Section 257.321a. While living in Georgia from 2008 to 2012, Ms. Fowler was issued three tickets for civil traffic infractions, which she was not able to pay. When she moved back to Michigan in 2012, Ms. Fowler tried to renew her Michigan driver's license and was informed that it was suspended because she had not paid her Georgia court debts. The Defendant explains that Michigan law precludes the Secretary of State from issuing a driver's license to someone whose license is revoked or suspended in another state. According to the Defendant, Georgia suspended Ms. Fowler's license for nonpayment of court debts. In October 2016, a Ferndale police officer stopped Ms. Harris and issued her a ticket for "impeding traffic." According to Ms. Harris, the officer instructed her to call a number to see how much she owed for the ticket. Ms. Harris called the number a couple of days later and was told the cost was $150. Unable to pay that amount, Ms. Harris asked the person on the phone if she could be placed on a payment plan. According to Ms. Harris, she was told no and that she had to pay the amount in full. She was further informed that if she waited too long to pay, her license would be suspended. She avers that she was never told to come to court to discuss a payment plan or provided other alternatives to paying the fine in full. About a month later, Ms. Harris received a notice in the mail reflecting that the amount she owed had increased and that her license had been suspended because of her failure to pay the fine. Ms. Harris claims that she received three additional suspensions of her license for failure to pay fines in November 2017. On the day they initiated the action, the Plaintiffs also filed a motion for preliminary injunction to enjoin the Defendant from suspending the driver's licenses of individuals unable to pay their traffic debt. Concluding that the Plaintiffs are likely to prevail on their claim that the Defendant violated their procedural due process rights by suspending their driver's licenses without first affording them an ability to pay hearing, the Court granted the Plaintiff's motion and entered a preliminary injunction on Dec. 14, 2017. Specifically, the Court ordered that the Defendant is enjoined from enforcing Michigan Compiled Laws Section 257.321a to suspend the driver's licenses of people unable to pay their traffic debt. The Defendant appealed and asked the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to stay the injunction. On Dec. 28, 2017, the Sixth Circuit issued an order stating that the Defendant had not demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the merits of its challenge to the district court's ruling on procedural due process. Nevertheless, it stayed the injunction for 30 days and remanded the matter for the limited purpose of modifying the injunctive relief granted to provide direction to the State as to the type of process required to comply with the court's order. In response to the Sixth Circuit's remand order, the Court issued an order on Jan. 5, 2018, clarifying its injunction. The Court ultimately concluded that the Sixth Circuit's remand order did not permit it to consider new evidence and revisit the merits of Plaintiffs' procedural due process claim. On Jan. 24, 2018, the Court entered an Amended Preliminary Injunction that enjoined the Defendant from suspending any further driver's licenses of individuals because of nonpayment of any fine, cost, fee or assessment under Michigan Compiled Laws Section 257.321a unless and until the Defendant or another entity: (1) offers drivers the option to request a hearing where they have the opportunity to demonstrate their inability to pay a fine, cost, fee and/or assessment; (2) provides a hearing when requested; (3) provides reasonable notice to drivers of the hearing opportunity; and (4) institutes alternatives to full payment for those unable to pay (e.g., realistic payment plans or volunteer service). The Defendant filed an appeal and an emergency motion to stay. In the motion, she argued that the Plaintiffs lack standing because, even if they had suspensions for failure to pay, they also had suspensions for failure to appear in state court. According to the Defendant, the Plaintiffs could not benefit from the injunction as their licenses had been suspended on grounds alternative to failure to pay. On Feb. 7, 2018, the Sixth Circuit entered an order remanding the matter to address standing. On remand, the Plaintiffs filed a "Brief and Declaration in Support of Standing" to which they attach amended declarations from Ms. Harris and Ms. Fowler. The Defendant responded to the Plaintiffs' filing, the Plaintiffs filed a reply brief, and the Defendant filed a sur-reply. The Plaintiffs also filed a motion seeking leave to file an amended complaint and a motion for class certification. The parties have fully briefed that motion. Further, the Defendant moved to strike the Plaintiffs' motion, arguing that the Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the motion under the Sixth Circuit's limited remand order. The Defendant's motion to strike also has been fully briefed. Judge Parker concludes that Ms. Harris has standing to pursue the lawsuit and that her claims have not been rendered moot by the additional infractions she incurred after the action was filed. Ms. Jones lacks standing, however. Further, Ms. Rankin's claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. As such, the Judge concludes that it would be futile for the Plaintiffs to amend their complaint to add Ms. Jones or Ms. Rankin as Plaintiffs. Therefore, she denied the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file an amended complaint, as well as the Plaintiffs' request to file their motion for class certification at this time. A full-text copy of the Court's April 11, 2018 Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/pDezwS from Leagle.com. Adrian Fowler & Kitia Harris, Plaintiffs, represented by Anthony D. Paris, Maurice and Jane Sugar Law Center, Catherine B. Sevcenko, Equal Justice Under Law, John C. Philo -- jphilo@sugarlaw.org -- Sugar Law Center, Rebecca R. Ramaswamy, Equal Justice Under Law & Phil Telfeyan -- ptelfeyan@equaljusticeunderlaw.org -- Equal Justice Under Law. Ruth Johnson, Defendant, represented by John G. Fedynsky -- fedynskyj@michigan.gov -- State of Michigan Attorney General's Office Civil Litigation, Employment & Elections Division. MOMENTA PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Dismiss LOVENOX Suit Underway ------------------------------------------------------------- Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that three motions by the Company and Sandoz to dismiss an amended class action complaint remains pending. On October 14, 2015, The Hospital Authority of Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee, d/b/a Nashville General Hospital, or NGH, filed a class action suit against the Company and Sandoz in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on behalf of certain purchasers of LOVENOX or generic Enoxaparin Sodium Injection. The complaint alleges that, in connection with filing the September 2011 patent infringement suit against Amphastar and Actavis, the Company and Sandoz sought to prevent Amphastar from selling generic Enoxaparin Sodium Injection and thereby exclude competition for generic Enoxaparin Sodium Injection in violation of federal anti-trust laws. NGH is seeking injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits and unspecified damages and fees. In December 2015, the Company and Sandoz filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. On March 21, 2017, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee dismissed NGH's claim for damages against the Company and Sandoz, but allowed the case to move forward, in part, for NGH's claims for injunctive and declaratory relief. In the same opinion, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee denied the Company's motion to transfer. On June 9, 2017, NGH filed a motion to amend its complaint to add a new named plaintiff, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees District Council 37 Health & Security Plan, or DC37. NGH and DC37 seek to assert claims for damages under the laws of more than 30 different states, on behalf of a putative class of indirect purchasers of Lovenox or generic enoxaparin. On June 30, 2017, the Company and Sandoz filed a brief opposing the motion to amend the complaint. On December 14, 2017, the Court granted NGH's motion to amend. In January 2018, the Company and Sandoz filed three motions to dismiss the amended complaint. Momenta Pharmaceuticals said "While the outcome of litigation is inherently uncertain, the Company believes this suit is without merit, and intend to vigorously defend itself in this litigation." Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biotechnology company, focuses on developing generic versions of complex drugs, biosimilars, and novel therapeutics for autoimmune diseases in the United States. The company is based in Cambridge, Massachusetts. MTGE INVESTMENT: "Dell'Acqua" Suit Challenges Sale to Annaly ------------------------------------------------------------ GIAMPAOLO DELL'ACQUA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. MTGE INVESTMENT CORP., GARY D. KAIN, RANDY E. DOBBS, JULIA L. CORONADO, ROBERT M. COUCH, ANNALY CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC., and MOUNTAIN MERGER SUB CORPORATION, Case No. 8:18-cv-01528-DKC (D. Md., May 25, 2018), arises out of the Board of Directors' attempt to sell the Company to Annaly Capital Management, Inc., through its wholly-owned subsidiary Mountain Merger Sub Corporation. The Proposed Transaction was first disclosed on May 2, 2018, when MTGE and Annaly announced that they had entered into a definitive merger agreement pursuant to which Annaly will acquire all of the outstanding shares of common stock of MTGE in a mix of cash and stock that values MTGE at approximately $19.65 per share. The deal is valued at approximately $900 million and is expected to close in the third quarter of 2018. MTGE is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Maryland. The Company's principal executive offices are located in Bethesda, Maryland. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. MTGE invests in and manages real estate-related investments, including residential mortgage-backed securities structured from mortgages guaranteed by a government-sponsored entity. The Company is managed by MTGE Management, LLC, a subsidiary of AGNC Investment Corp. Annaly Capital Management, Inc. is a Maryland corporation based in New York. Mountain Merger Sub Corporation is a Maryland corporation and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Annaly.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Donald J. Enright, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 524-4290 Facsimile: (202) 333-2121 E-mail: denright@zlk.com - and - Shane T. Rowley, Esq. Danielle Rowland Lindahl, Esq. ROWLEY LAW PLLC 50 Main Street, Suite 1000 White Plains, NY 10606 Telephone: (914) 400-1920 Facsimile: (914) 301-3514 MTGE INVESTMENT: Faces "Franchi" Suit Over Acquisition by Annaly ---------------------------------------------------------------- ANTHONY FRANCHI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. MTGE INVESTMENT CORP., RANDY E. DOBBS, JULIA L. CORONADO, ROBERT M. COUCH, ANNALY CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC. and MOUNTAIN MERGER SUB CORPORATION, Case No. 8:18-cv-01563- PJM (D. Md., May 30, 2018), stems from a proposed transaction, pursuant to which MTGE will be acquired by Annaly and Merger Sub. On May 2, 2018, MTGE'S Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Annaly. Pursuant the terms of the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub commenced a tender offer to acquire all of MTGE'S shares of outstanding common stock. MTGE is a Maryland corporation and maintains its principal executive offices in Bethesda, Maryland. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. MTGE is a hybrid mortgage real estate investment trust that invests in agency mortgage-backed securities, non-agency mortgage investments, other mortgage-related assets and skilled nursing and senior living facilities operated by third parties. Defendant Parent is a Maryland corporation. Merger Sub is a Maryland corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of the Parent. Both are parties to the Merger Agreement.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas J. Minton, Esq. GOLDMAN & MINTON, P.C. 3600 Clipper Mill Rd., Suite 201 Baltimore, MD 21211 Telephone: (410) 783-7575 Facsimile: (410) 783-1711 E-mail: tminton@charmcitylegal.com - and - RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 - and - RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (484) 324-6800 Facsimile: (484) 631-1305 NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: 4 Classes in "McNamee" FDCPA Suit Certified ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CHARLES D. McNAMEE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:14-CV-1948 (S.D. Ohio), Judge Algenon L. Marbley of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class. The case concerns Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") consequences of letters that the Defendant sent to Plaintiff Charles McNamee and others similarly situated. Nearly a decade ago, Mr. McNamee took out a mortgage on his home in Mechanicsburg, Ohio, through American Eagle Mortgage Co. He executed a Note in the amount of $181,936, payable to American Eagle. Eventually, American Eagle endorsed the Note to an intermediary mortgage company, which, in turn, endorsed the Note to Bank of America, N.A. In 2012, Mr. McNamee found himself in default on the Note. He and his wife filed jointly for voluntary Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Mr. McNamee received a Chapter 7 discharge in September 2012, and, upon the request of Bank of America, the Chapter 7 Trustee abandoned the bankruptcy estate's interest in the property. After the bankruptcy, Bank of America assigned the mortgage on the property to Defendant Nationstar. Nationstar began to send Mr. McNamee correspondence that would ultimately become the focal point of the litigation. Specifically, it sent Mr. McNamee two letters on Dec. 17, 2012, informing him that it took over debt servicing for the mortgage. On Dec. 31, 2012, it sent a letter indicating that it was seeking to collect $22,439.32 on the mortgage on behalf of Ginnie Mae. And once a month from January 2013 to January 2015, Nationstar sent Mr. McNamee a "Mortgage Loan Statement" that specified, among other things, an "Amount Due" and "Payment Due Date," and warned him not to delay payment lest Nationstar report his account to credit bureaus. As it continued to send the Mortgage Loan Statement letters to Mr. McNamee, Nationstar commenced an in rem foreclosure proceeding in the Champaign County Court of Common Pleas. In October 2013, it obtained a final decree of foreclosure on the property. Nationstar then acquired force-placed insurance on the property, advancing $4,552 to pay for coverage. The company began sending Mr. McNamee Forced-Placed Insurance letters telling him that the cost of the insurance would result in costs to him. As of the time Mr. McNamee filed his Motion for Class Certification, Nationstar has not yet sold the house. It is Mr. NcNamee's contention that the Mortgage Loan Statements and the Force-Placed Insurance communications were in the nature of debt collection, and that the continuous and voluminous collection activity against him after he vacated the house was in violation of the FDCPA and 11 U.S.C. Section 524(a). In 2013, Mr. McNamee filed suit against Nationstar in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Ohio, seeking an order of contempt and sanctions on behalf of himself and those similarly situated. Nationstar filed a Motion to Dismiss, which the Bankruptcy Court granted as to Mr. McNamee's request to represent a nationwide class but denied as to Mr. McNamee's request to represent a district-wide class. Mr. McNamee then filed the FDCPA class action in October 2014, alleging claims under 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e, which generally proscribes false and misleading representations in debt collection, and Section 1692f, which prohibits the use of unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect debts. Nationstar moved to dismiss Mr. McNamee's Section 1692f claims; the Court granted the motion on Sept. 4, 2015. Only the Section 1692e claims remain. The Plaintiffs now seek to certify the following classes as to the Section 1692e claims: CLASS 1 (Nationwide): as to the Issues of FDCPA Liability and Statutory Damages: Any person who (i) who received a Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge in a bankruptcy case filed in the U.S. Bankruptcy Courts on or after Jan. 1, 2012 and on or before Jan. 31, 2015; (ii) who filed and served a Statement of Intention therein pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 521(a)(2)(A) stating an intention to surrender residential real property that was/is security for a debt serviced by Nationstar; and (iii) who, after vacating the real property, were mailed by Nationstar, one or more Mortgage Loan Statements of the type exemplified by the attached Exemplar Exhibit A; CLASS 2 (Nationwide): as to the Issues of FDCPA Liability and Statutory Damages: Any person who (i) received a Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge in a bankruptcy case filed in the U.S. Bankruptcy Courts on or after Jan. 1, 2012 and the present; (ii) who filed and served a Statement of Intention pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 521(a)(2)(A) stating an intention to surrender residential real property that was/is security for a debt serviced by Nationstar; and (iii) who, after vacating the real property, were mailed by Nationstar, at least one Force-Placed Insurance letter of the type exemplified by the attached Exemplar Exhibits B and C; CLASS 3 (S.D. Ohio): as to the Issue of Whether Nationstar Violated 11 U.S.C. Section 524(a): Any person who (i) who received a Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge in a bankruptcy case filed in the U.S. Bankruptcy Courts for the S.D. Ohio on or after Jan. 1, 2012 and on or before Jan. 31, 2015; (ii) who filed and served a Statement of Intention therein pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 521(a)(2)(A) stating an intention to surrender residential real property that was/is security for a debt serviced by Nationstar; and (iii) who, after vacating the real property, were mailed by Nationstar, one or more Mortgage Loan Statements of the type exemplified by the attached Exemplar Exhibit A; CLASS 4 (S.D. Ohio): as to the Issue of Whether Nationstar Violated 11 U.S.C. Section 524(a): Any person who (i) received a Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge in a bankruptcy case filed in the U.S. Bankruptcy Courts for the S.D. Ohio on or after Jan. 1, 2012 and the present; (ii) who filed and served a Statement of Intention pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 521(a)(2)(A) stating an intention to surrender residential real property that was/is security for a debt serviced by Nationstar; and (iii) who, after vacating the real property, were mailed by Nationstar, at least one Force-Placed Insurance letter of the type exemplified by the attached Exemplar Exhibits B and C. Nationstar argues that the proposed classes are subject to several fatal defects, namely: (A) they are not ascertainable, (B) they are overly broad, (C) they do not satisfy the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, (D) the putative class representative does not have claims typical to the classes, and (E) they do not satisfy the predominance and superiority requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Ultimately, Judge Marbley holds that none of these arguments defeat Mr. McNamee's Motion for Class Certification. He finds that the Plaintiff's proposed class definition carries all the indicia of objective criteria: if an individual received specific letters from Defendant after filing a Statement of Intent and vacating the property, that individual is a class member. Whether an individual received a debt collection letter after filing a Statement of Intent and vacating the property is an inquiry based solely on objective criteria. Far from being hopelessly unascertainable, the contours of the class could not be clearer. He also finds that the records form a sufficient basis upon which to conclude that the property has been vacated and no longer is the principal residence of the debtor. No further individualized proof would be required, let alone a series of individualized mini-trials. He therefore concludes that the classes are not overly broad. The Judge further finds that the Plaintiffs meet the commonality and typicality requirements, as well as the Rule 23(b)(3) requirements of predominance and superiority. For these reasons, Judge Marbley certified the action as a class action, and designated the Plaintiff as the representative of the four classes outlined below: a. CLASS 1 (Nationwide): as to the Issues of FDCPA Liability and Statutory Damages: Any person who (i) who received a Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge in a bankruptcy case filed in the U.S. Bankruptcy Courts on or after Jan. 1, 2012 and on or before Jan. 31, 2015; (ii) who filed and served a Statement of Intention therein pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 521(a)(2)(A) stating an intention to surrender residential real property that was/is security for a debt serviced by Nationstar; and (iii) who, after vacating the real property, were mailed by Nationstar, one or more Mortgage Loan Statements of the type exemplified by the attached Exemplar Exhibit A; b. CLASS 2 (Nationwide): as to the Issues of FDCPA Liability and Statutory Damages: Any person who (i) received a Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge in a bankruptcy case filed in the U.S. Bankruptcy Courts on or after Jan. 1, 2012 and the present; (ii) who filed and served a Statement of Intention pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 521(a)(2)(A) stating an intention to surrender residential real property that was/is security for a debt serviced by Nationstar; and (iii) who, after vacating the real property, were mailed by Nationstar, at least one Force-Placed Insurance letter of the type exemplified by the attached Exemplar Exhibits B and C; c. CLASS 3 (S.D. Ohio): as to the Issue of Whether Nationstar Violated 11 U.S.C. Section 524(a): Any person who (i) who received a Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge in a bankruptcy case filed in the U.S. Bankruptcy Courts for the S.D. Ohio on or after Jan. 1, 2012 and on or before Jan. 31, 2015; (ii) who filed and served a Statement of Intention therein pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 521(a)(2)(A) stating an intention to surrender residential real property that was/is security for a debt serviced by Nationstar; and (iii) who, after vacating the real property, were mailed by Nationstar, one or more Mortgage Loan Statements of the type exemplified by the attached Exemplar Exhibit A; d. CLASS 4 (S.D. Ohio): as to the Issue of Whether Nationstar Violated 11 U.S.C. Section 524(a): Any person who (i) received a Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge in a bankruptcy case filed in the U.S. Bankruptcy Courts for the S.D. Ohio on or after Jan. 1, 2012 and the present; (ii) who filed and served a Statement of Intention pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 521(a)(2)(A) stating an intention to surrender residential real property that was/is security for a debt serviced by Nationstar; and (iii) who, after vacating the real property, were mailed by Nationstar, at least one Force-Placed Insurance letter of the type exemplified by the attached Exemplar Exhibits B and In addition, Judge Marbley designated the law firm of Nobile & Thompson Co., LPA as the Class Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. He directed the Plaintiffs' counsel and counsel for the Defendant to meet and confer, and to provide the Court with a proposed plan for providing notice to the potential class action members. The parties will report to the Court within 30 days of the Order with such proposed plan. If the parties are unable to agree on notice, the parties will submit separate proposed notices by the same date. A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2018 Opinion and Order is available at https://goo.gl/zBH6c5 from Leagle.com. Charles D McNamee, Plaintiff, represented by Eric E. Willison & James E. Nobile -- jenobile@ntlegal.com -- Nobile & Thompson Co., L.P.A. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, Defendant, represented by Stephen A. Weigand -- sweigand@ficlaw.com -- Faruki Ireland Cox Rhinehart & Dusing PLL & D. Kyle Deak -- kyle.deak@troutmansanders.com -- Troutman Sanders LLP, pro hac vice. NATIONWIDE RECOVERY: "Gurto" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation -------------------------------------------------------- Kelly Gurto, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Nationwide Recovery Services, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-00490 (E.D. Va., April 27, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is a resident of Alexandria, Virginia. The Defendant is a collection agency located in Norcross, Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Erlich, Esq. THE ERLICH LAW OFFICE, PLLC 2111 Wilson Blvd., Suite 700 Arlington, VA 22201 Tel: (703) 791-9087 Fax: (703) 722-8114 E-mail: jerlich@erlichlawoffice.com NEW YORK: Partial Summary Judgment Bid in Youth Shelter Suit OK'd ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, C.W.; D.S.; M.C.; A.H.; S.G.; EX.; S.A.; F.E.; I.F.; G.B.; and D.G., by his next friend, THEO LIEBMANN; and other similarly situated youth, Plaintiffs, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant, Case No. 13-CV-7376 (SJ)(VVP)(E.D. N.Y.), Judge Sterling Johnson, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern New York, granted the Defendant's motion for partial summary judgment. The Plaintiffs, all but one of whom were 17- or 18-year-old homeless youths at the time the action was commenced, bring the class action against the City, alleging that the City violated their rights under federal law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and a state statute -- the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act of 1978 ("RHYA") -- by failing to provide, or ejecting them from, youth shelters. The Defendant now moves for partial summary judgment, arguing that the RHYA does not obligate the City to provide youth- specific shelter to any 18- to 20-year-old homeless youth who seeks it. The case is a civil rights action commenced by homeless individuals, aged 17 to 20, who, at some juncture, have been denied access to a youth shelter and/or ejected from such a shelter. The Amended Complaint alleges that in denying youth shelter to homeless youth ages 16 to 20 and ejecting them from shelter to the street without fair process, the City has violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the RHYA, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the New York City Human Rights Law. Amended Complaint. The Plaintiffs principally seek injunctive relief, including an order requiring the City to provide youth shelter and services to any homeless youth aged 16 to 20 who seeks them and prohibiting the City from denying youth shelter or services to any homeless youth aged 16 to 20 or ejecting such youth from a shelter without fair process, including notice and an opportunity to be heard. The instant motion pertains solely to the Plaintiffs' claim that the City has violated the RHYA. According to the Amended Complaint, the RHYA envisions a straightforward system in which homeless youth have unfettered access to youth shelter and services. The pleading alleges that section 532-b of the New York Executive Law entitles any homeless youth to crisis shelter, which includes a bed and services such as food, clothing, medical care, education, and counseling. The pleading further alleges that sections 532-a and 532-d provide that homeless youth who cannot find alternative living arrangements during their stay at the crisis shelter will move into transactional independent living programs ("TILs"), from which they will transition to independent living. The Amended Complaint also alleges that the RHYA "does not permit the City to discharge runaway or homeless youth from shelter back to the street under any circumstance. With respect to runaway youth, the pleading implies that N.Y. Exec. Law Section 532-b requires reunification with family, foster care placement, or housing according to any other suitable plan upon discharge from crisis shelter. With respect to homeless youth, the pleading alleges that sections 532-a and 532-d permit them to remain in crisis shelter until they secure a bed in a [transactional independent living] program or find suitable shelter elsewhere. Judge Johnson is not persuaded by the Plaintiffs' attempts to analogize the provisions of the RHYA to statutory schemes such as the IDEA and SSA, which obligate a state that accepts federal funding to extend benefits to all eligible beneficiaries. To be sure, courts may, on occasion, be able to learn the purpose of legislation by referring to other similar legislation. However, the Plaintiffs have not pointed to any similarities between the RHYA and these other statutes that suggest it would be appropriate to look to the IDEA or SSA in order to divine the purpose behind the RHYA. Since he finds that the plain meaning of the statutory scheme at issue does not support the Plaintiffs' contention that the RHYA obligates the City to provide youth-specific services to any 18- to 20-year-old homeless individual who seeks them, the Judge needs not consider the Plaintiffs' arguments relating to legislative history. Nonetheless, he notes that the legislative history does not support the Plaintiffs' suppositions regarding the RHYA's purpose. Nothing in the legislative history suggests that the legislation required counties or municipalities which accepted the State aid to meet 100% of the demand for shelter from runaways and homeless youths. While the legislation imposed certain reporting and oversight requirements on participating municipalities, there is nothing in the legislative history to suggest that those municipalities which elected to fund programs for runaway and homeless youths were required to ensure that the programs created would meet the needs of the runaways and homeless adults in those municipalities. For the reasons stated, Judge Johnson granted the Defendant's motion for partial summary judgment. The Plaintiffs' RHYA claim is dismissed with respect to all the Plaintiffs who were age 18 or older at the time the action was commenced. The Judge expressed no opinion regarding whether the RHYA imposes a duty on the City to provide youth-specific shelter to runaway and homeless youths who are 16 or 17 years of age since that issue is not presented by the instant motion. A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2018 Memorandum and Order is available at https://goo.gl/XN9UHn from Leagle.com. C.W., D.S., M.C., A.H., E.L., S.A., F.E., D.G., by his next friend & Theo Liebmann, and other similarly situated youth, Plaintiffs, represented by Judith A. Goldiner, Legal Aid Society, Kimberly Forte, Legal Aid Society, Lisa E. Cleary -- lecleary@pbwt.com --Patterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler LLP, Muhammad U. Faridi -- mfaridi@pbwt.com -- Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler, Susan L. Lawless, Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler, Beth Christine Hofmeister, The Legal Aid Society, Courtney Christensen Camp, The Legal Aid Society, Daniel Aaron Friedman -- dfriedman@pbwt.com -- Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, Jane Metcalf -- jmetcalf@pbwt.com -- Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, Lisa Freeman, The Legal Aid Society & Theresa Beth Moser, The Legal Aid Society. The City of New York, Defendant, represented by Andrew James Rauchberg, New York City Law Department, Eric Brent Porter, NYC Law Department & Kate Fay McMahon, NYC Law Dept. NORTEL NETWORKS: Ct. Dismisses Amended "Lucescu" Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Denise Cote of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended case, DAVID LUCESCU, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. MIKE ZAFIROVSKI and PAVI BINNING, Defendants, Case No. 09cv4691 (DLC) (S.D. N.Y.). Nortel was a supplier of end-to-end networking products. Its principal place of business was in Toronto, Canada. Its stock traded on the Toronto Stock Exchange and the New York Stock Exchange. In 2004, an accounting fraud came to light at Nortel. This led to the restatement of billions of dollars in revenue. Defendant Zafirovski was brought in as Nortel's CEO in November 2004 to revitalize the company. In late 2005, under Zafirovski's guidance, Nortel commenced a Business Transformation Plan that was designed to return Nortel to profitability. Binning served as Nortel's CFO from Nov. 12, 2007 to March 2, 2009, and is named as the second Defendant in the action. The class period runs from May 2, 2008 and Jan. 13, 2009. On Jan. 14, 2009, the Ontario Superior Court issued an Initial Order in Nortel's Canadian Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act ("CCAA") proceeding. That Initial Order stayed all proceedings against Nortel and its current and former officers and directors. On Feb. 27, 2009, a U.S. Bankruptcy Court recognized Nortel's CCAA proceeding as a "foreign main proceeding" and stayed all proceedings against Nortel and its officers and directors. Lucescu filed the complaint in the action in the district on May 18, 2009. Judge Shira Scheindlin placed the case on the suspense docket on Nov. 9, 2010. In January 2017, the Ontario Superior Court approved Nortel's plan of reorganization and lifted the CCAA stay on May 15. On June 23, 2017, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware recognized the Ontario Superior Court's May 15 order. Accordingly, the securities fraud class action lawsuit, which was filed in 2009 and asserts claims against two Nortel executives for activities in 2008, is once again active. This lawsuit was reassigned to the Court on July 11, 2017, and was reopened on July 17. At an initial conference with the parties on Aug. 4, 2017, the Court granted the Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint and set a briefing schedule for a motion to dismiss. On Aug. 14, it allowed the case to continue with two lead Plaintiffs, Minto and Chen. The Plaintiffs filed the FAC on Sept. 21, 2017. The FAC extends the Class Period to Jan. 14, 2009 and adds allegations concerning the first and second quarter 2008 Form 10-Q filings and the second quarter 2008 earnings release. It asserts that the two individual Defendants made materially false statements in 2008 about Nortel's relationship with key customers and failed to timely write down over $2.3 billion of goodwill, which they knew was impaired as of May 2, 2008. According to the FAC, the Defendants were motivated to delay writing down the goodwill so that Nortel could conduct a private placement. The FAC also adds allegations from 13 confidential witnesses ("CWs"), none of whom is alleged to have had any direct contact with either Defendant and only one of whom is alleged to have worked in Nortel's headquarters. The Defendants moved to dismiss the FAC on Oct. 6, 2017. The motion became fully submitted on Nov. 10. In opposition to the motion to dismiss, the Plaintiffs rely on two sets of alleged misstatements. First, they assert that Zafirovski's statements surrounding Nortel's first and second quarter results are misleading and false to the extent that he did not discuss the reduction in capital investments by certain Nortel customers. Second, they assert that the statements in Nortel's first and second quarter financial reports -- the Forms 10-Q, signed by Defendant Binning -- that the company's financial results were reported in compliance with GAAP were false. Judge Cote holds that neither set of alleged misstatements supports a claim. She finds that the Plaintiffs have not pleaded a claim that Zafirovski was required to discuss specific customers to correct or complete his statements regarding customer momentum and other customer-related statements. Zafirovski's statements were general statements about the goals and progress of the company in providing service to its customers. The public was aware that some Nortel customers had cut back business with Nortel or were generally reducing their capital expenditures. The Judge also finds that estimates of goodwill are not matters of objective fact. They are statements of opinion, and understood as such by investors. To be actionable as a false statement, the FAC must adequately plead that Binning did not believe the statements regarding Nortel's goodwill. None of the Plaintiffs' contentions actually speak to Defendant Binning's state of mind when making statement. In the very particular circumstances of this company and the economic climate of 2008, the Plaintiffs' allegations are insufficient to state a claim that the assurances that Nortel complied with GAAP were false. Even if the Plaintiffs had adequately pled that either Defendant made a misstatement or omission of material fact, the Judge finds that they have not adequately pled that either Defendant acted with scienter. The Plaintiffs do not assert in opposition to this motion that either Defendant was motivated to engage in fraud because of a "concrete and personal" benefit he would receive from the fraud. Instead, they contend that the FAC pleads conscious or reckless misbehavior. For these reasons, Judge Cote granted the Defendants' Oct. 6, 2017 motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. She directed the Clerk of Court to enter final judgment for the Defendants and close the case. A full-text copy of the Court's April 11, 2018 Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/UMMp1e from Leagle.com. Kien Chen & Moreno Minto, Lead Plaintiffs, represented by David Avi Rosenfeld -- DRosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP. David Lucescu, Individually & David Lucescu, on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Samuel Howard Rudman -- SRudman@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Corey D. Holzer -- cholzer@holzerlaw.com -- Holzer & Holzer, LLC, pro hac vice, Jeffrey A. Berens, Dyer & Berens L.L.P. & Robert J. Dyer, III, Dyer & Berens L.L.P. Mike Zafirovski & Pavi Binning, Defendants, represented by Joel Charles Haims -- jhaims@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP, Michael Gerard, Morrison & Foerster LLP & James Joseph Beha, II - - jbeha@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP. NORTHLAND GROUP: Rodz Sues Over Illegal Collection Practices ------------------------------------------------------------ JOHN RODZ, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. NORTHLAND GROUP, LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-00783-NJ (E.D. Wisc., May 22, 2018), seeks redress for the Defendant's alleged collection practices that violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Wisconsin Consumer Act. Northland Group, LLC, formerly known as Northland Group, Inc., is a debt collection agency with its principal place of business located in Edina, Minnesota. Northland is engaged in the business of a collecting consumer debts originally owed to others, using the mails and telephone.[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 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com jfruchter@ademilaw.com bslatky@ademilaw.com NICARAGUA: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Robertson" Suit --------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment dismissing the case, JOSEPHENIE ROBERTSON, M.T.T., individually and as the Representative, Officer and Matriarch of the Traditional Authority and Miskitu Government-In-Exile, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE REPUBLIC OF NICARAGUA; et al., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 17-17156 (9th Cir.), for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Appellate Court holds that the district court properly dismissed Robertson's action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Robertson alleged claims that presented a political question. The district court also did not abuse its discretion by denying her motion for appointment of counsel because Robertson did not demonstrate exceptional circumstances. In addition, it holds that to the extent that she sought to maintain the action as a class action lawsuit, Robertson cannot do so because she is not an attorney. It rejects as unsupported by the record Robertson's contentions regarding the district court's denial of her motion for sanctions and treatment of her requests to amend her complaint. A full-text copy of the Court's April 11, 2018 Memorandum is available at https://is.gd/G6TtQj from Leagle.com. OKLAHOMA: Court Reverses Certification of "Morehead" Class ---------------------------------------------------------- Judge Kenneth L. Buettner of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division III, reversed the trial court's order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs filed the class action June 22, 2007. They claim the Oklahoma Health Care Authority ("OHCA") violated 63 O.S.Supp.1996 Section 5051.3 in administering its Medicaid lien program. The Plaintiffs claim that Medicaid liens were filed and calculated in violation of 63 O.S. Section 5051.3. Specifically, the Plaintiffs claim liens were placed on the homesteads of Medicaid recipients who received less than one year of compensated care in violation of Section 5051.3(A). They argue other liens were placed on the homesteads of Medicaid recipients who received more than one year of compensated care, but the lien amounts were calculated to include the costs of the first year of compensated care in violation of Section 5051.3(C). The Plaintiffs also contend the OHCA failed to provide notice pursuant to Section 5051.3(B) and that, since 2004, the OHCA sold and assigned the liens to third parties pursuant to an informal policy without any statutory authority and in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act. The Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification on Nov. 4, 2013. The trial court dismissed the case for lack of venue May 20, 2014. The Plaintiffs appealed. The Court of Civil Appeals, in Case No. 112,946, reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the matter for further proceedings. The trial court had a hearing on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification Sept. 27, 2016. On Dec. 20, 2016, the trial court entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. It certified a class of Medicaid recipients who received medical assistance for inpatient nursing home care upon whose homestead a Medicaid lien was filed by the OHCA, including their heirs, devisees, and representatives. The trial court also certified three subclasses: A. All Medicaid recipients who received less than 12 months of compensated inpatient nursing home care funded by Medicaid and whose homestead property have been subjected to liens filed by the OHCA, including the representatives, heirs, or devisees, of any such individual (Subclass A); B. All Medicaid recipients who received more than 12 months of compensated inpatient nursing home care funded by Medicaid and whose homestead property have been subjected to liens for the first twelve months of compensated care filed by the OHCA, including the representatives, heirs, or devisees, of any such individual (Subclass B); C. All Medicaid recipients who received compensated inpatient nursing home care funded by Medicaid and whose homestead property have been subjected to liens filed by the OHCA, which liens were sold and assigned by the OHCA to third parties, including the representatives, heirs, or devisees, of any such individual (Subclass C). The trial court also appointed the Plaintiffs as class representatives and appointed the class counsel. The OHCA appeals. Judge Buettner holds that the Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate numerosity for the subclass of all Medicaid recipients who received compensated inpatient nursing home care funded by Medicaid and whose homestead property have been subjected to liens filed by the OHCA, which liens were sold and assigned by the OHCA to third parties, including the representatives, heirs, and devisees, of any such individual (Subclass C). He also holds that the Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate they will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class of Medicaid recipients who received medical assistance for inpatient nursing home care upon whose homestead a Medicaid lien was filed by the OHCA, including their heirs, devisees, and representatives (Subclasses A, B, and C). For these reasons, the Judge reversed the trial court's order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and remanded for further proceedings. The case is JOAN ELLEN MOREHEAD, individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Henry Andrew Morehead, deceased, and on behalf of all others similarly situated; BETTY RUTH LOVE, individually and as successor in interest to the Estate of Claud H. Love, deceased; and RUTH MAYNARD as Guardian of George O. Taylor, Plaintiffs/Appellees, v. STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ex rel. OKLAHOMA HEALTH CARE AUTHORITY, Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff/Appellant, and R. KENNETH KING, ESQ., an individual; SOUTHWEST PROPERTY INVESTMENTS, LLC, an Oklahoma Limited Liability Company; BLUE HORIZON PROPERTIES, LLC, an Oklahoma Limited Liability Company; SOUTHWEST PROPERTY HOLDINGS #1, LLC, an Oklahoma Limited Liability Company; SOUTHWEST PROPERTY HOLDINGS #2, LLC, an Oklahoma Limited Liability Company; SOUTHWEST PROPERTY HOLDINGS #3, LLC, an Oklahoma Limited Liability Company; SOUTHWEST PROPERTY HOLDINGS #4, LLC, an Oklahoma Limited Liability Company; SOUTHWEST PROPERTY HOLDINGS #5, LLC, an Oklahoma Limited Liability Company; SOUTHWEST PROPERTY HOLDINGS #6, LLC, an Oklahoma Limited Liability Company; SOUTHWEST PROPERTY HOLDINGS #7, LLC, an Oklahoma Limited Liability Company; XYZ CORP. 1; XYZ CORP. 2; XYZ CORP. 3; XYZ CORP. 4; XYZ CORP. 5; XYZ CORP. 6; JOHN DOE 1; JOHN DOE 2; JANE DOE 1; JANE DOE 2, Defendants, STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ex rel. OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Third-Party Defendant, Case No. 115711 (Okla. Civ. App.). A full-text copy of the Court's April 11, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/JbmJVz from Leagle.com. Philip W. Redwine, Douglas B. Cubberley, LAW OFFICES OF REDWINE & CUBBERLEY, Norman, Oklahoma, and. Robert N. Naifeh, Jr., DERRYBERRY & NAIFEH, LLP, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Plaintiffs/Appellees. Nicole M. Nantois, Susan L. Eads, OKLAHOMA HEALTH CARE AUTHORITY, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff/Appellant State of Oklahoma, ex rel. Oklahoma Health Care Authority. John J. Dewey, Travis Smith, OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Third-Party Defendant. ONE FIFTY: Court Certifies Class of Waiters/Servers in "Maor" ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MARSHALL MAOR, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ONE FIFTY FIFTY SEVEN CORP d/b/a RUSSIAN TEA ROOM; RTR FUNDING GROUP, INC., GERALD LIEBLICH and any other related entities, Defendants, Docket No. 158840/2014 (N.Y. Sup.), Judge Jennifer G. Schecter of the Supreme Court for the New York County (i) granted the Defendants' motion for summary judgment to the limited extent that the unjust enrichment cause of action is dismissed; (ii) granted the Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the complaint to add Gina Garcia as a named Plaintiff; and granted the Plaintiff's motion for class certification under CPLR 901 and 902. The Defendants operate a restaurant and event venue known as The Russian Tea Room. Permanent wait staff are employed for the main dining room, which serves primarily as a restaurant. For all banquets and catered events, they hire workers through Ambitious Staffing (Ambitious). After the event, the Defendants pay Ambitious a flat rate per waiter or waitress and Ambitious then pays the wait staff. Banquet wait staff are paid three to four times the tipped minimum wage amount. Named Plaintiff Maor and proposed named Plaintiff Garcia are professional banquet waiters. Maor worked at approximately three events at The Russian Tea room over a two month period in 2009. Garcia also worked as a banquet server at the Defendants' catered events on numerous occasions from 2008 through 2010. Maor commenced the action, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, seeking recovery of unpaid gratuities pursuant to New York Labor Law Section 196-d. The Plaintiff alleges that customers seeking a banquet or catered event are provided a contract that includes a "service charge," typically 22%, without disclosing that the collected fees are not paid to the wait staff. He maintains that without a disclaimer on the Defendants' banquet "service charge," a reasonable customer would presume that such a charge was, in fact, a gratuity, and that, because he and other wait staff were not paid these gratuities, the Defendants violated the Labor Law. The Defendants move for summary judgment urging that the action should be dismissed because Maor was an independent contractor, not an employee; therefore, the statute does not apply to him. The Plaintiff contends that because the Defendants maintained sufficient control over banquet wait staff, a question of fact precludes summary judgment particularly at this early stage before discovery has been completed. The Plaintiff commenced the action on behalf of himself and a putative class of individuals who worked in food-service capacities for the Defendants since September 2008. He seeks an order (1) certifying the action as a class action, (2) designating Virginia & Ambinder, LLP and Leeds Brown Law, PC as the class counsel, (3) approving for publication the proposed Notice of Class Action Lawsuit and Publication Order and (4) leave to amend the complaint to add Garcia as a named Plaintiff. As to the Defendants' motion for summary judgment, Judge Schecter finds that Defendants have not met their heavy burden of establishing that Plaintiff was not an employee covered by the Labor Law as a matter of law because there is a question of fact as to the control Defendants exercised over the results produced or the means used to achieve the results. In addition and based on the limited discovery conducted, they've not established that the action should be dismissed as against Gerald Lieblich and RTR and that as a matter of law they are not employers under Labor Law Article 6. The Defendants have, however, demonstrated that the unjust enrichment claim must be dismissed, the Judge finds. Significantly, the cause of action is based on the exact same allegations that form the basis of the Labor-Law claim. If ultimately there is no viable claim pursuant to Labor Law Section 196-d, it would be because the Legislature did not intend for workers such as Maor to receive a portion of the service charge as a gratuity and there would be no injustice or inequity to be redressed. Turning to the Plaintiff's motions for class certification, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs have satisfied the prerequisites of CPLR 901. Additionally, in the action, the Plaintiff and the proposed Plaintiffs' claims are typical of the members of the class as they worked for Defendants in food service roles at various times from 2008 through the present. Because Maor and Garcia seek to recover unpaid gratuities for themselves and the members of the proposed class and would be represented by competent counsel, they may adequately and fairly represent the interests of the class. A class action is the most efficient method for the fair adjudication of this controversy. Finally, leave to amend the complaint to add Gina Garcia will be granted pursuant to CPLR 3025(b) as she has sufficient knowledge of the claims, is similarly situated to the class members and her addition as a named representative in no way prejudices the Defendants. Accordingly, Judge Schecter granted the Defendants' motion for summary judgment to the limited extent that the unjust enrichment cause of action is dismissed. The breach of contract cause of action, moreover, has been withdrawn and is therefore no longer part of the action. She granted the Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the complaint to add Garcia as a named Plaintiff, and the caption will be amended accordingly. She directed the Plaintiffs to serve a copy of the Order on the Clerk of the Court and the Clerk of the Trial Support Office who are directed to amend the Court's records. Lastly, the Judge granted the Plaintiff's motion for class certification under CPLR 901 and 902. A full-text copy of the Court's April 11, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/0fHOZV from Leagle.com. PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Plaintiffs to Appeal Case Dismissal -------------------------------------------------------- Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that plaintiffs have filed a notice of intent to file an appeal of dismissal. In May 2015, the company experienced a crude oil release from its Las Flores to Gaviota Pipeline (Line 901) in Santa Barbara County, California. A portion of the released crude oil reached the Pacific Ocean at Refugio State Beach through a drainage culvert. Following the release, the company shut down the pipeline and initiated its emergency response plan. A Unified Command, which included the United States Coast Guard, the EPA, the California Office of Spill Prevention and Response and the Santa Barbara Office of Emergency Management, was established for the response effort. Clean-up and remediation operations with respect to impacted shoreline and other areas has been determined by the Unified Command to be complete, and the Unified Command has been dissolved. The company's estimate of the amount of oil spilled, based on relevant facts, data and information, is approximately 2,934 barrels; of this amount, the company estimates that 598 barrels reached the Pacific Ocean. Shortly following the Line 901 incident, the company established a claims line and encouraged any parties that were damaged by the release to contact us to discuss their damage claims. The company has received a number of claims through the claims line and the company is processing those claims for payment as the company receives them. In addition, the company has also had nine class action lawsuits filed against it, six of which have been administratively consolidated into a single proceeding in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. In general, the plaintiffs are seeking to establish different classes of claimants that have allegedly been damaged by the release. To date, the court has certified three sub-classes of claimants and denied certification of the other proposed sub-class. The sub-classes that have been certified include (i) commercial fishermen who landed fish in certain specified fishing blocks in the waters adjacent to Santa Barbara County or persons or businesses who resold commercial seafood landed in such areas; (ii) individuals or businesses who were employed by or had contracts with certain designated oil platforms and related onshore processing facilities in the vicinity of the release as of the date of the release and (iii) beachfront property and easement owners whose properties were oiled. The company is petitioning for leave to appeal the oil industry and property class certifications. The company is also defending a separate class action lawsuit proceeding in the United States District Court for the Central District of California brought on behalf of the Line 901 and Line 903 easement holders seeking injunctive relief as well as compensatory damages. There have also been two securities law class action lawsuits filed on behalf of certain purported investors in the Partnership and/or PAGP against the Partnership, PAGP and/or certain of their respective officers, directors and underwriters. Both of these lawsuits have been consolidated into a single proceeding in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. In general, these lawsuits allege that the various defendants violated securities laws by misleading investors regarding the integrity of the Partnership's pipelines and related facilities through false and misleading statements, omission of material facts and concealing of the true extent of the spill. The plaintiffs claim unspecified damages as a result of the reduction in value of their investments in the Partnership and PAGP, which they attribute to the alleged wrongful acts of the defendants. The Partnership and PAGP, and the other defendants, denied the allegations in, and moved to dismiss these lawsuits. Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that on March 29, 2017, the Court ruled in the company's favor dismissing all claims against all defendants. Plaintiffs refiled their complaint and the company is opposing their claims. In its recent SEC report, the Company said that on April 2, 2018, the Court dismissed all of the refiled claims against all defendants with prejudice. Plaintiffs have filed notice of intent to file an appeal of the dismissal. Plains All American said "Consistent with and subject to the terms of our governing organizational documents (and to the extent applicable, insurance policies), we have indemnified and funded the defense costs of our officers and directors in connection with this lawsuit; we have also indemnified and funded the defense costs of our underwriters pursuant to the terms of the underwriting agreements we previously entered into with such underwriters." Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. owns and operate midstream energy infrastructure and provide logistics services primarily for crude oil, NGL and natural gas. The company is based in Houston, Texas. POTBELLY CORP: Assistant Managers' Class Suit Pending in New York ----------------------------------------------------------------- Potbelly Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 1, 2018, that the company is facing a purported collective and class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, filed by assistant managers of the company. In October 2017, plaintiffs filed a purported collective and class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL). The plaintiffs allege that the Company violated the FLSA and NYLL by not paying overtime compensation to our assistant managers and violated NYLL by not paying spread-of- hours pay. Potbelly believes the assistant managers were properly classified under state and federal law. The Company intends to vigorously defend this action. This case is at an early stage, and Potbelly is therefore unable to make a reasonable estimate of the probable loss or range of losses, if any, that might arise from this matter. Potbelly Corporation is a neighborhood sandwich concept offering toasty warm sandwiches, signature salads and other fresh menu items served by engaging people in an environment that reflects the Potbelly brand. The company is based in Chicago, Illinois. PTC THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Approve Class Settlement Underway ---------------------------------------------------------- PTC Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the parties have filed motion for class settlement approval in the case entitled, In re PTC Therapeutics, Inc. Securities Litigation. In March 2016, three purported securities class action lawsuits were commenced in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (one each on March 3, 10, and 11), naming as defendants the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, and its former Chief Financial Officer. The lawsuits have been consolidated into one action captioned In re PTC Therapeutics, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 16-1224 (KM) (the "Securities Class Action"). A consolidated amended complaint was filed on January 13, 2017. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with allegedly false and misleading statements made by the Company about its business, operations, and prospects as it relates to the NDA for Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD that the Company submitted to the FDA in December 2015. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, compensatory damages for purchasers of the Company's common stock between November 6, 2014 and February 23, 2016, as well as attorneys' fees and costs. On February 14, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. On August 28, 2017, the motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. On September 25, 2017, defendants filed an answer and affirmative defenses to the consolidated amended complaint. On January 10, 2018, the parties agreed to a settlement in principle of all legal claims, subject to court approval, the motion for which was filed on March 2, 2018, which will be funded by the Company's insurance subject to the applicable deductible. PTC Therapeutics, Inc. is a science-led global biopharmaceutical company focused on the discovery, development and commercialization of clinically-differentiated medicines that provide benefits to patients with rare disorders. The company is based in South Plainfield, New Jersey. QUANTA SERVICES: "Benton" Class Action Still Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------- Quanta Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the company continues to defend a class action complaint entitled, Lorenzo Benton v. Telecom Network Specialists, Inc., et al. In June 2006, plaintiff Lorenzo Benton filed a class action complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, alleging various wage and hour violations against Telecom Network Specialists (TNS), a former subsidiary of Quanta. Quanta retained liability associated with this matter pursuant to the terms of Quanta's sale of TNS in December 2012. Benton represents a class of workers that includes all persons who worked on certain TNS projects, including individuals that TNS retained through numerous staffing agencies. The plaintiff class in this matter is seeking damages for unpaid wages, penalties associated with the failure to provide meal and rest periods and overtime wages, interest and attorneys' fees. In January 2017, the trial court granted a summary judgment motion filed by the plaintiff class and found that TNS was a joint employer of the class members and that it failed to provide adequate meal and rest breaks and failed to pay overtime wages. Quanta Services said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that during the third quarter of 2017, a final motion for summary judgment on damages was filed by the plaintiff class seeking approximately $11.1 million for its claims. In its recent SEC report, the Company disclosed that in February 2018, a hearing was held on a final motion for summary judgment on damages filed by the plaintiff class seeking approximately $11.1 million for its claims; however, a final determination regarding the amount of damages was not made. Quanta believes the court's decision on liability is not supported by controlling law and continues to contest its liability and the damage calculation asserted by the plaintiff class in this matter. Quanta Services, Inc. a leading provider of specialty contracting services, offering infrastructure solutions primarily to the electric power, oil and gas and communications industries in the United States, Canada, Australia, Latin America and select other international markets. The company is based in Houston, Texas. QUICK CAPITAL: Accused by Abante Rooter Suit of Violating TCPA -------------------------------------------------------------- ABANTE ROOTER AND PLUMBING INC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. QUICK CAPITAL FUNDING LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 4:18-cv-03126-DMR (N.D. Cal., May 25, 2018), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated seeking damages resulting from the Defendant's alleged illegal actions in negligently, knowingly and willfully contacting the Plaintiff on its cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Quick Capital Funding LLC is a loan provider. The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown to the Plaintiff.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com RADIANT LOGISTICS: "Barahona" Class Suit Underway ------------------------------------------------- Radiant Logistics, Inc. continues to defend a class action lawsuit by Ingrid Barahona, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018. On October 25, 2013, plaintiff Ingrid Barahona filed a purported class action lawsuit against RGL, DBA Distribution Services, Inc. ("DBA"), and two third-party staffing companies (collectively, the "Staffing Defendants") with whom Radiant and DBA contracted for temporary employees. In the lawsuit, Ms. Barahona, on behalf of herself and the putative class, seeks damages and penalties under California law, plus interest, attorneys' fees, and costs, along with equitable remedies, alleging that she and the putative class were the subject of unfair and unlawful business practices, including certain wage and hour violations relating to, among others, failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to pay minimum wages and overtime, and failure to reimburse employees for work- related expenses. Ms. Barahona alleges that she was jointly employed by the staffing companies and Radiant and DBA. Radiant and DBA deny Ms. Barahona's allegations in their entirety, deny that they are liable to Ms. Barahona or the putative class members in any way, and are vigorously defending against these allegations based upon a preliminary evaluation of applicable records and legal standards. The company said "If Ms. Barahona's allegations were to prevail on all claims the Company, as well as its co-defendants, could be liable for uninsured damages in an amount that, while not significant when evaluated against either the Company's assets or current and expected level of annual earnings, could be material when judged against the Company's earnings in the particular quarter in which any such damages arose, if at all. However, based upon the Company's preliminary evaluation of the matter, it does not believe it is likely to incur material damages, if at all, since, among others: (i) the amount of any potential damages remains highly speculative at this stage of the proceedings; (ii) the Company does not believe as a matter of law it should be characterized as Ms. Barahona's employer and codefendant Accountabilities admitted to being the employer of record, (iii) wage and hour class actions of this nature typically settle for amounts significantly less than plaintiffs' demands because of the uncertainty with litigation and the difficulty in taking these types of cases to trial; and (iv) Ms. Barahona has indicated her desire to resolve this matter through a mediated settlement." Ms. Barahona admitted in a report to the court that she is unable to prosecute the case because the payroll and personnel records she needs are in the possession of Tri-State and/or Accountabilities ("Debtors"), and the case has been stayed as to them pending resolution of their chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. In 2017, Ms. Barahona dismissed the Debtors from this litigation so they could lawfully seek discovery from them (specifically, the "Employment Records"). Between January 2016 and April 2018, the court held at least three status conferences to address the status of Ms. Barahona's counsel's efforts to obtain the Employment Records from the Debtors. To date, Ms. Barahona's counsel has failed to obtain the Employment Records. In the meantime, in 2017, DBA and Radiant informally obtained some records from the Debtor's Trustee's counsel and produced copies of those records to Ms. Barahona. However, those records consist of incomplete employee lists and do not contain the requisite timekeeping, payroll and personnel records that are necessary to analyze the legal issues raised by this case and to credibly identify the putative class members. The court set a new deadline of May 25, 2018, for Ms. Barahona to file her motion for class certification, and set a further status conference for June 8, 2018. A mediation was conducted on April 26, 2018. The Company has said it is not optimistic that the case will settle (at least not on a class-wide basis) because the Plaintiff still lacks the Employment Records needed to ascertain who are the class members, to file a successful motion for class certification, and to file a motion for preliminary and final approval of a class-wide settlement. At this time, the Company is unable to express an opinion as to the likely outcome of the matter. Radiant Logistics, Inc. operates as a third-party logistics company, providing multi-modal transportation and logistics services primarily in the United States and Canada. The company is based in Bellevue, Washington. REAL ESTATE EMPIRE: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit for Invasion of Privacy ----------------------------------------------------------------- MANUEL GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE REAL ESTATE EMPIRE GROUP, INC., Case No. 1:18-cv-22160-CMA (S.D. Fla., May 31, 2018), accuses the Defendant of negligently contacting the Plaintiff through SMS or "text" messages on his cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby, invading his privacy. The Real Estate Empire Group, Inc., is a Florida profit corporation with principal address in Doral, Florida. RE Empire is a real estate brokerage company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth M. Lehrman, Esq. EDWARDS POTTINGER LLC 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 524-2820 Facsimile: (954) 524-2822 E-mail: seth@epllc.com - and - Justin H. Jaffe, Esq. LOWERCASE, PLLC 3250 NE 1st Ave., Suite 305 Miami, FL 33137 Telephone: (833) 569-3335 E-mail: justin@lowercaselaw.com RED WING: Web Site Not Blind-Accessible, "Olsen" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------- THOMAS J. OLSEN, Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. RED WING SHOE COMPANY, INC., Case No. 1:18- cv-03027 (E.D.N.Y., May 22, 2018), arises from the Defendant's alleged failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Web site, http://www.redwingshoes.com/,to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. Red Wing is a foreign business corporation that is organized under Minnesota law, and authorized to do business in the state of New York. Red Wing owns and operates stores throughout the United States. The Company sells at these stores, boots, leather goods, shoe care products and similar items.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher H. Lowe, Esq. Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP 630 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor New York, NY 10017-6705 Telephone: (212) 392-4772 E-mail: chris@lipskylowe.com doug@lipskylowe.com RITRAN INC: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, "Noain" Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- RICARDO NOAIN, on behalf of himself and a class of those similarly situated v. RITRAN, INC., dba International House of Pancakes, Case No. 3:18-cv-01303-K (N.D. Tex., May 22, 2018), alleges that the Defendant violated the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay the Plaintiff and Class Members the required overtime rate during weeks in which they worked over 40 hours. Ritran, Inc., doing business as International House of Pancakes, is a Texas for-profit corporation. The Company operates a restaurant under the name International House of Pancakes ("IHOP") in Rockwall, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shana Khader, Esq. EQUAL JUSTICE CENTER 1250 West Mockingbird Lane, Suite 455 Dallas, TX 75247 Telephone: (469) 228-4233 Facsimile: (469) 941-0861 E-mail: skhader@equaljusticecenter.org - and - Philip J. Moss, Esq. EQUAL JUSTICE CENTER 8301 Broadway Street, Suite 309 San Antonio, TX 78209 Telephone: (210) 308-6222 Facsimile: (210) 308-6223 E-mail: pmoss@equaljusticecenter.org ROME HOUSING: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss "Barber" Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Judge Mae A. D'Agostino of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the case, JOHN W. BARBER, DEBRA L. BURTON, DAVID R. GRINNELL, TIMOTHY J. LEES, MARSHALL L. THOMAS, individually and on behalf of all persons who currently reside in Colonial at any time from December 2013 to date, Plaintiffs, v. ROME HOUSING AUTHORITY, JAMES BALDWIN, individually and as Executive Director of Rome Housing Authority, DARCEL PULEO, individually and as Property Manager of Colonial II Apartments, Defendants, Case No. 6:16-cv-1529 (MAD/TWD) (N.D. N.Y.). On Dec. 23, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a putative class action complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 for injunctive and compensatory relief. They allege that the Rome Housing Authority ("RHA"), its Executive Director, Baldwin, and the property manager of the Colonial II Apartments are liable under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and state law. On March 22, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The Colonial II Apartments is a seven-story apartment building that caters to elderly and disabled adults and is owned and managed by RHA. In 2008, Colonial II's residents began complaining to the Building's management that bed bugs were infesting their apartments. By 2013, Colonial II faced a severe infestation. That year, the Defendants hired a local, two-person extermination company, Rid-O-Vit, to inspect and chemically treat the infestation unit-by-unit. The Building's residents complained to the Defendants that the inspections and spraying were not eradicating the bed bug problem, and were spreading the problem to new apartments and other areas of the building. The Defendants continued to use Rid-O-Vit despite these complaints. According to the amended complaint, Defendants did not mention the infestation to prospective tenants or residents renewing their leases. Further, the Defendants did not mention the infestation in resident meetings, notices, or other communications, and told at least one resident to keep quiet about the bed bugs. Further, the Defendants told one or more residents that they should refrain from visiting family and friends in other apartments within the building, or in homes or apartments outside the building, because of the risk of spreading bed bugs, or bringing bed bugs into the Colonial II building. The infestation has been traumatic for the tenants. Some have had difficulty sleeping due to anxiety about being bitten, they risked infections and allergic reactions, and have been subjected to the general stigma associated with bed bugs. Some residents have left their homes to sleep in other places. Many residents have been anxious about spending time with their friends and family due to a fear of carrying the bed bugs with them. The Plaintiffs are tenants of Colonial II and represent the class of residents that have lived in Colonial II at any time after December 2013. They allege that this infestation has resulted in significant hardship. In 2014, Legal Services of Central New York, Inc., acting on behalf of Plaintiff Barber, provided the Defendants with reports from various federal agencies that guide public housing administrators in preventing and managing bed bug infestations. One report, a joint statement on bed bugs issued by the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") and Center for Disease Control ("CDC") noted that control in multi-family homes is much more difficult than in single family homes because bed bugs frequently travel between units, either by direct transport by humans or through voids in the walls. The same report noted that aside from the direct harms associated with bed bugs, there is also a public health concern arising from the risks associated with tenants attempting to combat an infestation themselves. These reports also included guidelines promoting Integrated Pest Management ("IPM"), an economical approach aimed at preventing and treating bed bug infestations by focusing on extensive monitoring and community awareness and the judicious use of pesticides. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants are liable under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 because their efforts to treat the bed bug infestation violated Plaintiffs' rights to substantive due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. They claim that the Defendants exacerbated the infestation through their continued use of Rid-O-Vit, and that their extermination methods, failure to disclose the infestation to current tenants, and occasional decision to not treat apartments after bed bug reports were egregious actions that injured the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs also seek relief against Defendants for the state law claims of statutory deceptive acts and practices, negligence, unjust enrichment, breach of implied warranty of habitability, and breach of contract. Currently before the Court is the Defendants' motion to dismiss. Judge D'Agostino holds that although the Plaintiffs have alleged that in recent years the chemical treatment became ineffective, the Defendants persisted in their attempts to deal with the infestation by treating individual apartments, as many as twenty times over a three-year period. The case is distinct from Okin v. Village of Cornwall-On-Hudson Police Dep't. The decision in Okin was not based solely on the defendants' failure to act in the face of an obvious risk. Instead, the panel concluded that the risks associated with the defendants' conduct was so obvious that a jury could have found that the defendants were aware that their actions exacerbated the risk. Conversely, in the case at hand, it was by no means obvious that the unit-by-unit treatments would cause the infestation to spread. Thus, the amended complaint fails to plausibly allege that the Defendants knew, or should have known, the alleged effects of their actions. The Judge also holds that taking all of the well-pleaded facts in the amended complaint as true, he finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to allege any conduct so egregious, so outrageous, that it may fairly be said to shock the contemporary conscience. Given that the complaint fails to satisfy the conscience shocking prong of the state-created danger test, he declines to rule on whether Defendants' conduct constitutes an affirmative act. For the foregoing reasons, he will grant the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claim for a violation of substantive due process. Given that the only remaining claims are based in state law, the Judge declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any such claims and dismisses them without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1367(c)(3). After carefully reviewing the entire record in the matter, the parties' submissions and the applicable law, and for the stated reasons, Judge D'Agostino granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Clerk of the Court will enter judgment in the Defendants' favor and close the case and will serve a copy of this Memorandum-Decision and Order on all parties in accordance with the Local Rules. A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2018 Order is available at https://goo.gl/nMbQrc from Leagle.com. John W. Barber, individually, and on behalf of all persons who currently reside in Colonial II Apartments, or formerly resided therein at any time from December 2010 to date, Debra L. Burton, individually, and on behalf of all persons who currently reside in Colonial II Apartments, or formerly resided therein at any time from December 2010 to date, David R. Grinnell, individually, and on behalf of all persons who currently reside in Colonial II Apartments, or formerly resided therein at any time from December 2010 to date, Timothy J. Lees, individually, and on behalf of all persons who currently reside in Colonial II Apartments, or formerly resided therein at any time from December 2010 to date & Marshall L. Thomas, individually, and on behalf of all persons who currently reside in Colonial II Apartments, or formerly resided therein at any time from December 2010 to date, Plaintiffs, represented by Ashley Kaplan Marullo, Legal Services of Central New York, Inc., Thomas C. Buckel, Jr., Legal Services of Central New York, Inc., Jeffrey M. Lipman, Lipman Law Firm, P.C., pro hac vice & Samuel C. Young, Legal Services of Central New York. Rome Housing Authority, James Baldwin, individually and as Executive Director of Rome Housing Authority & Darcel Puleo, individually and as Property Manager of Colonial II Apartments, Defendants, represented by John W. Liguori -- john.liguori@townelaw.com -- Towne, Ryan Law Firm & Mark T. Houston -- mark.houston@townelaw.com -- Towne, Ryan Law Firm. RURAL METRO: Bid to Compel RFPs Replies in "Calleros" Partly OKd ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, REUBEN CALLEROS AND RALPH RUBIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated in the State of California, Plaintiffs, v. RURAL METRO OF SAN DIEGO, INC., RURAL METRO CORPORATION, AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE, INC., ENVISION HEALTHCARE CORPORATION, AND DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 17cv686-CAB(BLM) (S.D.Cal.), Magistrate Judge Barbara L. Major of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to compel further responses to specific Requests for Production ("RFPs") and Interrogatories ("ROGs"). The instant class action matter was removed to the Court on April 5, 2017 from the San Diego Superior Court. The Plaintiffs, ambulance crew employees, allege that the Defendants failed to authorize and permit rest periods and violated California Business and Professions Code Section 17200. Specifically, the Plaintiffs and those similarly situated allege that they were not provided with rest periods during which they were relieved of all duties because they were required to remain on call at all times and were required to carry pagers, cell phones, radios, or other electronic devices to keep those devices on, and to remain vigilant and responsive to calls when the need arose. On May 24, 2017, the Defendants served RFPs and ROGs on the Plaintiffs seeking documents and information regarding the Plaintiffs' communications about the instant matter. On Aug. 21, 2017, they filed a motion to compel further responses to specific RFPs and ROGs. The Defendants sought an order from the Court requiring the Plaintiffs to further respond to discovery regarding the personal activities the Plaintiffs engaged in during their shifts and the Plaintiffs' knowledge of locations where violations allegedly occurred. On Oct. 3, 2017, the Court issued an Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants' Motion to Compel. It granted in part the Defendants' request to compel further response to ROG No. 21. ROG No. 21 request the Plaintiffs to describe in detail the substance, nature and date of each communication they had with any person other than with their attorneys concerning the facts, issues or other matters involved in the case. The Court found that while the request, including the definition of "describe in detail" is overbroad and disproportional, it does seek relevant information. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs are ordered to provide a supplemental response identifying the person(s) with whom they had such communication, the approximate date of the communication, the general substance of the communication, and the identity of any witness(es) to the communication. On Feb. 12, 2018, the Defendants deposed Plaintiff Calleros. On Feb. 13, 2018, they deposed Rubio. The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs should be compelled to supplement their responses to the following RFPs: 5, 8, 9, 17, 29, 34, and 37. They explain that all of these RFPs required the Plaintiffs to produce emails and text messages and yet the Plaintiffs have not produced any text messages or emails containing responsive communications. The Defendants complain that the inadequacy of the Plaintiffs' response is highlighted by the fact that the latter testified in their depositions to having engaged in such communications and to having deleted some messages. The RFPs seek production of: i. RFP No. 5: All documents that relate to, refer to, describe or support any of the claims or allegations in the complaint. ii. RFP No. 8: All documents that relate to, refer to, describe or support the Plaintiffs' allegation that RMSD or any other Defendant engaged in any unlawful conduct of any kind. iii. RFP No. 9: All documents that relate to, refer to, describe or support the Plaintiffs' allegation that the officers, employees, agents, or representatives of RMSD or any other Defendant in any way acted improperly and/or unlawfully. iv. RFP No. 17: All documents that relate to, refer to, or describe any oral or written communications made by any officer, agent, employee or representative of RMSD or any other Defendant concerning any allegation in the complaintor pertaining to the lawsuit, related administrative or judicial actions, or their subject matters. v. RFP No. 34: All documents consisting of, or relating or referring to, any statements taken from or given by the Plaintiffs regarding the subject matter of the lawsuit. vi. RFP No. 37: All documents not otherwise requested above that refer or relate to the subject matter of the action and/or the relief prayed for in the complaint." The Defendants argue that Rubio violated Rule 26 and the Court's Oct. 3, 2017 order by failing to provide a complete supplemental response to ROG No. 21. They acknowledge that each Plaintiff provided a supplemental response after the Court's order but assert that Rubio's supplemental response was incomplete and subsequently contradicted by his deposition testimony. ROG No. 21 asked the Plaintiffs to describe in detail the substance, nature and date of each communication they had with any person other than with their attorneys concerning the facts, issues or other matters involved in the case. The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs should be found in contempt of Court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 and 37 for failing to obey the Court's discovery order. Additionally, they argue that the Plaintiffs should not be permitted to use any of the information or documents they concealed for any purpose at all in the case. Finally, the Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs should be sanctioned monetarily. The Magistrate Judge finds that in the RFP, the Defendants defined the term "documents" with an extremely detailed and comprehensive description, including digital correspondence. As such, the RFPs requested emails and text messages that contained communications responsive to RFPs 5, 8 and 9. Additionally, the Plaintiffs failed to object to the requests and, therefore, have waived their objections. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs are ordered to supplement their responses to RFPs 5, 8 and 9 by producing emails and texts that contain communications that are responsive to the RFP request. The Plaintiffs are further ordered to supplement their response to RFP No. 17 by providing emails, texts and other documents that contain information responsive to this Request. The Plaintiffs note that they responded to RFP No. 29 with objections on July 20 and 21, 2017 and that the Defendants failed to file a motion to compel regarding this request within 30 days as required by the Court's Scheduling Order. Accordingly, they have no duty to supplement their responses. In their reply, the Defendants withdraw their request to compel further response to RFP No. 29. Accordingly, the request is denied as moot. The Magistrate Judge also finds that the Plaintiff's supplemental response does not comply with the Court's order as it states that Rubio communicated with numerous unidentified people and fails to provide the required details regarding each communication. Magistrate Judge Major (i) granted the Defendants' request to compel further responses to RFPs 5, 8, 9, and 17; (ii) denied the Defendants' request as to RFPs. 34 and 37; (iii) denied as moot as to RFP No. 29; and (iv) granted ROG No. 21 as to Rubio. The Plaintiffs are ordered to provide supplemental responses in accordance with the Order by April 25, 2018. The Magistrate Judge denied the Defendants' request for a contempt order. She finds that civil contempt is not an appropriate remedy. Rubio is warned that another failure to comply with the Court's order could result in a recommendation for contempt to the District Judge. She also denied the Defendants' request for evidentiary sanctions. She finds that the prejudice articulated by the Defendants is that they were not able to investigate the individuals with whom Rubio communicated about the case before the deposition and that they had to waste deposition time to obtain the information that should have been provided in the interrogatory. To remedy this harm, the she sanctioned Rubio by authorizing the Defendants to depose Rubio for an additional one hour. Finally, the Magistrate Judge denied the Defendants' request for monetary sanctions. First, the Defendants' RFPs are not as clear and precise as they could be. While she has interpreted some of them as requiring a supplemental response, the Plaintiffs interpretations are not unreasonable. Second, while Rubio's supplemental response to ROG No. 21 did not fully comply with the Court's order, the Defendants obtained most of the responsive information during the Plaintiff's deposition and the evidentiary sanction of additional disposition time is more appropriate. A full-text copy of the Court's April 11, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/eAa8az from Leagle.com. Reuben Calleros, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated in the State of California & Ralph Rubio, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated in the State of California, Plaintiffs, represented by A. Mark Pope -- pope@popeberger.com -- Pope, Berger, Williams & Reynolds, LLP, Harvey C. Berger -- berger@popeberger.com -- Pope, Berger, Williams & Reynolds, LLP & Sara Jayne Waller, Pope, Berger, Williams & Reynolds, LLP. Rural Metro of San Diego, Inc., Rural Metro Corporation, American Medical Response, Inc. & Envision Healthcare Corporation, Defendants, represented by Michael S. Kun -- mkun@ebglaw.com -- Epstein, Becker & Green, PC. SCHNUCK MARKETS: Dismissal of Community Bank Suit Affirmed ---------------------------------------------------------- Judge David Hamilton of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the case, COMMUNITY BANK OF TRENTON, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SCHNUCK MARKETS, INC., Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 17-2146 (7th Cir.). In late 2012, hackers infiltrated the computer networks at Schnuck Markets, a large Midwestern grocery store chain based in Missouri and known as "Schnucks." The hackers stole the data of about 2.4 million credit and debit cards. By the time the intrusion was detected and the data breach was announced in March 2013, the financial losses from unauthorized purchases and cash withdrawals had reached into the millions. Litigation ensued. Like many other recent cases around the country, the case involves a massive consumer data breach. Unlike most other data- breach cases, however, the proposed class of Plaintiffs in the case is comprised not of consumers but of financial institutions. Card-issuing banks and credit unions are required by federal law to indemnify their card-holding customers for losses from fraudulent activity, so the four Plaintiff-Appellant banks bore the costs of reissuing cards and indemnifying the Schnucks hackers' fraud. The Plaintiff banks, which may or may not have received some of those reimbursement funds, filed a lawsuit in 2014 seeking to be made whole directly by Schnucks. The banks dismissed their first complaint voluntarily and then filed the action in the Southern District of Illinois in October 2015. They amended their complaint in October 2016. The banks contend that despite the existence of the contractual remedies, issuing banks cannot always recoup the reimbursed fraudulent charges and must pay other fees and bear card reissuing costs, which these banks seek to recover from Schnucks. In effect, the banks seek reimbursement for their losses above and beyond the remedies provided under the card network contracts. They say their losses include employee time to investigate and resolve fraud claims, payments to indemnify customers for fraudulent charges, and lost interest and transaction fees on account of changes in customer card usage. The Plaintiffs estimate their damages in the tens of millions of dollars, placing the lawsuit in the same league as some others between financial institutions and breached retail merchants. In a thorough order, the district court dismissed all of the Plaintiff banks' claims against Schnucks. The proposed Plaintiff class of banks includes both Illinois and Missouri citizens; Schnucks is a citizen of Missouri; and the matter in controversy exceeds $5 million. The parties agreed that both Illinois and Missouri laws apply, given the proposed Plaintiff class. None of the Plaintiff banks' claims made it past the pleadings. The complaint was dismissed for failing to state a plausible claim under any of the banks' theories. Judge Hamilton holds that the principal issues in the case present fairly new variations on the economic loss rule in tort law. The central issue is whether Illinois or Missouri tort law offers a remedy to card-holders' banks against a retail merchant who suffered a data breach, above and beyond the remedies provided by the network of contracts that link merchants, card- processors, banks, and card brands to enable electronic card payments. The Plaintiff banks assert claims under the common law as well as Illinois consumer protection statutes. The legal issues raised by the Plaintiff banks are similar to the issues that arise in large construction projects with layers of contractors, subcontractors, sub-subcontractors, and so on. There may be no direct contractual relationship between a negligent subcontractor and other businesses that suffer from delays and expenses it caused. Yet all participants are tied into a network of contracts that allocate the risks of sub- standard or slow work. He does not see either a paradigmatic or doctrinal reason why either Illinois or Missouri would recognize a tort claim by the issuing banks in the case, where the claimed conduct and losses are subject to these networks of contracts. The Judge holds that the Appellate Court's role as a federal court applying state law is to predict how the states' supreme courts would likely resolve these issues. He predicts that both states would reject the Plaintiff banks' search for a remedy beyond those established under the applicable networks of contracts. He agrees with the district court that neither Illinois nor Missouri would recognize any of the Plaintiff banks' theories to supplement their contractual remedies for losses they suffered as a result of the Schnucks data breach. Accordingly, he affirmed the district court's dismissal of the banks' complaint. A full-text copy of the Seventh Circuit's April 11, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/H0xwTr from Leagle.com. Daniel R. Warren -- dwarren@bakerlaw.com -- for Defendant- Appellee. Russell Kenneth Scott -- rks@greensfelder.com -- for Defendant- Appellee. John J. Driscoll, for Plaintiff-Appellant. Sam A. Camardo -- scamardo@bakerlaw.com -- for Defendant- Appellee. SEALIFT INC: Partial Summary Judgment Bid in "Dziennik" OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------ In the cases, SYLVESTER DZIENNIK, MIECZYSLAW KIERSZTYN, FERDYNAND KOBIEROWSKI, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SEALIFT, INC., FORTUNE MARITIME, INC., SAGAMORE SHIPPING, INC., VICTORY MARITIME, INC., Defendants. MIECZYSLAW KIERSTIN, Plaintiff, v. M/VADVANTAGE, Defendant. JOSEF FELSKOWSKI, Plaintiff, v. SEALIFT, INC., SAGAMORE SHIPPING, INC., Defendants, Case Nos. 05-CV-4659 (DLI)(JO), 06-CV-5305(DLI)(JO), 04-CV-1244 (DLI)(JO)(E.D. N.Y.), Judge Dora L. Irizarry of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted the Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment. The Plaintiffs bring the class action against the Defendants alleging violations of federal maritime law, specifically, sections 10313 and 11107 of the Seamen's Wage Act, codified at 46 U.S.C. Section 10301, et seq. The Class Plaintiffs worked as seaman aboard U.S. flag vessels under the control of one or more of the Defendants. The class is composed of 209 seafaring employees, 113 of whom are Polish citizens and 96 of whom are Filipino citizens, employed on these vessels during various periods since Jan. 1, 1999. They seek recovery of unpaid wages, overtime wages, and statutory penalties from the Defendants under employment contracts and federal maritime law. Presently before the Court is the Defendants' Nov. 20, 2015 motion for partial summary judgment1 on the meanings of the terms "engaged" and "engagement," as used in 46 U.S.C. Section 11107, which states that an engagement of a seaman contrary to a law of the United States is void. A seaman so engaged may leave the service of the vessel at any time and is entitled to recover the highest rate of wages at the port from which the seaman was engaged or the amount agreed to be given the seaman at the time of engagement, whichever is higher. On March 26, 2010, the Court adopted a report and recommendation from Magistrate Judge Marilyn D. Go. The report and recommendation adopted as modified by 2010 WL 1191993 holds that the Defendants engaged the Plaintiffs contrary to the law of the United States by failing to comply with the requirements of 46 U.S.C. Sections 10302, 8103(b), 8710, and that 46 U.S.C. Section 11107 provides the remedy for the Plaintiffs' claims in the form of a statutory default to prevailing market wages in the case of an invalid contract. The parties do not dispute that the Class Plaintiffs were hired and signed employment contracts at two foreign ports: Gdynia, Poland, and Manila, Republic of the Philippines. The parties disagree, however, on whether the signing of employment contracts constitutes an "engagement" and whether the Class Plaintiffs were engaged at the time and place of hire, as those terms are used in 46 U.S.C. Section 11107. The Defendants contend that the terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning, which is "to hire" or "to employ," and the Plaintiffs argue that such an interpretation creates an absurd result, and that the place of embarkation, not the port of hire, is where a seaman is engaged, Judge Irizarry finds that "engage" and "engagement" have their plain and ordinary meaning and the Class Plaintiffs were engaged at their port of hire. He finds that the application of the statute's plain meaning does not create an absurd result. Holding that a seaman can be engaged before he joins the vessel does not create inconsistencies in the statute, since a seaman may be engaged prior to joining the vessel, but such an engagement does not become contrary to law until the seaman joins the vessel. The Class Plaintiffs argue that holding that seamen can be engaged somewhere other than the port of embarkation eviscerates the protections afforded to seafarers. The Judge finds that the Class Plaintiffs offer little support for this argument, other than simply stating the truisms that the laws at issue were adopted to protect seafarers, and Defendants unlawfully engaged the Class Plaintiffs. These conclusory statements do not convince him that he should ignore the plain language of the statute, which the legislative history clearly suggests controls, and which does not create an absurd result. While the Class Plaintiffs may be correct that in some instances the port of hire and port of embarkation are distinct and separate places, that fact does not demand the result they urge. The Judge has rejected the Class Plaintiffs' argument that "engage" and "engagement" refer to the port of embarkation, as the language of the statute suggests that seamen are "engaged" and the place of "engagement" is the port of hire. To the extent the Defendants argue that construing the statutory text according to its "plain meaning" is the law of the case, the Court's previous interpretations of other portions of the relevant statutory sections does not bind its interpretation here. Moreover, the fact that sections 10302, 8701, and 8103(b) contemplate violations occurring aboard a vessel is not inconsistent with holding that seamen can be "engaged" prior to the violations occurring, at the port of hire. Finally, the Class Plaintiffs ask that the Court determine the applicable wage rates. The instant motion is for a determination as to the meaning of the terms "engage" and "engagement" as used in 46 U.S.C. Section 11107, and as such, the issue of the appropriate wage rates is beyond the motion's scope. Accordingly, the Judge declines to address the issue. For the reasons set forth, Judge Irizarry granted the Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment. Accordingly, he finds that the terms "engage" and "engagement" have their ordinary meaning, and the "port of engagement" refers to the port of hire. The Defendants engaged Class Plaintiffs in Manila, Republic of the Philippines, and Gdynia, Poland. A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2018 Memorandum and Order is available at https://goo.gl/FQ7KTx from Leagle.com. Mieczyslaw Kierstin, Plaintiff, represented by Harold Joseph Eisenman, Richard J. Dodson -- jerry@dodsonhooks.com -- Dodson, Hooks & Frederick, APLC & Ralph J. Mellusi, Tabak Mellusi & Shisha. M/V Advantage, In Rem, Defendant, represented by Gordon S. Arnott, Hill, Betts & Nash LLP. Fortune Maritime Inc., Intervenor Defendant, represented by James T. Brown, Legge Farrow Kimmitt McGrath & W. Sean O'Neil, Legge Farrow Kimmitt McGrath. SECURITY BENEFIT: Sued by Ogles on Behalf of Annuity Purchasers --------------------------------------------------------------- ALBERT OGLES v. SECURITY BENEFIT LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; SECURITY BENEFIT CORPORATION; GUGGENHEIM PARTNERS, LLC; and ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND plc, Case No. 2:18-cv-02265 (D. Kan., May 22, 2018), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated persons, who purchased annuity products issued by Security Benefit Life on or after July 2012. The Plaintiff's claims arise out of his investment in Security Benefit Life's "Total Value Annuity," commonly known as a "fixed indexed annuity." He alleges that the Defendants violate the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act through a fraudulent scheme that began as early as January 1, 2012, and continues through the present day. He contends that the Defendants fraudulently duped him and members of the proposed Class into buying annuity products based on false assurances of safety and financial strength, and through the fraudulent concealment of the truth about the design of the Total Value Annuity and the 5 Year Annuity Linked TVI Index Account. Security Benefit Life Insurance Company is a Kansas corporation with its principal place of business in Topeka, Kansas. Security Benefit Life issued, administered and managed its annuities, as well as its relationships with its co-Defendants and related entities. Security Benefit Corporation is a Kansas corporation with its principal place of business in Topeka. SBC is Security Benefit Life's parent company and is controlled by Guggenheim. Guggenheim Partners, LLC, is a New York limited liability corporation, with its headquarters in Chicago, Illinois, and New York City. Guggenheim owns and controls Guggenheim Investments, SBC and Security Benefit Life. Guggenheim Investments, also known as Guggenheim Partners Investment Management, LLC, is an investment advisor and lists its principal place of business in Santa Monica, California. The Royal Bank of Scotland, plc, is a United Kingdom-based banking and financial services company headquartered in Edinburgh, Scotland. RBS and its affiliates created, sponsored and administered the "Annuity Linked TVI Index." The Plaintiff contends that all Defendants are associates in and have participated in a fraudulent enterprise designed to market, promote, distribute, sell, administer and manage Security Benefit Life's annuity products in and from Kansas during the Class Period.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric D. Barton, Esq. Tyler W. Hudson, Esq. Sarah Ruane, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP 4740 Grand Avenue, Suite 300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 701-1100 Facsimile: (816) 531-2372 E-mail: ebarton@wcllp.com thudson@wcllp.com sruane@wcllp.com SENATOR CONSTRUCTION: "Encalada" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- Luis Encalada and Juan Pablo Encalada Flores, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Senator Construction Corporation dba Senator Construction Group, Inc., Senator Construction Group Inc. dba Senator Construction Group, Inc., Haroon Contracting Group Inc. dba Senator Construction Group, Inc., Usman Muhammad and Atif Rafiq aka Atiq Rehman, Case No. 1:18-cv-03727 (S.D. N.Y., April 27, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and for violations of the New York Labor Law. Luis Encalada is a resident of Queens County, New York, and was employed by Defendants at Senator Construction Group, Inc. from approximately January 10, 2017 until on or about March 14, 2018. Juan Pablo Encalada Flores is a resident of Queens County, New York and was employed by Defendants at Senator Construction Group, Inc. from approximately January 2017 until on or about March 15, 2018. The Plaintiffs were employed as construction workers at the Defendants' construction corporation located at 247 W 35th Street Rm. 401, New York, New York 10001. The Defendants own, operate, or control a construction company, located at 247 W 35th Street Rm. 401, New York, New York 10001 under the name "Senator Construction Group, Inc." [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Tel: (212) 317-1200 Fax: (212) 317-1620 STAGE STORES: "Crosby" Suit Seeks to Recover Minimum and OT Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- MAYA CROSBY and DENEEN PATTON, on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated v. STAGE STORES INC., Case No. 3:18-cv- 00503 (M.D. Tenn., May 30, 2018), seeks to recover alleged unpaid minimum wage and overtime compensation for the Plaintiffs and their co-workers, who have worked for the Defendant as Sales Associates, Visual Associates, eCommerce Fulfillment Associates, Custodian Freight Associates, Counter Managers, Cosmetic Sales Mangers, Beauty Advisors, and Assistant Store Managers in stores nationwide. Stage Stores Inc. is a corporation formed under the laws of the state of Nevada with a principal place of business in Houston, Texas. Stage Stores is a retail clothing company operating approximately 793 stores in 42 states throughout the United States. The Company does business under the brands Stage, Peebles, Goody's, Bealls, and Palais Royal.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Charles P. Yezbak, III, Esq. YEZBAK LAW OFFICES PLLC 2002 Richard Jones Rd., Suite B-200 Nashville, TN 37215 Telephone: (615) 250-2000 E-mail: yezbak@yezbaklaw.com - and - Molly Brooks, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 245-1000 E-mail: mbrooks@outtengolden.com - and - Laura Iris Mattes, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP One California Street, 12th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 638-8800 Facsimile: (415) 638-8810 E-mail: imattes@outtengolden.com STANDARD FIRE: Summary Judgement Bid in "O'Hara" Suit Granted ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, KIERAN O'HARA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. THE STANDARD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY d/b/a TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Civil Action No. 16-12378-GAO (D. Mass.), Judge George A. O'Toole of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted the Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. The Plaintiff, a self-employed individual, contends that his insurance company, Standard Fire failed to pay him the full amount of benefits he was entitled to under a policy providing for payment of an insured's average weekly "gross wages" to compensate for lost income due to personal injury. O'Hara alleges breach of contract and violation of M.G.L. c. 93A among other claims. The principal issue concerns the meaning of the phrase "gross wages" as it pertains to individuals like O'Hara who are self- employed. O'Hara contends that the phrase means "gross income." Standard Fire contends that the phrase means "net profit" and it moves for a judgment on the pleadings on the ground that it did not breach the policy when it calculated O'Hara's insurance benefits based on his "net profit" rather than "gross income." O'Hara commenced the lawsuit by filing a three-count complaint in the Massachusetts Superior Court, alleging violations of M.G.L. c. 90, Sections 34A and 34M, and breach of contract, and subsequently amended the complaint to include several chapter 93A based claims. On Nov. 22, 2016, Standard Fire removed the case to federal court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA"). Shortly thereafter, Standard Fire moved for a judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. O'Hara opposes. The magistrate judge to whom the Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadingsmwas referred has filed a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that the motion be denied as to Count II and granted as to Counts I and III through VII. Both parties have filed timely objections to the R&R. The Magistrate Judge finds that the meaning of the phrase "gross wages" in the Defendant's insurance policy is ambiguous because it is reasonably prone to different interpretations or susceptible to differing, but nonetheless, plausible constructions. There is extrinsic evidence but that evidence is neither very probative nor susceptible of only one interpretation. Understanding that discovery may yield additional information bearing on this issue, the better course would be to allow the claim to go forward and address the issue later when the record is more developed. The motion for judgment on the pleadings should therefore be denied with respect to Count II. With respect to Count I, courts have consistently held that Section 34M does not create a private cause of action; rather, the Massachusetts Legislature intended that a dispute arising from alleged violations of section 34M be brought as a common law breach of contract action. Moreover, the Plaintiff conceded at the hearing on the Defendant's motion that any alleged violations of section 34 must be brought as breach of contract claims. Judgment therefore should be entered in the Defendant's favor on Count I. The Magistrate Judge also finds that the amended complaint does not contain sufficient factual allegations to show that Standard Fire acted in bad faith. Aside from conclusory allegations that Standard Fire's conduct constituted "willful/knowing violations," the amended complaint is utterly devoid of any facts showing that Standard Fire intentionally calculated O'Hara's benefits in disregard of the policy, or that Standard Fire knowingly sought to shortchange self-employed insureds for its own benefit. O'Hara's stand-alone allegations that Standard Fire acted willingly and knowingly in violation of chapter 93A do not suffice to support an inference of bad faith where is it is just as plausible that Standard Fire was operating under a good faith belief in the validity of its own interpretation of the PIP provisions. Judgment therefore should be entered for the defendant regarding Counts III-VI. Finally, because O'Hara's claim for declaratory judgment merely seeks the Court's affirmation that Standard Fire acted improperly as alleged in Counts I-VI, rendering a declaration would not be of any practical assistance to clarifying the merits of his underlying claims where resolving the breach of contract claim will settle the principal legal issues. Judgment should be entered in the defendant's favor regarding Count VII. Having reviewed the magistrate judge's recommendation and the relevant submissions of the parties, Judge O'Toole approved and adopted the R&R to the extent that it recommends dismissal of Counts I and III through VII. He concludes, however, that the Defendant is also entitled to dismissal of Count II. In sum, Judge O'Toole, for the purposes of the case, finds that the net profit that the Plaintiff earned as a self-employed insured is equivalent to the gross wage of a regular employee. The Defendant correctly compensated the Plaintiff 75% of his net profit for the year preceding his accident. He therefore sustained the Defendant's objection to the R&R, and overruled the Plaintiff's objections to the R&R. He granted in full the Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2018 Order is available at https://goo.gl/PCfqio from Leagle.com. Kieran O'Hara, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brian McNiff -- bmcniff@forrestlamothe.com -- Forrest LaMothe Mazow McCullough Yasi & Yasi, P.C., Kevin J. McCullough, Mazow McCullough PC & Michael C. Forrest -- mforrest@forrestlamothe.com -- Forrest, LaMothe, Mazoe, McCullough, Yasi & Yasi. The Standard Fire Insurance Company, doing business as Travelers Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Jonathan E. Small -- jsmall@rc.com -- Robinson & Cole, LLP & Wystan M. Ackerman -- wackerman@rc.com -- Robinson & Cole, LLP. STEVENS SECURITY: Must Show Docs Responsive to "Gunn" RFPs ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MICHELLE GUNN, MARTINEZ HAYMER, and CARL THOMAS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. STEVENS SECURITY & TRAINING SERVICES, INC. and AL STEVENS, Defendants, Case No. 17 C 6314 (N.D. Ill.), Magistrate Judge Jeffrey Cole of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted the Plaintiff's motion to compel the Defendant to produce documents responsive to their requests for production 1-4. The Plaintiffs' complaint charges the Defendant with failing to pay proper overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL"), and the Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance ("CMWO"). Early on, the Plaintiff moved for conditional certification of their FLSA claims as a collective action under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), and Judge Coleman granted that motion on Jan. 8, 2018. Since Judge Coleman's ruling, only one additional Plaintiff out of a possible 53 has chosen to opt in. And so, the discovery at issue here -- payroll records for individuals who worked as security guards for the defendant and were paid by the hour -- has to do with the Plaintiffs' state law and city ordinance claims. The Plaintiffs hope to make a class action out of these claims under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3). The Defendant objects to the production requests at issue on a couple of grounds. First, and primarily, it submits that the Plaintiffs are seeking to circumvent the FLSA's opt-in requirement by way of their state and city claims and Fed.R.Civ.P. 23. In other words, given that almost no one opted in for their FLSA claim, the Plaintiff hopes to drive up the stakes with a state and city law class claim where individuals have to opt out. Magistrate Judge Cole holds that he does not have authority under a referral for discovery matters to decide substantive issues like certification of a class under either Section 216(b) or Fed.R.Civ.P. 23. For now, he says the Plaintiffs' state law claims are a part of this litigation and, for now, they are potential class claims. The Plaintiffs are entitled to the discovery they seek in order to try to establish the prerequisites of proceeding as a class on those state law and city ordinance claims. The Defendant's next objection is that it is exempt from the city's minimum wage ordinance. The Magistrate Judge finds that it is another substantive matter beyond the purview of his authority. Even if the Defendant's position is correct -- it cites no cases to support it -- and Judge Coleman rules in its favor on a summary judgment motion the Defendant says it will be filing, the same discovery would remain relevant to the Plaintiffs' state law claim. The Defendant's final objection is that the discovery sought is overly burdensome. It maintains its security guards are independent contractors, not employees, and therefore it does not, and is not required to maintain separate and individual personnel files containing payroll records. The Magistrate Judge finds that the Defendant offers nothing in the way of proof that this is the case -- no affidavit or anything like that. The defendant hasn't "shown" anything. Moreover, without amplification, its complaint that the discovery request is "overly burdensome" is no more than an example of the garden- variety, boilerplate objections attorneys slap on responses to discovery by rote, and tantamount to no objection at all. Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Cole granted the Plaintiff's motion to compel. But any future discovery motions filed in the case must include a detailed, joint statement of the parties' efforts to resolve their disputes over each of the document requests at issue, along with their final positions, supported by pertinent authority, on each request that remains in dispute. A full-text copy of the Court's April 11, 2018 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/fs5zpW from Leagle.com. Michelle Gunn & Martinez Haymer, Plaintiffs, represented by Christopher J. Wilmes -- cwilmes@hsplegal.com -- Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym, Ltd. & Matthew J. Piers -- mpiers@hsplegal.com -- Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym Ltd. Thomas Carl, Plaintiff, pro se. Stevens Security & Training Services, Inc. & Al Stevens, Defendants, represented by Scott Cruz -- scruz@clarkhill.com -- Clark Hill PLC. SYMANTEC CORP: Faces "Broda" Securities Class Suit in California ---------------------------------------------------------------- SAMUEL BRODA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. SYMANTEC CORPORATION, GREGORY S. CLARK, and NICHOLAS R. NOVIELLO, Case No. 3:18-cv-03152 (N.D. Cal., May 25, 2018), is a federal securities class action brought on behalf of all persons other than the Defendants, who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Symantec between May 19, 2017, and May 10, 2018, both dates inclusive. Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies, according to the complaint. Specifically, the Defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (i) Symantec's internal controls over financial reporting were materially weak and deficient; (ii) Symantec's later disclosed "reporting of certain Non-GAAP measures, including those that could impact executive compensation programs" would lead to heightened regulatory scrutiny by the SEC; and (iii) as a result, Symantec's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Symantec is incorporated in Delaware, and its principal executive offices are located in Mountain View, California. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. Symantec provides security, storage, and systems management solutions to help businesses and consumers secure and manage their information. The Company offers software and services that protect, manage, and control information risks related to security, data protection, storage, compliance, and management.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer Pafiti, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 468 North Camden Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (818) 532-6499 E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ, LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP Ten South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697-6484 E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com SYRACUSE, NY: Judgment on Pleadings in "Winston" Partly Affirmed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JACQUELINE WINSTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF SYRACUSE, DEBORAH SOMERS, in her official capacity as the Commissioner of Water, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 17-1017-cv (2d Cir.), Judge Christopher F. Droney of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York granting the Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings. Plaintiff Jacqueline Winston, a tenant in a multi-family building in the City of Syracuse, New York, filed the putative class action under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 in the district court in February 2016. She alleged that the City and its Commissioner of Water Somers violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment when (1) the City shut off her water service after her landlord failed to pay the water bill for the building, and when (2) the City denied her the opportunity to open a water account in her own name. Winston sought declaratory and injunctive relief against the City. The City filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, contending that Winston had not pleaded a constitutional violation. In response, Winston argued that the City's policies were not rationally related to a legitimate government interest and therefore deprived Winston of her rights to due process and equal protection. Judge Thomas James McAvoy of the district court granted the City's motion and entered judgment for the City. He concluded that the City has a rational basis for those water account and water service policies. As to the City's policy regarding tenants opening water accounts, Judge McAvoy concluded that Winston could not show that the City lacked a rational basis to treat landlords and tenants differently. He reached the same conclusion regarding the City's policy of shutting off water when a landlord is delinquent in paying the water bill. The Judge reasoned that the City could rationally terminate water service to a landlord's property because doing so would further the City's goal of collecting unpaid water bills. The appeal followed. On appeal, Winston argues that the district court erred when it determined that she had not stated a claim for facial violations of the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Specifically, she first contends that no rational reasons exist to distinguish between landlords and tenants for purposes of establishing water accounts. Second, she asserts that the City cannot lawfully distinguish between the tenants of delinquent and non-delinquent landlords when providing water service. Judge Droney finds that the City rationally concluded that property ownership allows it to collect its unpaid bills more efficiently because the City can subject property owners, but not tenants, to liens. Moreover, the City may rationally conclude that water supply infrastructure in older, multi-dwelling buildings provides a valid reason to allow only property owners to open water accounts. Concluding otherwise could essentially require substantial reconstruction of apartment buildings throughout the City of Syracuse. Therefore the City's policy of denying tenants the opportunity to open water accounts satisfies the requirements of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Judge reaches a different conclusion with respect to the City's policy of terminating water service to tenants whose landlords fail to pay their water bills. He finds that neither class of tenants possesses a legal obligation to pay their landlord's unpaid bills. The fact of the landlord's non-payment is irrelevant, because the City cannot force an individual without a legal obligation to pay the bill of another. As a result, the City cannot point to the landlord's non-payment to satisfy rational-basis review under the Equal Protection Clause. The Judge further finds that the City does not contest that Winston has a valid property interest in continued water service. As to whether the City's policy satisfies rational-basis review, he concludes that Winston plausibly alleges a due process violation. Winston asserts that the City is seeking to collect payment on landlords' bills by requiring tenants who have no legal obligation for those bills to pay their landlords' accounts. Such a policy scheme, which is not based in legal accountability for the debt, fails rational-basis review. Accordingly, he will reverse the district court's dismissal of Winston's alleged Due Process Clause violation. For these reasons, Judge Droney concludes that (i) Winston did not plausibly allege a violation of the Equal Protection Clause as to the City's policy for opening water accounts; and (ii) the district court erred in dismissing Winston's equal protection and substantive due process challenges to the City's water termination policy. Accordingly, he affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the district court, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with his Opinion. On remand, he directed the district court to also afford Winston an opportunity to renew her motion for class certification in light of the decision in the appeal. A full-text copy of the Court's April 11, 2018 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/XmA6Zi from Leagle.com. JOSHUA COTTER, Legal Services of Central New York, Syracuse, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellant. AMANDA HARRINGTON -- amanda@scanlancarroll.com.au -- Assistant Corporation Counsel, ( Mary D'Agostino, Assistant Corporation Counsel, on the brief), for Kristen E. Smith -- kesmithbain@morinandbarkley.com -- Corporation Counsel, Syracuse, NY, for Defendants-Appellees. TLRA DEBT: Collection Activities Violate FDCPA, "Day" Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- AMY LEE DAY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. TLRA DEBT RECOVERY, Case No. 6:18-cv-00230 (E.D. Tex., May 23, 2018), alleges that the Defendant's collection activities violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. TLRA Debt Recovery is a Texas corporation with its corporate headquarters located in Houston, Texas. TLRA is engaged in the business of collecting debts, using mails and telephone.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joel S. Halvorsen, Esq. HALVORSEN KLOTE 680 Craig Road, Suite 104 St. Louis, MO 63141 Telephone: (314) 451-1314 Facsimile: (314) 787-4323 E-mail: joel@hklawstl.com TOUCHPOINT 360: "Arugu" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations ---------------------------------------------------- Donna Arugu, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Touchpoint 360, LLC and E.A. Langenfeld Associates, Ltd., Case No. 1:18-cv-00343 (W.D. Tex., April 25, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Donna Arugu is an individual who resides in Travis County, Texas. Although she had previously performed the same work as an independent contractor, Touchpoint began treating the Plaintiff as an employee on approximately April 18, 2013; the last day that she performed work as an employee for Defendants was on or around December 23, 2016, notes the complaint. The Defendants contract with clients to provide marketing services throughout the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edmond S. Moreland, Jr., Esq. Daniel A. Verrett, Esq. MORELAND LAW FIRM, P.C. 700 West Summit Drive Wimberley, TX 78676 Tel: (512) 782-0567 Fax: (512) 782-0605 E-mail: edmond@morelandlaw.com daniel@morelandlaw.com UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Court Grants Summary Judgment Bid in "Razak" --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ALI RAZAK, KENAN SABANI, and KHALDOUN CHERDOUD, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., and GEGAN, LLC, Civil Action. No. 16-573 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Michael M. Baylson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted Uber's Motion for Summary Judgment. The Plaintiffs commenced the action on Jan. 6, 2016, by filing a Complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. On Feb. 4, 2016, the Defendants removed the action to this court, citing federal question and diversity jurisdiction. The case is the first to grant summary judgment on the question of whether drivers for UberBLACK are employees or independent contractors within the meaning of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and similar Pennsylvania state laws. More specifically, the named Plaintiffs have brought individual and representative claims against Uber and its wholly-owned subsidiary Gegen for violations of the federal minimum wage and overtime requirements under the FLSA, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act ("PMWA"), and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law. Before the Court is Uber's Motion for Summary Judgment on the question of whether the Plaintiffs, drivers for UberBLACK, qualify as "employees" of Uber under the FLSA and PMWA. In general, under the FLSA, employers must pay employees the applicable minimum wage for each hour worked, and, if an employee works more than 40 hours in a given week, the employer must pay one and one half times the regular rate for each hour subsequently worked. Thus, among other things, the Plaintiffs seek back pay for their work driving passengers using the Uber app. Uber's principal contention on its motion for summary judgment is that the Plaintiffs are not employees as a matter of law, and therefore their putative class action on behalf of all UberBLACK drivers must be dismissed. In Uber's briefs, the Plaintiffs are portrayed as entrepreneurial business-owners who use UberBLACK as a means of acquiring trip requests, with their primary competition coming from other limousine-for-hire companies. Uber contends that the Plaintiffs are not employees of Uber because the Plaintiffs are not restricted from working for other companies, pay their own expenses (which are substantial), invest in their own companies, advertise and market for their own companies, engage workers for their own companies, work using UberBLACK as much or as little as they want, reject work from UberBLACK as much as they want, and use business acumen to attain their own profits (and losses). In Uber's view, UberBLACK is simply a source of "lead generation," like a "modern-day Yellow Pages," rather than an "employer" under the FLSA. In opposition to the motion, the Plaintiffs contend that they are "employees" under the FLSA, and therefore entitled to overtime pay and other benefits, because they are extensively controlled by Uber when they are online, they exercise stamina rather than managerial skill to determine profit or loss, they must provide certain types and colors of car to drive for Uber, they do not have special skills requiring long training or apprenticeship, they have driven for Uber for years and for many hours per week, and they perform an integral role for Uber's business. Judge Baylson holds that the Plaintiffs have had a full opportunity to present all relevant facts bearing on the question of whether they are employees under the FLSA. Accepting that there are some disputes of fact, he viewed all evidence in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs, as required by Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. Nonetheless, given the totality of the circumstances and the fact that no single factor in the economic reality test is dispositive, the Plaintiffs have not brought to the record sufficient proof to meet their burden of showing that they are employees. For these, the Judge granted Uber's Motion for Summary Judgment. A full-text copy of the Court's April 11, 2018 Memorandum is available at https://is.gd/SHijWj from Leagle.com. ALI RAZAK, KENAN SABANI & KHALDOUN CHERDOUD, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, represented by JEREMY E. ABAY -- jabay@sackslaw.com -- Sacks Weston Diamond, LLC & JOHN K. WESTON -- jweston@sackslaw.com -- SACKS WESTON DIAMOND LLC. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant, represented by NILOY RAY -- nray@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON PC, ANDREW SPURCHISE -- aspurchise@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON PC, JOSHUA C. VAUGHN -- jvaughn@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C., PAUL C. LANTIS -- plantis@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C., ROBERT WILLIAM PRITCHARD -- rpritchard@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C., SOPHIA BEHNIA -- sbehnia@littler.com -- LITTLE MENDELSON PC & WENDY SUE BUCKINGHAM -- wbuckingham@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON PC. GEGEN LLC, Defendant, represented by NILOY RAY, LITTLER MENDELSON PC, ROBERT WILLIAM PRITCHARD, LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C., SOPHIA BEHNIA, LITTLE MENDELSON PC, JOSHUA C. VAUGHN, LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. & PAUL C. LANTIS, Littler Mendelson, P.C. LUXE LIMOUSINE SERVICES, INC., FREEMO LIMO, LLC & MILANO LIMO, INC., Movants, represented by JEREMY E. ABAY , Sacks Weston Diamond, LLC. UNITED STATES: Court Allows "Pack" to Proceed in Forma Pauperis --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MICHAEL LAWRENCE PACK, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 1-18-CV-00541- UNA (D. D.C.), Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted the Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed the complaint. The Judge has reviewed the Plaintiff's complaint, keeping in mind that complaints filed by pro se litigants are held to less stringent standards than those applied to formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Rather than factual allegations to support a cognizable legal claim, he finds that the Plaintiff's complaint appears only to express their apparent disapproval of the actions of the current President of the United States. As drafted, the complaint fails to meet the minimum pleading standard set forth in Rule 8(a). Furthermore, pursuant to the Plaintiff's complaint, he is attempting to bring a class action lawsuit. As a general rule applicable in the case, the Judge explains that a pro se litigant can represent only himself or herself in federal court. Additionally, Mr. Pack is the sole listed Plaintiff in the matter. Therefore, Judge Sullivan granted the Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed the complaint. An Order consistent with the Memorandum Opinion is issued separately. A full-text copy of the Court's April 11, 2018 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://is.gd/uC70Xo from Leagle.com. MICHAEL LAWRENCE PACK, Plaintiff, pro se. VASCO DATA: Continues to Defend "Rossbach" Suit ----------------------------------------------- VASCO Data Security International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the motion to dismiss filed by the defendants in the case Linda J. Rossbach v. Vasco Data Security International, Inc., et al., is still pending. On July 28, 2015 a putative class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, captioned Linda J. Rossbach v. Vasco Data Security International, Inc., et al., case number 1:15-cv-06605, naming VASCO and certain of its current and former executive officers as defendants and alleging violations under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The suit was purportedly filed on behalf of a putative class of investors who purchased VASCO securities between April 28, 2015 and July 28, 2015, and seeks to recover damages allegedly caused by the defendants' alleged violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint seeks certification as a class action and unspecified compensatory damages plus interest and attorneys' fees. Pursuant to a September 1, 2015 scheduling order entered by the court, the lead plaintiff, once appointed, will have sixty days to file an amended complaint or notify the defendants that the lead plaintiff intends to rely on the current complaint. On January 30, 2017, the appointed lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint in which the allegations regarding OFAC related matters were dropped and replaced with allegations regarding public disclosures made by the defendants in April 2015 as compared to public statements made in July 2015, generally regarding the strength of the Company's business and its future prospects. This case is now referred to by the name of the new lead plaintiff, Bunk. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Bunk complaint on March 31, 2017. A decision from the court on such motion has not been issued to date. VASCO Data Security said "Although the ultimate outcome of litigation cannot be predicted with certainty, the Company believes that this lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend against the action vigorously. VASCO is indemnifying its officers and directors for this matter." VASCO Data Security International, Inc. designs, develops and markets digital solutions for identity, security, and business productivity that protect and facilitate electronic transactions, via mobile and connected devices. The company is based in Chicago, Illinois. VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Raul Files Suit Over Francisco Partners Merger ---------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID RAUL as custodian for PINCHUS E. RAUL UTMA, NY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. VERIFONE SYSTEMS, INC., ROBERT W. ALSPAUGH, KAREN AUSTIN, RONALD BLACK, PAUL GALANT, ALEX W. HART, ROBERT B. HENSKE, LARRY A. KLAINE, JONATHAN I. SCHWARTZ, JANE J. THOMPSON, ROWAN M. TROLLOPE, Case No. 4:18-cv-03215-JSW (N.D. Cal., May 30, 2018), arises from the proposed merger between Verifone and an investor group led by the private investment firm, Francisco Partners. On April 9, 2018, Verifone entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger by and among the Company, Vertex Holdco LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("Parent") and Vertex Merger Sub LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent. Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will be merged with and into the Company, with the Company continuing as the surviving company in the Merger. Parent and Merger Sub are owned by Francisco Partners and British Columbia Investment Management Corporation. Verifone is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive offices located in San Jose, California. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. Verifone represents itself as a global leader in payments and commerce solutions at the point of sale. Key industries in which the Company operates include financial services, retail, petroleum, restaurant, hospitality, transportation, and healthcare. Verifone sells into more than 150 countries worldwide, with a direct presence in approximately 40 countries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marc G. Reich, Esq. Adam T. Hoover, Esq. REICH RADCLIFFE & HOOVER LLP 4675 MacArthur Court, Suite 550 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 975-0512 Facsimile: (949) 208-2839 E-mail: mgr@reichradcliffe.com adhoover@reichradcliffe.com - and - Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq. LIFSHITZ & MILLER LLP 821 Franklin Ave., Suite 209 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 493-9780 Facsimile: (516) 280-7376 E-mail: jml@jlclasslaw.com VOYA FINANCIAL: Blinds Can't Access Web Site, "Matzura" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- STEVEN MATZURA AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. VOYA FINANCIAL, INC., VOYA INVESTMENTS, LLC, VOYA FINANCIAL ADVISORS, INC. and VOYA INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT CO. LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-04470-JGK (S.D.N.Y., May 21, 2018), alleges that the Defendants' Web site -- http://www.voya.com/-- is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers and it violates the Americans with Disabilities Act. Voya Financial, Inc., is a Foreign Business Corporation with its principal executive offices in New York City, and is a public corporation. Voya Investments, LLC, is a Foreign Limited Liability Company with its principal executive offices in New York City. Voya Financial Advisors, Inc., is a Foreign Business Corporation with its principal executive offices in New York City. Voya Investment Management Co. LLC. is a Foreign Limited Liability Company with its principal executive offices in New York City. The Defendants operate Voya insurance brokerage and financial services offices, as well as the Voya Web site, and advertise, market, distribute, and provide insurance, financial and related services in the state of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: danalgottlieb@aol.com nyjg@aol.com WEIS MARKETS: "Allen" Suit Alleges Civil Rights Act Violation ------------------------------------------------------------- Jason Allen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Weis Markets, Inc., Case No. 4:18-cv-00888 (M.D. Pa., April 25, 2018), seeks to address unlawful race discrimination in employee hiring and promotion practices and a racially hostile work environment pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The Plaintiff is a resident of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, residing at 444 Kreamer Avenue, Northumberland County, Sunbury, Pennsylvania. From April 2012 through the present, Mr. Allen, an African-American male, has been an "employee" at Weis Markets, as defined by Title VII. The Defendant, Weis Markets, is a Pennsylvania domestic corporation that maintains its principal place of business and corporate headquarters at 1000 South 2nd Street, Northumberland County, Sunbury, Pennsylvania. Weis Markets is a multi-state food retailer that owns and operates numerous grocery stores, including multiple stores in this Judicial District. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Derrek W. Cummings, Esq. Larry A. Weisberg, Esq. Steve T. Mahan, Esq. Stephen P. Gunther, Esq. McCarthy Weisberg Cummings, P.C. 2704 Commerce Drive, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17110-9380 Tel: (717) 238-5707 Fax: (717) 233-8133 E-mail: dcummings@mwcfirm.com lweisberg@mwcfirm.com smahan@mwcfirm.com sgunther@mwcfirm.com WINKING LIZARD: "Barnes" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Samuel Barnes, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Winking Lizard, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00952 (N.D. Ohio, April 25, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Samuel Barnes is a resident of Cuyahoga County, Ohio, within the Cleveland forum of this judicial district. The Plaintiff worked as an Assistant Kitchen Manager for Defendants in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, within the Cleveland forum of this judicial district at the Gateway Winking Lizard Tavern location at 811 Huron Road, Cleveland, OH 44115, after completing his salary-paid Manager In Training program to become validated as an assistant manager at the Copley Winking Lizard location at 79 Springside Drive, Copley, OH 44333. The Defendants owned and operated more than 20 restaurant locations in Ohio using the trade name and concept of Winking Lizard Tavern. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lori M. Griffin, Esq. Chastity L. Christy, Esq. Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq. THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC 920 Rockefeller Building 614 W. Superior Avenue Cleveland, OH 44113 Tel: (216) 696-5000 Fax: (216) 696-7005 E-mail: chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com lori@lazzarolawfirm.com WYNN RESORTS: Faces "Ferris" Securities Class Action ---------------------------------------------------- Wynn Resorts, Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the company is defending against a securities class action suit filed by John V. Ferris and Joann M. Ferris. On February 20, 2018, a securities class action was filed against the Company and certain current and former officers of the Company in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York (which was subsequently transferred to the United States District Court, District of Nevada) by John V. Ferris and Joann M. Ferris on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's common stock between February 28, 2014 and January 25, 2018. The complaint alleges, among other things, certain violations of federal securities laws and seeks to recover unspecified damages as well as attorneys' fees, costs and related expenses for the plaintiffs. The defendants in these actions will vigorously defend against the claims pleaded against them. These actions are in preliminary stages and management has determined that based on proceedings to date, it is currently unable to determine the probability of the outcome of these actions or the range of reasonably possible loss, if any. Wynn Resorts, Limited is a developer, owner and operator of destination casino resorts (integrated resorts). The company is based in Las Vegas, Nevada. ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Appellate Briefing to be Completed in July ---------------------------------------------------------------- Zions Bancorporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the appellate briefing process is underway and scheduled to be completed in July 2018. A civil class action lawsuit, Evans v. CB&T, brought against the company in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California in May 2017. This case was filed on behalf of a class of up to 50 investors in IMG and seeks to hold us liable for losses of class members arising from their investments in IMG, alleging that we conspired with and knowingly assisted IMG and its principal in furtherance of an alleged Ponzi Scheme. In December 2017, the District Court dismissed all claims against the Company. In January 2018, the plaintiff filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The appellate briefing process is underway and is scheduled to be completed in July 2018. Zions Bancorporation is a bank holding company, headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah, that is one of the largest banks in the United States. ********* 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 * * *