/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/180705.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, July 5, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 134
Headlines
4 RUNNERS INC: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in "Gomez" Suit
333 FAIRMOUNT: "Bida" Suit Moved to District of New Jersey
1560 CHIRP CORP: Faces "De La Cruz" Suit in S.D. New York
A+ BUILDING: Court Conditionally Certifies Class in "Perez"
ABM INDUSTRIES: "Wade" Suit Transferred to C.D. California
ABSOLUTE RESOLUTIONS: 7th Cir. Appeal Filed in "Rodriguez" Suit
ACCOUNT DISCOVERY: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Pavlovich" Suit
AKORN INC: Frank Appeals Ruling in "Alcarez" Suit to 7th Circuit
AKORN INC: Frank Seeks 7th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Harris" Suit
ALLEGHENY, PA: Yates Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Mejia Seeks to Certify Class
ANN INC: Sweeney Appeals Ruling in "Morrow" Suit to 2nd Circuit
AQUA BEST: Anzures Seeks Unpaid Minimum & OT under FLSA
ARAKELIAN ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Wages, Ramos Says
AUDIBLE INC: Seeks Ninth Circuit Review of Ruling in "McKee" Suit
BANK OF AMERICA: Underpays Mortgage Loan Officers, Tripes Says
BEST BUY: Herron Appeals E.D. California Ruling to Ninth Circuit
BIG TREE HOMES: Ames Sues over Unsafe and Unsanitary Housing
BIOGEN INC: Metzler Asset Appeals D. Mass. Ruling to 1st Circuit
BIOGEN INC: Seeks 1st Cir. Review of Ruling in Metzler Asset Suit
BUFFALO, NY: Faces "Black Love Resists" Suit in S.D. New York
BUFFALO WILD: Meeks Appeals N.D. Calif. Ruling to Ninth Circuit
CALIFORNIA, USA: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Salzwedel" Suit
CANDELA CORPORATION: "Burke" Suit Transferred to Massachusetts
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Kolbasyuk Appeals Order, Judgment to 2nd Cir.
CATALINA RESTAURANT: Wins $16K Attys' Fees in "Farrar" WARN Suit
CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in "Katz" Suit
CENTENE CORP: Faces Class Suit for Fibrosis Treatment Coverage
CENTRAL FREIGHT: Blaire-West Notice to "Henry" Class Entered
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Swain Sues over Suppression of Pay
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Order in "Brown"
CI SECURITY: Fails To Pay Wages, Castro Says
CITIZENS BANK: Fawcett Appeals D. Mass. Decision to First Circuit
CLUSTER AMENITIES: Byrd Sues over Retained Tips and Gratuities
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Dean" Suit
COLONIAL FREIGHT: Court Partly Grants Opt-In Notice in "Benyam"
COLONIAL PARKING: Class Certification Denied as Moot in "Abraha"
COMFY U.S.A.: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Garcia Says
CONN APPLIANCES: Appeals Decision in "Williams" Suit to 5th Cir.
CONSUMER PORTFOLIO: Bernals Sue over Debt Collection Practices
CORELOGIC SAFERENT: Mitchell Appeals Ruling in "Witt" to 4th Cir.
CRAZY HORSE: Degidio Files Waiver to Respond to Supreme Ct. Suit
CREDIT BUREAU: Faces "Wilson" Suit in District of New Jersey
CREDIT CONTROL: Faces "Centeno" Suit in N.D. Illinois
CREDIT MANAGEMENT: Court Certifies Class in "Bassett" Suit
CROSS COUNTRY HEALTHCARE: Faces Suit over Background Checks
DALLAS COWBOYS: Underpays Cheerleaders, Wilkins Claims
DANONE NORTH: "Brown" Suit Over False Labeling of Milk Dismissed
DCP OPERATING: Faces "Miller" Suit in E.D. Oklahoma
DEFENDERS INC: Appeals Remand Order in "Walsh" Suit to 3rd Cir.
DEL TACO: Fails to Pay Wages, Castillo Says
DIRECTV LLC: Seeks Fourth Circuit Review of Ruling in "Mey" Suit
DIRECTV LLC: Seeks 11th Cir. Review of Decision in "Cordoba" Suit
DISH NETWORK: Ct. Awards Atty.'s Fees to Plaintiff in "Padberg"
DONALD J. TRUMP: Sued over Central American Minors Parole Program
DR PEPPER: Excevarria Appeals S.D.N.Y. Rulings to Second Circuit
DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Ojeda Sues over Debt Collections Practices
DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Faces "Swann" Suit in N.D. Alabama
DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Faces "Bryant" Suit in D. Colorado
EAST CAPITOL: Preliminary Approval to "Kinard" Settlement Sought
ECOLAB INC: "Charlot" Suit Moved to District of New Jersey
EDDIE GARZA: Maldonado Seeks Unpaid Compensation under FLSA
EDUCATIONAL FINANCIAL: Can't Collect Discharged Debt, Henry Says
EGS FINANCIAL: Faces "Allberry" Suit in E.D. New York
EP CHARGER: Fails to Pay Overtime Compensation, Yerena Says
EPR PROPERTIES: Faces "Williams" Suit in District of Colorado
EVERETT FINANCIAL: "Baretich" Suit Moved to S.D. California
EXECAP INC: Faces "Winston" Suit in California State Court
EXPERIAN DATA: Vance Appeals Ruling in "Patton" Suit to 9th Cir.
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: "Wilson" Suit Moved to S.D. California
EXPERT GROUP: Tenth Circuit Appeal Filed in Colony Insurance Suit
FACEBOOK INC: Kopecky Sues over Massive Data Exfiltration
FACEBOOK INC: Gullen Appeals N.D. Calif. Ruling to Ninth Circuit
FACEBOOK INC: Appeals Class Cert. Order in "Patel" to 9th Cir.
FARMERS GROUP: Barnes et al. Suit Moved to E.D. Arkansas
FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Batai Appeals Decision in Securities Suit
FFE TRANSPORTATION: "Castillo" Suit Moved to C.D. California
FINANCIAL ENGINES: Rubenstein Balks at Merger Deal with Edelman
FIRMUS MANAGEMENT: Faces "Foxx" Suit in W.D. Texas
FMS INVESTMENT: Corwise Appeals E.D.N.Y. Order to Second Circuit
FORD MOTOR: Fourth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Johnson" Class Suit
FORT ZUMWALT R-II: Eighth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Doe" Suit
FRY'S ELECTRONICS: Violates Disabled Persons Act, DePillars Says
GALFAB ACQUISITIONS: "Kreischer" Suit Seeks OT Pay under FLSA
GANSEVOORT MARKET: Faces "Fischler" Suit in S.D. New York
GEICO GENERAL: Seeks 2nd Cir. Review of Ruling in "Milligan" Suit
GEICO GENERAL: Seeks 11th Circuit Review of Ruling in "Roth" Suit
GEORGE'S INC: Faces "Cook" Suit in W.D. Arkansas
GEORGIA, USA: Boyd Asks Appeals Court to Review Ruling in "Neal"
GLOBAL CREDIT: Court Denies Approval of "Williams" Settlement
GOLD'S GYM: Faces "Bishop" Suit in S.D. New York
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Hansen Appeals D. Oregon Order to 9th Cir.
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Russell Appeals S.D. Cal. Order to 9th Cir.
GUDRUN CORP: Website not Accessible to Blind, Wu Says
GULLIVER'S TAVERN: Seeks 1st Cir. Review of Ruling in "Levi" Suit
HEADWATERS GROUP: "Elkins" Suit Moved to Southern Dist. of Texas
HOMELAND SECURITY: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Order in "Rojas" Suit
HOMESTREET BANK: Fails to Pay OT & Minimum Wages, Parseghian Says
HONEYWELL INT'L: Eleventh Circuit Appeal Filed in "Santiago" Suit
INFINITY INSURANCE: 11th Circuit Appeal Filed in "Hallums" Suit
INTEREXCHANGE INC: Class Notification Plan in "Beltran" Approved
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Faces "Bishop" Suit in S.D. New York
INTERSTATE OIL: Faces "Garner" Suit in California State Court
IQ FORMULATIONS: Debernardis Appeals S.D. Fla. Order to 11th Cir.
JONES MOTOR: Seventh Circuit Appeal Filed in "Daley" Class Suit
KANSAS, USA: Kobach Appeals Ruling in "Fish" Suit to 10th Circuit
KEEFE COMMISSARY: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Reichert" Suit
KING COUNTY, WA: Retroactive Contributions Ruling Upheld
KNORR-BREMSE AG: Kubik Sues over No-Poach Agreements
KNORR-BREMSE AG: Roozemond Sues over No-Poach Agreements
KUSHY PUNCH: Edibles Have Low THC Amount, Lambert Claims
KYANI INC: Seeks 9th Circuit Review of Ruling in "Guo" RICO Suit
LAS VEGAS SANDS: Summary Judgment in Securities Suit Affirmed
LASERSHIP INC: "Reynoso" Suit Moved to E.D. Virginia
LEXINGTON COUNTY, SC: Reinhart Appeals Ruling in "Brown" Suit
LIFEHOUSE HOLDINGS: Violates Residents' Rights, Antoine Says
LLADRO USA: Faces "Wu" Suit in Southern District of New York
LOS ANGELES, CA: Leeds Sues over recycLA Program
LTD FINANCIAL: Weiss and Johnson Sue over Debt Collection
MARINER FINANCE: Pooner Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages under FLSA
MATIAN FIRM: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, "Chavez" Suit Says
MDL 1570: Arrowood Appeals Order in 911 MDL to Second Circuit
MDL 2741: "Young" Suit vs Monsanto Consolidated in N.D. Calif.
MDL 2741: "Adams" Suit vs Monsanto Consolidated in N.D. Calif.
MDL 2741: "Terry" Suit vs Monsanto Consolidated
MDL 2741: "Lovett" Suit vs Monsanto Consolidated in N.D. Calif.
MDL 2742: Balyasny, Luxor Excluded fr. Securities Suit Deal Class
MDL 2836: Law Enforcement's Suit vs Merck Consolidated
MDL 2836: UFCW Local Suit vs Merck Consolidated
MDL 2836: Philadelphia Teachers' Suit vs Merck Consolidated
MDL 2836: Providence Suit vs Merck Consolidated
MDL 2836: Self-Insured Schools' Suit vs Merck Consolidated
MDL 2843: "Williams" Suit vs. Facebook, CA Moved to California
MDL 2843: "O'Hara" Suit vs Facebook, CA Consolidated
MDL 2843: "Skotnicki" Suit vs Facebook, CA Consolidated
MEMPHIS, TN: Doe Appeals W.D. Tennessee Decision to Sixth Circuit
MICHIGAN: Certification of Class & Subclass Sought
MIDLAND FUNDING: Walker Sues over Debt Collection Practices
MIKE ZAFIROVSKI: Chen Appeals Opinion and Judgment in "Lucescu"
MINA GROUP: Fails to Pay Regular & OT Wages, Freeman Says
MITEL NETWORKS: Witmer Balks at Merger Deal with Searchlight
MO'S FISHERMAN: Court Denies Decertification Bid in "Rivera" Suit
MOUNTAIN FARMS: Suarez Seeks Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages under FLSA
MTC FINANCIAL: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Manos" RICO Suit
N.A.R. INC: Lowery Sues over Debt Collections Practices
NATION STAR: Alhassid Appeals S.D. Florida Ruling to 11th Circuit
NATIONAL IMAGING: Mauthe Appeals E.D. Penn. Decision to 3rd Cir.
NATIONAL RECOVERIES: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in "Reizner" Suit
NEST SEEKERS: Faces "Fischler" Suit in S.D. New York
NEW YORK: Court Grants Summary Judgment in "Miller" EPA Suit
NEW YORK, NY: Seeks 2nd Cir. Review of Judgment in "Nnebe" Suit
NEW YORK, NY: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in "Calvo" Class Suit
NEW YORK TEACHERS: Pellegrino & Vanostrand Sue State, Union
NISSAN NORTH: Seeks 7th Circuit Review of Ruling in "Anglin" Suit
NOBLE HOUSE: Court Refuses to Stay "Holt" Suit
OAK RIVER: Wins Summary Judgment in "Shelby" Insurance Suit
OAKLAND MOTOR: Summerall Sues over Illegal Seizure of Vehicles
OGDEN CAP: Website not Accessible to Blind, Olsen Says
PACIFIC AMERICAN FISH: Fails to Pay Timely Wages, Recinos Claims
PENNSYLVANIA HIGHER EDUC: Salvatore Suit Moved to E.D. Pa.
PENNSYLVANIA HIGHER EDUC: "Ford" Suit Moved to E.D. Pennsylvania
PEOPLES HOME: Fails to Pay OT & Minimum Wages, Cardenas Says
PETLAND INC: Eleventh Circuit Appeal Filed in "Cisneros" Suit
PG&E CORPORATION: Weston Alleges Misleading Financial Reports
PHOENIX, AR: Udd Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
PHOENIX FINANCIAL: Spillman Sues over Debt Collection Practices
PICK FIVE: "O'Keefe" Suit Moved to Middle District of Florida
PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Andrews"
PRAXAIR INC: Faces "Garcia" Suit in N.D. California
PREMIER NUTRITION: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Sonner" Suit
PRETIUM RESOURCES: Dismissal of "Martin" Suit Affirmed
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Court OKs Final Approval of $30.3MM Settlement
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Sweeney Appeals Ruling in "Rikos" to 6th Cir.
PROFESSOR GREEN: Yaw Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
PVH CORPORATION: Ramos Sues over Phantom Discounts
RABOBANK N.A.: Villanueva Sues over Continued Overdraft Fee
RAYONIER ADVANCED: Warren Employees Suit Moved M.D. Florida
REPUBLIC SERVICES: "Seay" Suit Moved to C.D. California
RH IMAGE: "Britt" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage and OT under FLSA
RICH PRODUCTS: Eleventh Circuit Appeal Filed in "Ehrlich" Suit
ROBERT HALF: Must Produce Docs for Class List in "Magallon"
ROCKET EXPRESS: Osborn Sues over Wage & Hour Laws Violations
RURAL METRO: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Calleros" Suit
SAJAHTERA INC: Violates Wage and Hour Laws, Martinez Says
SAMUEL I WHITE: Davis Appeals E.D. Virginia Ruling to 4th Circuit
SAN DIEGO, CA: Court Approves $307K Settlement in HRMs' Suit
SANDBOX TRANSPORTATION: Barnes Suit Moved to District of Colorado
SCHOOLSFIRST FEDERAL: Harris Balks at Non-Sufficient Funds Fee
SCOTTRADE INC: Hine Appeals Order and Judgment to Eighth Circuit
SECOND GENERATION: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime, Cruz Says
SEVIER COUNTY, TN: Whitlock Seek Overtime Pay under FLSA
SHERWIN-WILLIAMS: "Arguello" Suit Moved to S.D. of California
SOUTH BAY: Court OKs Minor's Interest in Class Settlement
SOUTHLAKE, TX: Second Court Appeal Filed in "Watson" Class Suit
SOUTHWEST CREDIT: Faces "Miller" Suit in N.D. Illinois
SPECTRANETICS CORP: Tenth Cir. Appeal Filed in "Wiesenfeld" Suit
STAPLES INC: First Circuit Appeal Filed in "Kersey" Class Suit
STATE FARM: Seeks Eighth Circuit Review of Ruling in "Vogt" Suit
SUMMIT HEALTHCARE: "Blackburn" Suit Moved to District of Arizona
SUNFLOWER AMSTERDAM: Faces "Perez" Suit in S.D. New York
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in IUPAT Suit
TARGET CORP: Court Denies Certification in "Faraji"
TELECHECK SERVICES: Sixth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Huff" Suit
TELENAV INC: Class Settlement in "Gergetz" Has Prelim Approval
TITLEMAX OF NEW MEXICO: Seeks 10th Cir. Review of "Romero" Ruling
TOAST INC: Martin Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages under FLSA
TOWN SPORTS: Faces "Bishop" Suit in S.D. New York
TPPJ S. PASADENA: Magrdchian Sues over Unpaid Wages & Meal Breaks
ULTA SALON: Velotta Seeks Overtime Pay under Labor Law
UNITED NATURAL FOODS: Fails to Pay Wages, Cortez Says
UNITED STATES: "Parton" Suit Moved to District of Columbia
UNITED STATES: Seeks 2nd Cir. Review of Decision in "Vidal" Suit
UNITED STATES: Appeals Memo & Order in "Vidal" Suit to 2nd Cir.
UNITED STATES: Appeals Decision in "Chhoeun" Suit to 9th Circuit
UNITED STATES: Asher Appeals Ruling in "Banos" Suit to 9th Cir.
UNIVERSAL TAX: Seventh Circuit Appeal Filed in D&B II Class Suit
UNIVERSAL TOWING: Faces "Macdonald" Suit in Florida Circuit Court
U GYM: Faces "Bishop" Suit in S.D. New York
UDREN LAW OFFICES: Faces "Glover" Suit in Sup. Ct. of Penn.
UNUM GROUP: Pittman Sues over Share Price Drop
US BANK: Bakal Appeals S.D.N.Y. Judgment and Order to 2nd Circuit
USCB AMERICA: Faces "Maharam" Suit in N.D. California
VISION SERVICE: Faces "Wright" Suit in California Superior Court
VITAJUWEL USA: Ashkinazi Sues over Effect of "Gem Water" Product
VITA-MIX CORP: Bennett Appeals Ruling in "Linneman" to 6th Cir.
WALGREENS OF MASSACHSUETTS: Fails to Pay OT, Robbins Claims
WALKERHEALTHCAREIT LLC: Claims in "Bey" FLSA/OMFWSA Suit Narrowed
WASHINGTON, DC: Pendergrass Appeals Decision in "Little" Suit
WAYNE, MI: Woodall, et al. Seek to Certify Classes
WEBLOYALTY.COM INC: Court Narrows Discovery Scope in "Park"
WEINERT ENTERPRISES: Underpays Employees, Anderson Claims
WELCH FOODS: "Hall" Suit Transferred to District of New Jersey
WELLS FARGO: Royal Park Wants to Appeal Denial of Class Cert.
WELLS FARGO: Seeks Ninth Circuit Review of Order in "Ibarra" Suit
WISMETTAC ASIAN: Fails to Pay Wages, Orellana Says
*********
4 RUNNERS INC: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in "Gomez" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Mario Hernandez Gomez and Marina Velasquez filed an
appeal from the District Court's opinion and order adopting
report and recommendation dated April 24, 2018, and judgment
dated April 25, 2018, in their lawsuit styled Gomez, et al. v. 4
Runners, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-cv-8998, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City).
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks to recover alleged unpaid overtime wages, liquidated
damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
The Defendants own, operate, or control a Turkish restaurant
located at 310 W. 14th Street, in New York City, the name
Istanbul Grill.
The appellate case is captioned as Gomez, et al. v. 4 Runners,
Inc., et al., Case No. 18-1581, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Defendants-Appellees Dayakli Azman and Murat Ersen appears pro
se.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants Mario Hernandez Gomez, Individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, and Marina Velasquez,
Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are
represented by:
Shawn Raymond Clark, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
E-mail: sclark@faillacelaw.com
Defendants-Appellees 4 Runners, Inc., DBA Istanbul Grill, and
Erol Doner are represented by:
Gennadiy Naydenskiy, Esq.
NAYDENSKIY LAW GROUP
1517 Voohies Avenue
Brooklyn, NY 11235
Telephone: (718) 808-2224
E-mail: naydenskiylaw@gmail.com
333 FAIRMOUNT: "Bida" Suit Moved to District of New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled, MARTA BIDA, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. 333
FAIRMOUNT CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., et al.; SHUSTER PROPERTY
MANAGEMENT LLC; and Shuster Management LLC, the Defendants, Case
No. HUD-L-001910-18, was removed from the Superior Court of New
Jersey Hudson County, to the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey (Newark) on June 25, 2018. The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-10975 to the proceeding.
Shuster Management is a real estate development company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian Matthew Rader, Esq.
JARDIM MEISNER & SUSSER PC
30b Vreeland Road, Suite 201
Florham Park, NJ 07932
Telephone: (973) 845 7640
E-mail: brian@theraderlawfirm.com
Attorneys for 333 Fairmount Condominium Association, Inc.:
Michael Dolich, Esq.
BENNETT, BRICKLIN & SALTZBERG
1601 Market Street, 16th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 665 3313
E-mail: dolich@bbs-law.com
1560 CHIRP CORP: Faces "De La Cruz" Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 1560 CHIRP CORP.
doing business as: Chirping Chicken. The case is styled as
Orlando Xocua De La Cruz and Pedro Jacinto ArauzBulux and on
behalf of other similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. 1560 CHIRP
CORP. doing business as: Chirping Chicken, 81 STREET CHICKEN
CORP. doing business as: Chirping Chicken, PANATHA CHICKEN LLC
doing business as: Chirping Chicken, 42 CHICKEN LLC doing
business as: Chirping Chicken, BARUCH CHICKEN LLC doing business
as: Chirping Chicken, Demetris Papas, Jimmy Papas, Stylianos
Vourliotis, Rocco Stephen and KalliopyKaralexis also known as:
Kalli, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-05877 (S.D. N.Y., June 28,
2018).
1560 CHIRP CORP. doing business as: Chirping Chicken is a
restaurant in New York.[BN]
The Plaintiffs appear PRO SE.
A+ BUILDING: Court Conditionally Certifies Class in "Perez"
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio, Western Division, granting, with modification, Plaintiffs'
Motion for Conditional Class Certification in the case captioned
Byron Perez, et al., Plaintiffs, v. A+ Building Maintenance and
Home Repair, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:17CV01261 (N.D.
Ohio).
This is an employment action for unpaid wages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Byron Perez and Nicholas Foley accuse
their former employer A+ Building Maintenance and Home Repair,
LLC (A+) of misclassifying them as exempt employees and
withholding overtime wages in violation of state and federal fair
wage laws. Further, they allege upon information and belief that
the defendants applied the same pay practices and policies to
their co-workers.
Perez and Foley move to certify a class of all current and former
service technicians, general laborers, or other employees of
Defendants who performed general labor and worked over 40 hours
in any workweek, beginning three years immediately preceding the
filing of the Complaint in the present action.
Employee Handbook and Paystubs
The A+ employee handbook declares that only employees whose
positions meet the specific criteria established by the Fair
Labor Standards Act are exempt from overtime pay requirements, a
statement the plaintiffs concede appears facially compliant with
the Act.
An FLSA exemption for a salaried employee is not lost if the
exempt employee, who is guaranteed a predetermined weekly pay of
at least $455, also receives compensation based on hours worked
beyond the normal workweek, including compensation on a straight-
time hourly basis. And according to Havens' paystubs, the
defendants did, at times, pay him additional compensation for
performing additional work or extra tasks, such as snow removal
during winter months.
Because neither the employee handbook, nor Havens' paystubs
establish a colorable basis to believe that the plaintiffs and
other employees were similarly situated and suffered from a
common policy that violated the FLSA, the Court disregards this
evidence in determining whether to grant the plaintiffs' motion
for conditional certification.
Employee Declarations
As for the employee declarations, the defendants urge the Court
to disregard this evidence as well, because they include only
vague and generalized references regarding the pay policies the
defendants applied to other A+ employees.
Even if the Court agrees that these prospective class members
fall short in demonstrating personal knowledge of their co-
workers' wages and hours, Perez and Foley are not relying on a
single employee's experience to prove that other A+ employees
have been subject to similar FLSA violations. They are relying on
the experiences of three different employees: Perez, Foley, and
Havens. Each indisputably has personal knowledge of his own wages
and hours, even if he cannot speak for others.
Thus, while the Defendants spend much of their time arguing that
the statements from the putative class members do not establish
violations for other employees, their testimony as to their own
experiences would likely be sufficient to grant conditional
certification and send notice to members of the class who were
subject to the same unwritten policies.
The O'Brien Factors
First among the O'Brien (O'Brien v. Ed Donnelly Enters., Inc.,
575 F.3d 567, 584 (6th Cir. 2009)) factors is the factual and
employment settings of the individual plaintiffs.
Perez and Foley estimate that the proposed class will include
approximately 35 to 50 similarly situated individuals with
potential overtime claims against the defendants. The Defendants
place the number lower, estimating a class of 12 to 36 current or
former employees.
Still, even if the defendants are correct, certification of a
small putative class satisfies the policy behind FLSA collective
actions and Congress's remedial intent by consolidating many
small, related claims of employees for which proceeding
individually would be too costly to be practical.
Objections to Disclosure of Putative Class Members
Lastly, the defendants mount a vague objection to the
overreaching breadth of the information sought by the Plaintiffs
regarding the potential class members. Carpenter and A + insist
all that is necessary for purposes of the issuance of such notice
is the necessary contact information, including the names of the
class employees and former employees, their last known addresses
email addresses, and, possibly, dates of employment.
Yet this, however, is all the plaintiffs' request: a list of all
potential class members including their names, positions of
employment, last-known mailing addresses, last-known telephone
numbers, email addresses, work locations, and dates of
employment. Insofar as the defendants object to disclosing
positions of employment or work locations, they do not explain
how such disclosures would impose an unreasonable burden.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional class
certification pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) is granted as
modified.
The following class is conditionally certified:
Any current and former service technicians, general
laborers, or other employees of Defendants who responded to
service calls, and performed miscellaneous general labor for
residential and commercial buildings including installing
appliances, plumbing, remodeling, performing landscaping work and
electrical maintenance, and worked over forty hours in any
workweek from June 15, 2014 through the present.
A full-text copy of the District Court's April 30, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yde5vj89 from Leagle.com.
Bryon Perez, On behalf of himself and other members of the
general public similarly situated & Nick Foley, On behalf of
himself and other members of the general public similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Daniel I. Bryant --
dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com -- Matthew B. Bryant --
Mbryant@bryantlegalllc.com -- Molly K. Tefend --
mtefend@barkanmeizlish.com -- Barkan Meizlish Handelman Goodin
DeRose Wentz, Robert E. DeRose, II -- bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
-- Barkan Meizlish Handelman Goodin DeRose Wentz & Robi J.
Baishnab -- rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com -- Barkan Meizlish
Handelman Goodin DeRose Wentz.
A+ Building Maintenance and Home Repair, LLC & Nick Carpenter,
individually, Defendants, represented by J. Mark Trimble --
mtrimble@rcmtz.com -- Rohrbachers Cron Manahan Trimble Zimmerman,
Russell R. Miller, Sr. -- rmiller@rcmtz.com -- Rohrbachers Cron
Manahan Trimble Zimmerman, Stephen E. House -- shouse@rcmtz.com -
- Rohrbachers Cron Manahan Trimble Zimmerman & Tracy B. Selis
tselis@rcmtz.com, Rohrbachers Cron Manahan Trimble Zimmerman.
ABM INDUSTRIES: "Wade" Suit Transferred to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Larry Wade, individually and on
behalf of similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. ABM
Industries Incorporated, a Delaware corporation, Case No. 1:18-
cv-02940, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California (Western Division - Los Angeles)
on June 14, 2018. The Central District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 2:18-cv-05256-CAS-JEM to the proceeding. The case is assigned
to the Hon. Judge Christina A. Snyder.
ABM Industries is a facility management provider in the United
States. ABM was founded in 1909 by Morris Rosenberg in San
Francisco, CA as a single-person window washing business.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Louis Gerbie, Esq.
Jad Sheikali, Esq.
MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
55 W. Wacker, 9th Floor
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 893 7002
E-mail: dgerbie@mcgpc.com
jsheikali@mcgpc.com
The Defendant is represented by:
George James Tzanetopoulos, Esq.
Michael Thomas Werner, Esq.
Paul G Karlsgodt, Esq.
BAKER and HOSTETLER LLP
191 North Wacker Drive, No. 3100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 416 6200
E-mail: gtzanetopoulos@bakerlaw.com
mwerner@bakerlaw.com
pkarlsgodt@bakerlaw.com
ABSOLUTE RESOLUTIONS: 7th Cir. Appeal Filed in "Rodriguez" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Misael Rodriguez filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit titled Misael Rodriguez v. Absolute Resolutions
Corp., et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-02391, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
The nature of suit is stated as consumer credit.
The appellate case is captioned as Misael Rodriguez v. Absolute
Resolutions Corp., et al., Case No. 18-1967, in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that the
Appellant's brief was due on or before June 11, 2018, for Misael
Rodriguez.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant MISAEL RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Celetha Chatman, Esq.
COMMUNITY LAWYERS GROUP, LTD.
73 W. Monroe Street
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 757-1880
Facsimile: (312) 476-1362
E-mail: cchatman@communitylawyersgroup.com
Defendants-Appellees ABSOLUTE RESOLUTIONS CORP. and RAZOR
CAPITAL, LLC, are represented by:
Dara Chevlin Tarkowski, Esq.
ACTUATE LAW LLC
901 W. Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60607
Telephone: (312) 579-3135
E-mail: dara.tarkowski@actuatelaw.com
Defendant-Appellee ALLTRAN FINANCIAL, LP, is represented by:
Austin Gordon Rahe, Esq.
ROCK FUSCO & CONNELLY, LLC
321 N. Clark Street
Chicago, IL 60654-4614
Telephone: (312) 494-1000
E-mail: arahe@rfclaw.com
ACCOUNT DISCOVERY: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Pavlovich" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Juan Pavlovich filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit entitled Juan Pavlovich v. Account Discovery Systems,
LLC, et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-00412-AJB-KSC, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California, San Diego.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks to stop the Defendant's alleged unfair and unconscionable
means to collect a debt.
The Defendants operate a collection agency based in Amherst, New
York.
The appellate case is captioned as Juan Pavlovich v. Account
Discovery Systems, LLC, et al., Case No. 18-55579, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Transcript must be ordered by May 30, 2018;
-- Transcript was due on June 29, 2018;
-- Appellant Juan Pavlovich's opening brief is due on
August 8, 2018;
-- Appellees Account Discovery Systems, LLC and DNF
Associates, LLC's answering brief is due on September 7,
2018; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
service of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant JUAN PAVLOVICH, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Jared M. Hartman, Esq.
SEMNAR & HARTMAN, LLP
41707 Winchester Road, Suite 201
Temecula, CA 92590
Telephone: (619) 500-4187
E-mail: jared@sandiegoconsumerattorneys.com
- and -
Asil Mashiri, Esq.
MASHIRI LAW FIRM, APC
11251 Rancho Carmel Drive
San Diego, CA 92150
Telephone: (858) 348-4938
Facsimile: (858) 348-4939
E-mail: alexmashiri@yahoo.com
Defendants-Appellees ACCOUNT DISCOVERY SYSTEMS, LLC, and DNF
ASSOCIATES, LLC, are represented by:
Brendan H. Little, Esq.
LIPPES MATHIAS WEXLER FRIEDMAN LLP
665 Main St., Suite 300
Buffalo, NY 14203
Telephone: (716) 853-5100
E-mail: blittle@lippes.com
AKORN INC: Frank Appeals Ruling in "Alcarez" Suit to 7th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Intervenor Theodore H. Frank filed an appeal from a court ruling
in the lawsuit titled Jorge Alcarez v. Akorn, Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:17-cv-05017, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
alleges that the Defendants issued materially deficient and
misleading preliminary proxy statement on a Schedule 14A in
relation to an attempt to sell the Company to Fresenius Kabi AG.
The case avers that the proxy statement is materially deficient
and misleading because, inter alia, it fails to disclose material
information regarding the Company's financial projections; GAAP
reconciliation of the non-GAAP financial measures contained in
the Company's projections, which were prepared by Company
management and relied upon by J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, the
Company's financial advisor; the financial analysis performed by
J.P. Morgan to support its opinion on the fairness of the
Proposed Transaction and the background of the Proposed
Transaction.
The appellate case is captioned as Jorge Alcarez v. Akorn, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 18-2220, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Transcript information sheet was due by June 15, 2018; and
-- Appellant's brief is due on or before July 11, 2018, for
Theodore H. Frank.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee JORGE ALCAREZ, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Eric J. O'Bell, Esq.
O'BELL LAW FIRM, LLC
3500 N. Hullen Street
Metarie, LA 70002-0000
Telephone: (504) 456-8600
E-mail: EJO@OBellLawFirm.com
Defendants-Appellees AKORN, INC., KENNETH S. ABRAMOWITZ, ADRIENNE
L. GRAVES, RONALD M. JOHNSON and JOHN N. KAPOOR are represented
by:
Alexander Breckinridge, V, Esq.
JONES WALKER LLP
201 St. Charles Avenue
New Orleans, LA 70170-0000
Telephone: (504) 582-8138
E-mail: abreckinridge@joneswalker.com
Intervenor-Appellant THEODORE H. FRANK is represented by:
M. Frank Bednarz, Esq.
COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE CENTER FOR
CLASS ACTION FAIRNESS
1145 E. Hyde Park Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60615
Telephone: (202) 448-8742
E-mail: frank.bednarz@cei.org
AKORN INC: Frank Seeks 7th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Harris" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Intervenor Theodore H. Frank filed an appeal from a court ruling
in the lawsuit titled Sean Harris v. Akorn, Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:17-cv-05021, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Company
entered into on April 24, 2017, an Agreement and Plan of Merger
with Fresenius Kabi AG, a German stock corporation ("Parent"),
Quercus Acquisition, Inc., a Louisiana corporation and wholly
owned subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Sub") and, solely for
purposes of Article VIII thereof, Fresenius SE & Co. KGaA, a
German partnership limited by shares. The Merger Agreement,
which has been adopted by the Board of Directors of the Company,
provides for the merger of Merger Sub with and into the Company
(the "Merger"), with the Company surviving the Merger as a wholly
owned subsidiary of Parent.
The Harris Action and other similar lawsuits alleged that the
Company's preliminary proxy statement, filed with the SEC on May
22, 2017, relating to the merger transaction, omits material
information with respect to the merger, rendering it false and
misleading and thus that the Company and the directors of the
Company violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act as well as SEC
Rule 14a-9. The Actions further alleged that the directors of
the Company violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
The appellate case is captioned as Sean Harris v. Akorn, Inc., et
al., Case No. 18-2221, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Transcript information sheet was due by June 15, 2018; and
-- Appellant's brief is due on or before July 11, 2018, for
Theodore H. Frank.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee SEAN HARRIS, On behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
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
Defendants-Appellees AKORN, INC., JOHN N. KAPOOR, RONALD M.
JOHNSON, KENNETH S. ABRAMOWITZ and ADRIENNE L. GRAVES are
represented by:
Alexander Breckinridge, V, Esq.
JONES WALKER LLP
201 St. Charles Avenue
New Orleans, LA 70170-0000
Telephone: (504) 582-8138
E-mail: abreckinridge@joneswalker.com
Intervenor-Appellant THEODORE H. FRANK is represented by:
M. Frank Bednarz, Esq.
COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE CENTER FOR
CLASS ACTION FAIRNESS
1145 E. Hyde Park Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60615
Telephone: (202) 448-8742
E-mail: frank.bednarz@cei.org
ALLEGHENY, PA: Yates Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM YATES, on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated
employees, the Plaintiffs, v. ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00831-DSC (W.D. Pa., June 21, 2018),
seeks to recover damages for non-payment wages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act,
and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant did not guarantee a
minimum number of hours that Plaintiff would be paid each week.
He was paid strictly on an hourly basis for hours worked. If
Plaintiff worked fewer hours than his normal work week of 40
hours, and did not have compensatory time or Paid Time Off (PTO)
for payment of the hours not worked, he would be paid only for
hours actually worked pursuant to Defendant's stated policy. The
Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of 40 hours a week. The
Plaintiff was paid no overtime compensation for hours worked over
40 in the pay for the week in which they were worked.
Allegheny County is a county in the southwest of the U.S. state
of Pennsylvania. As of 2016 the population was 1,225,365, making
it the state's second-most populous county, following
Philadelphia County. The county seat is Pittsburgh.[BN]
Counsel for Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated:
Joseph E. Fieschko, Jr., Esq.
JOSEPH E. FIESCHKO, JR. & ASSOC.
2230 Koppers Building
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Telephone: (412) 281 2204
Facsimile: (412) 338 9169
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Mejia Seeks to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled EVELYN MEJIA, on behalf of herself and
other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN
EXPRESS TRAVEL RELATED SERVICES COMPANY, INC., the Defendant,
Case No. 2:18-cv-03415-JCZ-JVM (E.D. La.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court for an order granting the motion for class certification.
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=SrrBpctM
Attorneys for Plaintiff:
Roberto Luis Costales, Esq.
William H. Beaumont, Esq.
Jonathan Mille Kirkland, Esq.
BEAUMONT COSTALES LLC
3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
New Orleans, LA 70119
Telephone: (504) 534 5005
Facsimile: (504) 272 2956
E-mail: jmk@beaumontcostales.com
ANN INC: Sweeney Appeals Ruling in "Morrow" Suit to 2nd Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pamela A. Sweeney filed an appeal from a District Court order
entered on April 25, 2018, in the lawsuit styled Siobhan Morrow
and Ashley Gennock, et al. v. Ann Inc., et al., Case No. 16-cv-
3340, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York (New York City).
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, fashion
retailer Ann Taylor has settled the false discounting class
action alleging that prices at its outlet stores were listed as
"marked down" from prices that never applied to the items. The
Plaintiffs claim they were misled into believing they were
getting a large discount, and would not have made the purchase if
they knew the items were not heavily discounted.
The settlement has received preliminary approval from District
Judge Paul Oetken, and provides both monetary and injunctive
relief to a class of more than a million consumers, who purchased
one or more items between May 5, 2012, and May 4, 2016, from Ann
Taylor Factory and LOFT Outlet stores.
The appellate case is captioned as Morrow v. Ascena Retail Group,
Inc., Case No. 18-1549, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit.
Appellant Pamela A. Sweeney, of Madison, Wisconsin, appears pro
se.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees Ashley Gennock, On behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, and Siobhan Morrow, On behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
SCOTT & SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
The Helmsley Building
230 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 223-6444
E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com
Defendant-Appellee Ann, Inc., A Delaware Corporation, is
represented by:
Gregory T. Parks, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
1701 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 963-5170
E-mail: gparks@morganlewis.com
AQUA BEST: Anzures Seeks Unpaid Minimum & OT under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------
JUAN PABLO BARRETO ANZURES, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AQUA BEST, INC. (D/B/A AQUA
BEST, INC.), ZEE YING CHAN WONG, STEVEN WONG, FREEMAN D. WONG,
and DENIS DOE, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-05753 (S.D.N.Y.,
June 25, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime
wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for Defendants
in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage,
overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that he
worked. Rather, Defendants failed to maintain accurate record-
keeping of the hours worked, failed to pay Plaintiff
appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate
of pay or for any additional overtime premium. Further, the
Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff the required "spread of hours"
pay for any day in which he had to work over 10 hours a day.
Furthermore, Defendants repeatedly failed to pay Plaintiff wages
on a timely basis. The Defendants employed and accounted for
Plaintiff as a delivery worker in their payroll, but in actuality
his duties required a significant amount of time spent performing
the alleged nontipped duties.[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
ARAKELIAN ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Wages, Ramos Says
-----------------------------------------------------
AURELIO JUAREZ RAMOS, as an individual and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ARAKELIAN ENTERPRISES, INC.
DBA Athens Services, a California corporation, and DOES 1-50,
inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC710736 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
June 21, 2018), alleges that Defendant violated California law by
preventing Class Members from taking their entitled rest breaks,
meal breaks, accurate itemized wage statements, wages upon
termination, and waiting time penalties upon termination,
pursuant to the California Labor Code.
Arakelian Enterprises operates as an environmental services
company that provides waste collection and recycling services for
municipalities, businesses, and consumers in Southern
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Armond M. Jackson, Esq.
JACKSON LAW, APC
2 Venture Plaza, Ste. 240
Irvine, CA 92618
Telephone: (949) 281 6857
Facsimile: (949) 777 6218
AUDIBLE INC: Seeks Ninth Circuit Review of Ruling in "McKee" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Audible, Inc., filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit entitled Grant McKee, et al. v. Audible, Inc., Case
No. 2:17-cv-01941-GW-E, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Los Angeles.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York (Foley Square) on Dec. 15, 2017. The New
York District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-09838-AJN to
the proceeding.
The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit on behalf of a proposed Class
of consumers who find themselves trapped in a shell game created
by the online audiobook seller Audible, and its parent company
Amazon. When he and other consumers signed up for an audiobook
purchasing plan with Audible, styled a "membership," Mr. McKee
and other consumers relied on Defendants' representations and
believed that, on a monthly or annual basis, they would purchase
a certain number of prepaid "credits" that could be redeemed with
Audible for an equivalent number of audiobooks. The Plaintiff
and these consumers also believed Defendants' representations
that "one credit equals one audiobook," that audiobook credits
would "never expire," and that a member can cancel any time with
"no strings attached." But the Defendants' advertisements
represent almost the exact opposite of how Audible membership
plans really work.
The appellate case is captioned as Grant McKee, et al. v.
Audible, Inc., Case No. 18-55595, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees GRANT MCKEE, TAYLOR FISSE, BRYAN REES, ERIC
WEBER and MICHAEL ROGAWSKI, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, are represented by:
Jamin S. Soderstrom, Esq.
SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
1888 Century Park East
Los Angeles, CA 90067-1725
Telephone: (310) 712-6646
E-mail: jamin@soderstromlawfirm.com
Defendant-Appellant AUDIBLE INC. is represented by:
Matthew Becker, Esq.
Annasara Purcell, Esq.
FENWICK & WEST LLP
801 California Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
Telephone: (650) 335-7930
E-mail: mbecker@fenwick.com
apurcell@fenwick.com
- and -
Armen Nercess Nercessian, Esq.
Jedediah Wakefield, Esq.
FENWICK & WEST LLP
555 California Street
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 875-2300
E-mail: anercessian@fenwick.com
jwakefield@fenwick.com
BANK OF AMERICA: Underpays Mortgage Loan Officers, Tripes Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
TRACI TRIPES on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA, NA, the Defendant,
Case No. 3:18-cv-01250-BEN-RBB (S.D. Cal., June 12, 2018),
asserts claims against Bank of America, N.A. for failing to
compensate mortgage loan officers, mortgage loan associates,
lending officers, lending associates, or others in similar
positions in compliance with the California Labor Code.
Specifically, Bank of America allegedly failed to pay for rest
breaks, provide rest breaks, pay for missed breaks, provide
accurate wage statements and pay wages related to the missed
breaks in final wages owed to former employees.
Bank of America Corporation is an American multinational
financial services company headquartered in Charlotte, North
Carolina. It is ranked 2nd on the list of largest banks in the
United States by assets.[BN]
Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class:
Alisa A. Martin, Esq.
AMARTIN LAW
600 West Broadway, Suite 700
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 308 6880
Facsimile: (619) 308 6881
- and -
Sandra Brennan, Esq.
Lindsay C. David, Esq.
BRENNAN & DAVID LAW GROUP
2888 Loker Avenue East, Suite 302
Carlsbad, CA 92010
Telephone: (760) 730 9408
Facsimile: (760) 888 3575
BEST BUY: Herron Appeals E.D. California Ruling to Ninth Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Chad Herron filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit styled Chad Herron v. Best Buy Stores, LP, Case No. 2:12-
cv-02103-TLN-CKD, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California, Sacramento.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, in or about
January 2010, Plaintiff Chad Herron bought a new Toshiba
Satellite L505 from Best Buy after he was induced on the
representation that the battery life of such model was up to 3.32
hours. However, the Plaintiff never once achieved even close to
the represented 3.32 hours if battery life. The Plaintiff
alleged that the Defendant violated the under California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act or CLRA and under the "unlawfulness"
portion of California's Unfair Competition Law or UCL that is
premised upon the CLRA claim.
The appellate case is captioned as Chad Herron v. Best Buy
Stores, LP, Case No. 18-80056, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Petitioner CHAD HERRON, individually, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Gene Joseph Stonebarger, Esq.
Richard D. Lambert, Esq.
STONEBARGER LAW
75 Iron Point Circle, Suite 145
Folsom, CA 95630
Telephone: (916) 235-7140
Facsimile: (916) 235-7141
E-mail: gstonebarger@stonebargerlaw.com
rlambert@stonebargerlaw.com
- and -
Niall McCarthy, Esq.
Anne Marie Murphy, Esq.
COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP
840 Malcolm Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Telephone: (650) 697-6000
E-mail: nmccarthy@cpmlegal.com
amurphy@cpmlegal.com
Defendant-Respondent BEST BUY STORES, LP, is represented by:
Jill Sharon Casselman, Esq.
Michael A. Geibelson, Esq.
ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
800 Lasalle Avenue, Suite 2800
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 349-0824
E-mail: jscasselman@rkmc.com
mageibelson@rkmc.com
BIG TREE HOMES: Ames Sues over Unsafe and Unsanitary Housing
------------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA AMES, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. SARGON ISAAC, individually
and d/b/a "SI Properties" and/or "Simla Properties," and BIG TREE
HOMES, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 2018-CH-07811 (Ill. Cir.
Ct., Cook Cty., June 21, 2018), seeks to stop Sargon Isaac's
racism, and compel him to provide to his tenants the equitable,
safe, and sanitary housing required by the law.
According to the complaint, Sargon Isaac is a slumlord with an
empire of crumbling properties across Chicago and Evanston. He
rents damaged houses and apartments which are barely habitable,
if at all. Most, if not all, of his properties have infestations,
mold problems, water damage, and/or sewage leaks. He doesn't fix
those problems, though -- instead, he simply demands rent. And if
his tenants withhold rent based on the conditions in the
apartment, or complain repeatedly about those conditions, Sargon
evicts them. He's filed dozens of evictions in the last 18
months, representing himself in most of them. But Sargon is more
than a slumlord. Sargon doesn't return security deposits, doesn't
pay security deposit interest, and on move-out charges tenants to
fix problems which existed when they moved in. But he will repair
the problems in the units of his white tenants. He will work with
his white tenants if they fall behind on rent. But if the tenant
is a person of color, Sargon harasses them, refusing to make
repairs and charging hundreds of dollars for the few repairs he
does make.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sheryl Ring, Esq.
OPEN COMMUNITIES LEGAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
990 Grove Street, Suite 500
Evanston, IL 60201
Telephone: (847) 501 5760
E-mail: sheryl@open-communities.org
BIOGEN INC: Metzler Asset Appeals D. Mass. Ruling to 1st Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Metzler Asset Management GmbH and Erste-Sparinvest
Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH filed an appeal from a court ruling
in the lawsuit titled Metzler Asset Mgmt., et al. v. Kingsley, et
al., Case No. 1:16-cv-12101-FDS, in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts, Boston.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case is
a putative class action involving alleged violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Electrical Workers Pension
Fund, Local 103, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
brought suit, on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons,
against Biogen, Inc., and two Biogen employees. The complaint
contends that class members were harmed when they purchased
Biogen securities at prices that were artificially inflated by
the company's false and misleading statements about its products.
The action raises issues similar to those raised in In re Biogen
Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 1:15-cv-13189 (D. Mass.).
The appellate case is captioned as Metzler Asset Mgmt., et al. v.
Kingsley, et al., Case No. 18-1369, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants METZLER ASSET MANAGEMENT GMBH, on behalf of
itself and all other similarly situated parties, and
ERSTE-SPARINVEST KAPITALANLAGEGESELLSCHAFT MBH are represented
by:
Garrett James Bradley, Esq.
THORNTON LAW FIRM LLP
100 Summer St., 30th Floor
Boston, MA 02110-0000
Telephone: (617) 720-1333
Facsimile: (617) 720-2445
E-mail: gbradley@tenlaw.com
- and -
Jonathan Gardner, Esq.
LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005-1108
Telephone: (212) 907-0700
E-mail: jgardner@labaton.com
- and -
Gregg S. Levin, Esq.
Christopher F. Moriarty, Esq.
MOTLEY RICE LLC
28 Bridgeside Blvd.
Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464-0000
Facsimile: (843) 216-9512
E-mail: glevin@motleyrice.com
cmoriarty@motleyrice.com
- and -
William H. Narwold, Esq.
Motley Rice LLC
20 Church St., 17th Floor
Hartford, CT 06103-0000
Telephone: (860) 882-1676
Facsimile: (860) 882-1682
E-mail: bnarwold@motleyrice.com
- and -
Samuel Howard Rudman, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
58 S Service Rd., Suite 200
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: (631) 367-7100
Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
Defendants-Appellees STUART A. KINGSLEY, GEORGE A. SCANGOS, PAUL
J. CLANCY and BIOGEN, INC., are represented by:
James R. Carroll, Esq.
Michael S. Hines, Esq.
Sara J. van Vliet, Esq.
SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
500 Boylston St., 23rd Floor
Boston, MA 02116-0000
Telephone: (617) 573-4800
E-mail: james.carroll@skadden.com
michael.hines@skadden.com
sara.vanvliet@skadden.com
Interested Party CITY OF MIAMI FIRE FIGHTERS' AND POLICE
OFFICERS' RETIREMENT TRUST is represented by:
Theodore Michael Hess-Mahan, Esq.
HUTCHINGS BARSAMIAN MANDELCORN & ZEYTOONIAN LLP
110 Cedar St., Suite 250
Wellesely Hills, MA 02481-0000
Telephone: (781) 431-2231
Facsimile: (781) 431-8726
E-mail: thess-mahan@hutchingsbarsamian.com
- and -
Samuel Howard Rudman, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
58 S Service Rd., Suite 200
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: (631) 367-7100
Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
Interested Parties FRANKFURT-TRUST INVESTMENT GMBH and FRANKFURT-
TRUST INVESTMENT LUXEMBURG AG are represented by:
Guillaume Buell, Esq.
Jonathan Gardner, Esq.
Francis P. McConville, Esq.
LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005-1108
Telephone: (212) 907-0700
E-mail: gbuell@labaton.com
jgardner@labaton.com
fmcconville@labaton.com
- and -
Joshua Louis Solomon, Esq.
POLLACK SOLOMON DUFFY LLP
101 Huntington Ave., Suite 530
Boston, MA 02199
Telephone: (617) 439-9800
E-mail: jsolomon@psdfirm.com
BIOGEN INC: Seeks 1st Cir. Review of Ruling in Metzler Asset Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Biogen, Inc., Paul J. Clancy, Stuart A. Kingsley and
George A. Scangos filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Metzler Asset Mgmt., et al. v. Kingsley, et al.,
Case No. 1:16-cv-12101-FDS, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, Boston.
The appellate case is captioned as Metzler Asset Mgmt., et al. v.
Kingsley, et al., Case No. 18-1472, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 25,
2018, Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV, granted the Defendants' motion
to dismiss the case.
The lawsuit is a putative class action involving alleged
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Lead
Plaintiffs Metzler Asset Management GmbH and Erste-Sparinvest
Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH have brought suit, on behalf of a
class of similarly situated persons, against biopharmaceutical
company Biogen and three Biogen executives. The Plaintiffs
contend that the class members were harmed when they purchased
Biogen's common stock at prices that were artificially inflated
by the Company's materially misleading statements and omissions
about Tecfidera, its leading multiple sclerosis drug.
The amended complaint relies heavily on statements by 17 former
Biogen employees acting as confidential witnesses. The amended
complaint alleges that the Defendants withheld material
information about Tecfidera's safety profile and declining
Tecfidera sales, and made misleading positive statements about
future revenue. It further asserts that several Biogen
executives made 31 materially false misrepresentations and
omissions during various earnings calls and conferences over a
one-year period between July 23, 2014, and July 23, 2015.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees METZLER ASSET MANAGEMENT GMBH, on behalf of
itself and all other similarly situated parties, and ERSTE-
SPARINVEST KAPITALANLAGEGESELLSCHAFT MBH, on behalf of itself and
all other similarly situated parties, are represented by:
Garrett James Bradley, Esq.
THORNTON LAW FIRM LLP
100 Summer St., 30th Floor
Boston, MA 02110-0000
Telephone: (617) 720-1333
E-mail: gbradley@tenlaw.com
- and -
Jonathan Gardner, Esq.
LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005-1108
Telephone: (212) 907-0700
E-mail: jgardner@labaton.com
- and -
Gregg S. Levin, Esq.
Christopher F. Moriarty, Esq.
William H. Narwold, Esq.
MOTLEY RICE LLC
28 Bridgeside Blvd.
Mount Pleasant, SC 29464-0000
Telephone: (843) 216-9512
E-mail: glevin@motleyrice.com
cmoriarty@motleyrice.com
bnarwold@motleyrice.com
- and -
Samuel Howard Rudman, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
58 S Service Rd., Suite 200
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: (631) 367-7100
E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
Defendants-Appellants STUART A. KINGSLEY, GEORGE A. SCANGOS, PAUL
J. CLANCY and BIOGEN, INC., are represented by:
James R. Carroll, Esq.
Michael S. Hines, Esq.
Sara J. van Vliet, Esq.
SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
500 Boylston St., 23rd Floor
Boston, MA 02116-0000
Telephone: (617) 573-4800
E-mail: james.carroll@skadden.com
michael.hines@skadden.com
sara.vanvliet@skadden.com
Interested Party CITY OF MIAMI FIRE FIGHTERS' AND POLICE
OFFICERS' RETIREMENT TRUST is represented by:
Theodore Michael Hess-Mahan, Esq.
HUTCHINGS BARSAMIAN MANDELCORN LLP
110 Cedar Street, Suite 250
Wellesely Hills, MA 02481-0000
Telephone: (781) 431-2231
E-mail: thess-mahan@hutchingsbarsamian.com
- and -
Samuel Howard Rudman, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
58 S Service Rd., Suite 200
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: (631) 367-7100
E-mail: SRudman@rgrdlaw.com
Interested Parties FRANKFURT-TRUST INVESTMENT GMBH and FRANKFURT-
TRUST INVESTMENT LUXEMBURG AG are represented by:
Guillaume Buell, Esq.
Jonathan Gardner, Esq.
Francis P. McConville, Esq.
LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005-1108
Telephone: (212) 907-0700
E-mail: gbuell@labaton.com
jgardner@labaton.com
fmcconville@labaton.com
- and -
Joshua Louis Solomon, Esq.
POLLACK SOLOMON DUFFY LLP
101 Huntington Ave., Suite 530
Boston, MA 02199
Telephone: (617) 439-9800
E-mail: jsolomon@psdfirm.com
BUFFALO, NY: Faces "Black Love Resists" Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against City of Buffalo,
N.Y. The case is styled as Black Love Resists in the Rust by and
through its Co-Directors Natasha Soto and Shaketa Redden and on
behalf of its members agent of Just Resisting, Dorethea Franklin,
Taniqua Simmons, De'Jon Hall and Jane Doe, individually and on
behalf of a class of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
City of Buffalo, N.Y., Byron B Brown Mayor of the City of
Buffalo, in his individual and official capacities, Byron C
Lockwood Commissioner of the Buffalo Police Department, in his
individual capacity, Daniel Derenda former Commissioner of the
Buffalo Police Department, in his individual capacity, Aaron
Young officer of the Buffalo Police Department, in his individual
capacity, Kevin Brinkworth, Philip Serafini officer of the
Buffalo Police Department, in his individual capacity, Robbin
Thomas officer of the Buffalo Police Department, in his
individual capacity, Unknown Supervisory Personnel 1-10 officers
of the Buffalo Police Department, in their individual capacities
and Unknown Officers 1-20 officers of the Buffalo Police
Department, in their individual capacities, Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-00719-CCR (S.D. N.Y., June 28, 2018).
Buffalo is a city on the shores of Lake Erie in upstate New York.
Its fine neoclassical, beaux arts and art deco architecture
speaks to its history as an industrial capital in the early 20th
century. Its landmarks include the 398-ft art deco City Hall, the
Frank Lloyd Wright-designed Darwin D. Martin House and the
Albright-Knox Art Gallery, a Greek Revival museum with works by
Picasso and Warhol.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Anjana Malhotra, Esq.
Center for Constitutional Rights
666 Broadway Floor 7
New York, NY 10012
- and -
Baher Azmy, Esq.
Center for Constitutional Rights
666 Broadway Floor 7
New York, NY 10012
- and -
Britney Wilson, Esq.
Center for Constitutional Rights
666 Broadway Floor 7
New York, NY 10012
- and -
Claudia Wilner, Esq.
National Center for Law and Economic Justice
275 7th Avenue, Suite 1506
New York, NY 10001
- and -
Darius Charney, Esq.
Center for Constitutional Rights
666 Broadway Floor 7
New York, NY 10012
- and -
Edward Krugman, Esq.
National Center for Law and Economic Justice
275 7th Avenue, Suite 1506
New York, NY 10001
- and -
Joseph Keleman, Esq.
Western New York Law Center
237 Main Street, Suite 1130
Buffalo, NY 14203
- and -
Keisha Alecia Williams, Esq.
Western New York Law Center, Inc.
37 Franklin Street
2nd Floor
Buffalo, NY 14203
Tel: (716) 855-0203
Fax: (716) 270-4005
Email: kwilliams@wnylc.com
- and -
Marc Cohan, Esq.
National Center for Law and Economic Justice
275 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1506
New York, NY 10001
Tel: (212) 633-6967
Fax: (212) 633-6371
Email: cohan@nclej.org
- and -
Theresa Lau, Esq.
National Center for Law and Economic Justice
275 7th Avenue, Suite 1506
New York, NY 10001
- and -
Travis W. England, Esq.
National Center for Law and Economic Justice
275 7th Avenue, Suite 1506
New York, NY 10001
BUFFALO WILD: Meeks Appeals N.D. Calif. Ruling to Ninth Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Marche Meeks filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Marche Meeks v. Buffalo Wild Wings, Inc., et
al., Case No. 4:17-cv-07129-YGR, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, Oakland.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California (Western Division - Los Angeles)
on April 4, 2018. The Central District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 2:18-cv-02673-PA-AS to the proceeding. The case is assigned
to the Hon. Judge Percy Anderson.
Buffalo Wild Wings is an American casual dining restaurant and
sports bar franchise in the United States, Canada, Mexico, the
Philippines, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Oman, and
India, which specializes in Buffalo wings and sauces.
The appellate case is captioned as Marche Meeks v. Buffalo Wild
Wings, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-15768, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Transcript must be ordered by May 29, 2018;
-- Transcript was due on June 26, 2018;
-- Appellant Marche Meeks' opening brief is due on August 6,
2018;
-- Appellees Blazin Wings, Inc., Buffalo Wild Wings, Inc.,
Nowait, Inc., Wingmen V, LLC and Yelp Inc.'s answering
brief is due on September 6, 2018; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
service of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant MARCHE MEEKS, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, is represented by:
Justin Kachadoorian, Esq.
ORSHANSKY & YEREMIAN LLP
16133 Ventura Blvd.
Encino, CA 91436
Telephone: (818) 205-1212
Facsimile: (818) 205-1616
E-mail: justin@oyllp.com
Defendants-Appellees BUFFALO WILD WINGS, INC., a Minnesota
corporation, and BLAZIN WINGS, INC., a Minnesota corporation, are
represented by:
Harrison Maxwell Brown, Esq.
Anahit Tagvoryan, Esq.
BLANK ROME LLP
2029 Century Park East, 6th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (424) 239-3400
Facsimile: (424) 239-3434
E-mail: hbrown@blankrome.com
atagvoryan@blankrome.com
Defendants-Appellees YELP INC., a Delaware corporation, and
NOWAIT, INC., a Delaware corporation, are represented by:
Ashley L. Shively, Esq.
Brian Adair Sutherland, Esq.
REED SMITH LLP
101 Second Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 543-8700
Facsimile: (415) 391-8269
E-mail: ashively@reedsmith.com
bsutherland@reedsmith.com
Defendant-Appellee WINGMEN V, LLC, a Washington limited liability
company, is represented by:
Christine Marie Reilly, Esq.
MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP
11355 West Olympic Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Telephone: (310) 312-4237
E-mail: creilly@manatt.com
CALIFORNIA, USA: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Salzwedel" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff William A. Salzwedel filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit styled William Salzwedel v. State of
California, et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-03156-AB-RAO, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Los
Angeles.
The lawsuit alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
The appellate case is captioned as William Salzwedel v. State of
California, et al., Case No. 18-55574, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]
The Defendants-Appellees are the STATE OF CALIFORNIA; JUDICIAL
BRANCH OF CALIFORNIA; TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE, on behalf of
herself in her official capacity and all other similarly situated
officials within other states; JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA, on
behalf of itself and all other similarly situated bodies within
other states; MARTIN HOSHINO, Administrative Director of the
Judicial Council of California, on behalf of himself in his
official capacity and all other similarly situated officials
within other states; SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF
VENTURA, on behalf of itself and all other Superior Courts of
California and all other courts that adjudicate or supervise
conservatorships or guardianships of adults in other states; GLEN
M. REISER, Honorable; on behalf of himself in his official
capacities and all other judges in California that adjudicate of
supervise conservatorships of adults and all other judges that
adjudicate or supervise conservatorships or guardianships of
adults in other states; and CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE
2ND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX.
Plaintiff-Appellant WILLIAM A. SALZWEDEL, on behalf of himself,
and all others adversely affected by similar state action,
represents himself:
William A. Salzwedel, Esq.
WILLIAM A. SALZWEDEL, ATTORNEY AT LAW
144 Yucca Lane
Thousand Oaks, CA 91362
Telephone: (805) 497-4511
E-mail: williamsalzwedel@yahoo.com
The Defendants-Appellees are represented by:
Jeffrey A. Rich, Esq.
DEPUTY ASSOCIATE GENERAL COUNSEL
AGCA-OFFICE OF THE CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL
1300 I Street, Suite 125
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: (916) 324-5154
E-mail: jeffrey.rich@doj.ca.gov
Defendants-Appellees MARY C. WEBSTER, individual capacity and all
others similarly situated, AKA Mary C. Shea; and OFFICE OF THE
PUBLIC DEFENDER FOR THE COUNTY OF VENTURA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
on behalf of itself and all other entities similarly situated,
are represented by:
Ronda Jeanne McKaig, Esq.
ASSISTANT COUNTY COUNSEL
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL
800 South Victoria Avenue
Ventura, CA 93009
Telephone: (805) 654-5107
Defendants-Appellee ANGELIQUE FRIEND, Conservator of the Person
and Estate of Lester G. Moore and all others similarly situated;
BENTON ORR DUVAL AND BUCKINGHAM; and THOMAS E. OLSON are
represented by:
Kevin Michael McCormick, Esq.
BENTON, ORR, DUVAL & BUCKINGHAM
39 North California Street
P.O. Box 1178
Ventura, CA 93002
Telephone: (805) 648-5111
Facsimile: (805) 648-7218
E-mail: kmccormick@bentonorr.com
Defendants-Appellees JOHN C. BARLOW and POPPY HELGREN are
represented by:
John C. Barlow, Esq.
JOHN C BARLOW LAW OFFICES
1720 East Los Angeles, Suite 231
Simi Valley, CA 93065
Telephone: (805) 522-2555
Facsimile: (805) 522-2826
E-mail: john@barlowlawfirm.com
CANDELA CORPORATION: "Burke" Suit Transferred to Massachusetts
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Renee Burke, MD, P.C. on behalf
of itself and other similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Candela
Corporation, Case No. 1:17-cv-00105, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Boston) on
June 14, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-
cv-11244-LTS to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Leo T. Sorokin.
Candela develops, manufactures, and distributes medical and
aesthetic laser and light-based therapies to customers in the
United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Arnold H. Landis, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ARNOLD H. LANDIS
77 West Washington Street, Suite 702
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 236 6268
E-mail: arnoldlandis1@ameritech.net
The Defendant is represented by:
Adam R. Doherty. Esq.
PRINCE LOBEL TYE LLP
One International Place, Suite 3700
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 456 8114
Facsimile: (617) 456 8100
E-mail: adoherty@princeLobel.com
- and -
Daniel P Tighe, Esq.
GRIESINGER TIGHE AND MAFFEI
176 Federal Street
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 542 9900
- and -
Michael T Roche, Esq.
SCHUYLER, ROCHE & CRISHAM, P.C.
Two Prudential Plaza
180 North Stetson Avenue, Suite 3800
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 565 2400
E-mail: mtroche@srcattorneys.com
- and -
Parker Edward Lawton, Esq.
ROBBINS, SALOMON & PATT, LTD.
180 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 3300
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 782 9000
E-mail: PLawton@rsplaw.com
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Kolbasyuk Appeals Order, Judgment to 2nd Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Yuri Kolbasyuk filed an appeal from the District
Court's memorandum decision & order dated April 14, 2018, and
judgment dated April 18, 2018, entered in the lawsuit entitled
Kolbasyuk v. Capital Management Services, Case No. 17-cv-7499, in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
(Brooklyn).
The nature of suit is stated as consumer credit.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was filed on December 26, 2017.
Capital Management is a nationally licensed and recognized
collections agency, providing the highest level of delinquent
receivables resolution.
The appellate case is captioned as Kolbasyuk v. Capital
Management Services, Case No. 18-1260, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant Yuri Kolbasyuk, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Levi Huebner, Esq.
LEVI HUEBNER & ASSOCIATES, PC
478 Malbone Street
Brooklyn, NY 11225
Telephone: (212) 354-5555
Defendant-Appellee Capital Management Services, LP, is
represented by:
Kristen H. Smith, Esq.
SESSIONS, FISHMAN, NATHAN & ISRAEL, L.L.P.
3850 North Causeway Boulevard
Metairie, LA 70002
Telephone: (504) 846-7943
E-mail: ksmith@sessions.legal
CATALINA RESTAURANT: Wins $16K Attys' Fees in "Farrar" WARN Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California granted Defendants' Motion for Attorney's Fees and
Costs in the case captioned JERI FARRAR, and others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. CATALINA RESTAURANT GROUP, INC. and FOOD
MANAGEMENT PARTNERS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-09066 DDP
(JCx) (C.D. Cal.).
The Plaintiffs brought a putative class action against Defendants
Catalina Restaurant Group, Inc., and Food Management Partners,
Inc., for violations of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act (WARN Act),and the California WARN Act, Cal.
Lab. Code Sections 1400-1408, both resulting from an April 2015
reduction in force at Catalina Restaurant Group's corporate
headquarters.
The Plaintiffs allege for the first time that the lack of
additional payroll records produced by the Defendants in
discovery for the period after May 27, 2015, means that all 53
employees were subsequently terminated. The Plaintiffs did not
specifically propound this theory at the motion for summary
judgment stage. Although the Plaintiffs alluded to the fact that
operations at Catalina's corporate headquarters had wound down,
they did not introduce evidence that the remaining employees were
terminated, rather than transferred, or that these terminations
occurred within the requisite 90-day period. Instead, the
Plaintiffs advanced the argument that all53 employees were
terminated between April 1 and April 24, 2015.
The Defendants counter that in every summary judgment case, it
turns out that even after discovery the losing party had no
factual evidence to support his claim.That misstates the legal
standard, the Court says. Summary judgment may be entered when
the evidence is insufficient to create a genuine dispute of
material fact or when, as here, the plaintiffs proffer no
evidence in support of material facts called into dispute by the
defendants.
At the close of discovery, the Plaintiffs had uncovered no
evidentiary foundation for their claim that all 53 employees had
been terminated during the April 2015 reduction in force. A claim
is frivolous only when the result is obvious or the arguments of
error are wholly without merit. In light of the record presented
at the close of discovery, the court's resulting grant of summary
judgment on the Plaintiffs' WARN Act claims was an obvious
result. Accordingly, the court awards reasonable attorneys' fees
to the Defendants limited to the preparation of the motion for
summary judgment.
Here, the parties agree that the Defendants have prevailed on
their WARN Act claims. The only dispute that remains is what
constitutes a reasonable fee award. The court finds, and the
Plaintiffs do not dispute, that the rates set forth by the
Defendants' counsel are within the range of reasonable rates for
attorneys in the local community, taking into consideration the
experience, skill, and reputation of the attorney.
Although the Plaintiffs do not object to any specific billing
entries, they claim that much of the briefing used in the motion
for summary judgment is duplicative of that in an earlier case.
The court agrees. With the primary exception of a brief summary
of the Ross case, the memoranda and declarations in support of
the Defendants' summary judgment motions in both cases are nearly
identical. For this reason, the court imposes a reduction of 8
hours to time billed by Ms. Moffit in connection with the
preparation of the moving papers.
Additionally, as to the preparation of the reply brief, the court
imposes a reduction of 5 hours to time billed by Mr. Liu, 6.2
hours to time billed by Mr. Johnson, and 2 hours to time billed
by Mr. Skeen. Finally, the court deducts 4 hours from the time
spent preparing and attending the hearing by Mr. Skeen, and
deducts 3.5 hours from the time spent preparing and attending the
hearing by Mr. Johnson, as this work is duplicative of the tasks
performed by Mr. Skeen. In view of the frivolous arguments
advanced in the Plaintiff's opposition brief, the court finds
that these adjustments reflect the reduced number of hours
reasonably expended by counsel in preparing a reply.
Applying the approved rates to the adjusted hours, the court
finds that the lodestar method yields the following result:
Reasonable
Attorney Rate Hours Lodestar
-------- ---------- ----- --------
Spencer Skeen $310 9.1 $2,821
Tim Johnson $310 3.6 $1,116
Marlene Moffit $310 2.7 $837
Jonathan Liu $240 10.9 $2,616
Total $7,390
To the extent that the Defendants seek taxable costs, they are
directed to file an appropriate application with the Clerk of
Court. Accordingly, the court grants the Defendants leave to file
an application for taxable costs with the Clerk.
The court grants Defendants' motion for attorneys' fees in the
amount of $16,819.
A full-text copy of the District Court's April 30, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y7xppkz4 from Leagle.com.
Jeri Farrar, and others similarly situated,, Kyle Whitney, Gary
Graham, Bill Dizon, Francisco Jimenez & Gina McMahon, Plaintiffs,
represented by Jeff R. Dingwall, Eight and Sand PC.
Catalina Restaurant Group Inc & Food Management Partners, Inc.,
Respondents, represented by Jennifer L. Santa Maria --
jennifer.santamaria@ogletree.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak
and Stewart PC, Spencer C. Skeen -- spencer.skeen@ogletree.com --
Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak and Stewart PC, Timothy L. Johnson,
Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak and Stewart PC & Marlene Marie
Moffitt -- marlene@moffitt@ogletree.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash
Smoak & Stewart PC.
CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in "Katz" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Michael A. Katz filed an appeal from a District Court
opinion and order dated April 17, 2018, and a District Court
judgment dated April 18, 2018, entered in the lawsuit titled Katz
v. Cellco Partnership, Case No. 12-cv-9193, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York (White Plains).
The appellate case is captioned as Katz v. Cellco Partnership,
Case No. 18-1436, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant Michael A. Katz, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, is represented by:
William Robert Weinstein, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM R. WEINSTEIN
199 Main Street
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 997-2205
E-mail: wrw@wweinsteinlaw.com
Defendant-Appellee Cellco Partnership, DBA Verizon Wireless, is
represented by:
Joshua Turner, Esq.
WILEY REIN LLP
1776 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 719-4807
E-mail: jturner@wileyrein.com
CENTENE CORP: Faces Class Suit for Fibrosis Treatment Coverage
--------------------------------------------------------------
M.D., C.F., and E.M., individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated persons, the Plaintiffs, v. CENTENE
CORPORATION, INC. and CENTENE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC., the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-22372-JLK (S.D. Fla., June 13,
2018), seeks equitable, injunctive, and declaratory relief as may
be appropriate, including restitution and/or requiring Defendants
to provide coverage to Plaintiffs and Class Members for medically
necessary treatment.
In June 2016, the Agency for Healthcare Administration, which is
responsible for the administration of Florida's Medicaid program,
removed all fibrosis restrictions and required all insurance
providers that administer Florida's Medicaid managed care program
to similarly remove any such restrictions. Incredibly, against
this backdrop, and more than three years after the FDA approved
the first of the breakthrough treatments, Centene, through its
subsidiary CMC, has created, and is still requiring its
subsidiaries to enforce, the same roundly-condemned fibrosis
restrictions to deny coverage for the Cure, on the pretextual
basis that the Cure is not medically necessary until and unless
an insured has suffered and demonstrated severe and irreparable
liver fibrosis or cirrhosis. Centene and CMC are enforcing these
restrictions across the nation, causing Plaintiffs' and the Class
Members' insurers, including Celtic, to breach their promise to
pay for medically necessary treatment. These fibrosis
restrictions deviate from the standard of care in the medical
community, and are being used to materially and directly breach
the uniform, contractual promise of Plaintiffs' and Class
Members' insurers to provide medically necessary treatment.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs and the Class Members bring this class
action against Centene and CMC to force them to discontinue use
of the fibrosis restrictions, so that thousands of insureds
across the nation can get cured.
Since October 2014, pharmaceutical companies began marketing what
the U.S. Food & Drug Association hailed as "breakthrough"
treatments using direct-acting antiviral ("DAA") drugs. These
"breakthrough" treatments do not require use of Interferon and
work by directly attacking the hepatitis C virus and eradicating
it from the body. These drugs have an astounding cure rate of 94%
to 100%, with little to no side effects. A patient need take only
one pill daily for eight to twelve weeks (depending on the viral
load in the body), to eliminate the virus from the body--forever.
In October 2014, the FDA approved the first of these drugs,
Harvoni, which was soon followed by others, including Viekira
Pak, Epclusa, Zepatier, and Mavyret (collectively, the "Cure").
Hepatitis C is a deadly disease that attacks the liver and causes
liver deterioration. It is the number one cause of liver cancer
in the United States, as well as the number one reason for liver
transplants. The disease's typical progression begins with
inflammation of the liver and proceeds to cause irreparable
scarring (fibrosis) of the liver and ultimately cirrhosis of the
liver.[BN]
Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Class:
Andres Rivero, Esq.
Orge A Mestre, Esq.
Alan H. Rolnick, Esq.
Charles E. Whorton, Esq.
RIVERO MESTRE LLP
2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 1000
Miami, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 445-2500
Facsimile: (305) 445 2505
E-mail: arivero@riveromestre.com
arolnick@riveromestre.com
jmestre@riveromestre.com
cwhorton@riveromestre.com
palvarez@riveromestre.com
- and -
Vicki Tucci Krusel, Esq.
LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, INC.
423 Fern Street, Suite 200
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Telephone: (561) 655 8944
Facsimile: (561) 655 5269
CENTRAL FREIGHT: Blaire-West Notice to "Henry" Class Entered
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RICKEY HENRY, an individual, on behalf of himself,
and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
CENTRAL FREIGHT LINES, INC., a Corporation, and DOES 1 through
50, Inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00280-JAM-EFB (E.D.
Cal.), Judge John A. Mendez of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California has entered the parties stipulated
order regarding the administration of Blaire-West Notice to the
putative class members.
The Parties have met and conferred and have agreed upon a version
of a Belaire-West notice to be mailed to the putative class
members. The agreed-upon draft Belaire-West notice has been
provided to the third-party administrator, ILYM Group, Inc. for
formatting and preparation for mailing.
The Defendant will provide to ILYM the last known contact
information of all putative class members within seven business
days of the Court's entry of the order regarding the Stipulation.
The Parties agree that any information pertaining to putative
class members will be confidential and provided only to ILYM upon
ILYM's agreement to abide by the terms of the Stipulated
Protective Order entered by the Court in the action.
ILYM will execute the Acknowledgement and Agreement to Be Bound
prior to any disclosure of putative class member to ILYM. ILYM
will maintain putative class information as private and
confidential pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order, and
will not disclose any such information to the Plaintiff or his
counsel except as expressly authorized in the Stipulation, and
only after the close of the opt-out period as further set forth.
The mailing of the notices by ILYM to the putative class members
will take place no later than one week after receipt of the
putative class list from the Defendant. The putative class
members will have 30 days from the date of mailing to opt-out
from having their contact information and time records produced
to the Plaintiff. Any putative class member who, within the 30-
day opt-out period, opts out of the disclosure by returning the
opt-out form or by otherwise indicating in writing to ILYM that
the putative class member wishes to have his/her information
maintained as private will not have his/her contact or other
information disclosed.
No later than 10 days after the close of the opt-out period, ILYM
will provide to counsel for the Defendant a list containing each
putative class member who submitted an opt-out requests. Within
10 days after the close of the opt-out period, ILYM will produce
to counsel for the parties a list containing the name, address,
and telephone number of each putative class members who did not
opt-out of the disclosure.
The Plaintiff agrees to bear the costs associated with the
mailing of the notice to the putative class members. The Parties
agree that the Stipulation may be executed in counterparts.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 1, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/0lhMpr from Leagle.com.
Rickey Henry, Plaintiff, represented by parajit Bhowmik --
saj@bamlawlj.com -- Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik, Kyle R.
Nordrehaug -- kyle@bamlawca.com -- Blumenthal Nordrehaug and
Bhowmik, Norman Blumenthal -- norm@bamlawca.com -- Blumenthal
Nordrehaug & Bhowmik, LLP, Ruchira Piya Mukherjee --
piya@bamlawlj.com -- Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik & Victoria
Bree Rivapalacio -- Victoria@bamlawca.com -- Blumenthal,
Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.
Central Freight Lines, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jesse C.
Ferrantella -- jesse.ferrantella@ogletree.com -- Ogletree Deakins
Nash Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Jonathan Hisataka Liu --
jonathan.liu@ogletree.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak &
Stewart, P.C., Timothy L. Johnson -- tim.johnson@ogletree.com --
Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart, PC & Spencer C. Skeen --
spencer.skeen@ogletree.com Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak &
Stewart PC.
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Swain Sues over Suppression of Pay
----------------------------------------------------------
YVONNE SWAIN, individually, and on behalf of similarly situated
others, the Plaintiff, v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00499 (W.D. Tex., June 13, 2018),
alleges that Defendant has subjected Plaintiff and other
similarly situated employees to unwarranted suppression of pay,
professional development, and promotions; discriminatory career
and development opportunities and promotion denials;
discriminatory policies and procedures that have a disparate
impact on female and Black employees generally; lower pay for
work requiring substantially equal skill, effort, and
responsibility; and other adverse terms and conditions of
employment.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has long been aware of
the systematic, pervasive discriminatory practices prevalent
within its organization, but has failed to take remedial measures
to prevent or correct them. Indeed, even after it was notified of
Plaintiff's claims by Plaintiff, and, secondarily, the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, and although it knew of the
obvious gender and race-based pay disparities, Defendant failed
to correct such disparities. Consequently, Defendant has
intentionally violated the EPA and Title VII, extending the Equal
Pay Act's statute of limitations to three years, and subjecting
Defendant to enhanced damages.
Charter Communications is an American telecommunications company
that offers its services to consumers and businesses under the
branding of Spectrum.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin S. Mullen, Esq.
THE MULLEN FIRM PLLC
3801 N. Capital of Texas Hwy.
Suite E-240/604
Austin, TX 78746
Telephone: (512) 537 7959
E-mail: kevin@themullenfirm.com
- and -
Craig M. Bryan, Esq.
BRYAN LAW FIRM PLLC
3801 N. Capital of Texas Hwy. Suite E-240/212
Austin, TX 78746
Telephone: (512) 777 1769
Facsimile: (512) 290 9177
E-mail: cbryan@bryanfirm.com
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Order in "Brown"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Charter Communications, Inc., filed an appeal from a
court ruling in the lawsuit entitled TERI BROWN, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CHARTER
COMMUNICATIONS, INC., DBA Spectrum, Case No. 1:17-cv-00670-LJO-
JLT, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California, Fresno.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the District
Court granted in part the Defendant's Motion to Stay the case,
pending a ruling by the D.C. Circuit Court, which is considering
the definition of automatic telephone dialing system under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The Plaintiff alleges Charter communicated with her throughout
the past year by calling her cell phone number numerous times in
attempts to market its service. She asserts that the Defendant
called from numerous phone numbers, including but not limited to
(844) 207-1531, (855) 383-5891, and (203) 404-6762, which phone
number belongs to the Defendant.
The appellate case is captioned as TERI BROWN, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee v.
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., DBA Spectrum, Defendant-Appellant,
Case No. 18-15902, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- June 15, 2018 -- Transcript shall be ordered;
-- July 16, 2018 -- Transcript shall be filed by court
reporter;
-- August 24, 2018 -- Appellant's opening brief and excerpts
of record shall be served and filed pursuant to FRAP 31 and
9th Cir. R. 31-2.1;
-- September 24, 2018 -- Appellee's answering brief and
excerpts of record shall be served and filed pursuant to
FRAP 31 and 9th Cir. R. 31-2.1; and
-- The optional appellant's reply brief shall be filed and
served within 21 days of service of the appellee's brief,
pursuant to FRAP 31 and 9th Cir. R. 31-2.1.[BN]
CI SECURITY: Fails To Pay Wages, Castro Says
--------------------------------------------
CARLOS CASTRO, an individual; and DODIE STEPHENSON, an
individual; on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. CI SECURITY SPECIALISTS, INC., a
California corporation, and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. BC709656 (Cal. Super, Ct., June 13, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid wages and interest for Defendants'
alleged failure to pay employees for all hours worked at the
minimum wage and/or applicable overtime rates of pay; failure to
include all remuneration when calculating the applicable overtime
rate of pay; failure to provide legally compliant meal periods
and/or pay meal period premium wages; failure to provide legally
complaint rest breaks and/or pay rest break premium wages;
statutory penalties for failure to provide accurate wage
statements; waiting time penalties in the form of continuation
wages for failure to timely pay employee all earned and unpaid
wages due upon separation of employment; applicable civil
penalties; injunctive relief and other equitable relief; and
reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to the California Labor
Code.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joseph Lavi, Esq.
Vincent C. Cranberry, Esq.
LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
8889 W. Olympic Blvd. Suite 200
Beverly Hills, CA, 90211
Telephone: (310) 432 0000
Facsimile: (310) 432 0001
E-mail: ilavi@lelawfirm.com
ygranberrv@lelawfirm.com
CITIZENS BANK: Fawcett Appeals D. Mass. Decision to First Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Barbara Fawcett appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Fawcett v. Citizens Bank, N.A., Case No. 4:17-
cv-11043-TSH, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, Worcester.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge
Timothy S. Hillman denied without prejudice the Plaintiff's
Motion for Class Certification And To Hold Motion In Abeyance
Pending Class Discovery.
The Plaintiff has filed suit, individually and on behalf of other
similarly situated persons, against Citizens alleging a claim for
violation of the National Bank Act. More specifically, Fawcett
alleges that Citizen violated the Act by mischaracterizing
charges to her account as "Sustained Overdraft Fees," which were
in fact interest charges with an annual rate of interest that
exceeded the rate permitted to be charged under the Act.
The appellate case is captioned as Fawcett v. Citizens Bank,
N.A., Case No. 18-1443, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the First Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that the
Appearance form, Docketing Statement and Transcript Report/Order
form were due May 29, 2018.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant BARBARA FAWCETT, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Edward F. Haber, Esq.
Patrick J. Vallely, Esq.
SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP
Seaport East
2 Seaport Ln
Boston, MA 02210
Telephone: (617) 439-3939
Facsimile: (617) 439-0134
E-mail: ehaber@shulaw.com
pvallely@shulaw.com
Defendant-Appellee CITIZENS BANK, N.A., is represented by:
Stephanie M. Aronzon, Esq.
Brenda R. Sharton, Esq.
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
100 Northern Ave.
Boston, MA 02210
Telephone: (617) 570-1652
E-mail: saronzon@goodwinlaw.com
bsharton@goodwinlaw.com
CLUSTER AMENITIES: Byrd Sues over Retained Tips and Gratuities
-------------------------------------------------------------
DORIAN BYRD, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. CLUSTER AMENITIES NO. 1, LLC;
WICHCRAFT OPERATING, LLC; KENNETH M. KRAEMER; THOMAS COLICCHIO;
ROBERT G. SCOTT; SISHA ORTUZAR; JEFFREY ZUROFSKY; JEANNE
DONOVAN FISHER; PHILIP M. COLICCHIO; and any other related
entities, the Defendants, Case No. 155840/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.,
June 21, 2018), seeks to recover unlawfully retained tips and
gratuities owed to Plaintiff pursuant to the New York Labor Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have engaged in a
policy and practice of failing to distribute the proceeds
collected from the assessment of the mandatory charge to
Plaintiff and similarly situated employees and instead retained
the money for their own benefit in violation of Labor Law.
Cluster Amenities is in the office facilities and secretarial
service rental business.[BN]
Attorneys for the Named Plaintiff & Putative Class:
Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
One Old Country Road, Suite 347
Carle Place, NY 11514
Telephone: (516) 873 9550
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Dean" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Jacqueline Dean and Melanie Barber filed an appeal
from a court ruling in their lawsuit styled Jacqueline Dean, et
al. v. Colgate-Palmolive Company, Case No. 18-80057, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs sought to certify a class defined as:
All persons in California, Delaware, the District of
Columbia, Kansas, Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio, Utah, Virginia
and West Virginia who purchased Optic White on or after
October 1, 2013, or who purchased Optic White Platinum on
or after February 1, 2014.
The appellate case is captioned as Jacqueline Dean, et al. v.
Colgate-Palmolive Company, Case No. 5:15-cv-00107-JGB-RAO, in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
Riverside.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Petitioners JACQUELINE DEAN and MELANIE BARBER, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are
represented by:
Lawrence Timothy Fisher, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 N. California Boulevard, Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
- and -
Todd S. Garber, Esq.
FINKELSTEIN BLANKINSHIP FREI-PEARSON AND GARBER LLP
445 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 605
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 298-3283
E-mail: tgarber@fbfglaw.com
- and -
Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP
1 California Street, Suite 900
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 398-8700
Facsimile: (415) 398-8704
E-mail: rrivas@finkelsteinthompson.com
Defendant-Respondent COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY is represented by:
Robyn Eileen Bladow, Esq.
Jeffrey Scott Sinek, Esq.
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
333 South Hope Street
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 680-8400
Facsimile: (213) 808-8073
E-mail: rbladow@kirkland.com
jeff.sinek@kirkland.com
COLONIAL FREIGHT: Court Partly Grants Opt-In Notice in "Benyam"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Tennessee, Knoxville, granted in part and denied in part
Plaintiffs' Motion to Approve Notice and Opt-in Procedures in the
case captioned THEODUS DAVIS, on behalf of himself and those
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. COLONIAL FREIGHT SYSTEMS,
INC., et al., Defendants, No. 3:16-CV-674-TRM-HBG (E.D. Tenn.).
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants erroneously classified
him and those similarly situated as independent contractors and
unlawfully deducted and withheld their wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Plaintiffs allege that the
Defendants required him and those who are similarly situated to
attend the Defendants' driver-trainee program without providing
wages that were free and clear and further required them to cover
the costs of the Defendants' businesses, intentionally reducing
their wages below the minimum wage.
The parties have submitted competing notice forms with respect to
the FLSA collective action and the Rule 23 class action. Because
the parties indicated at the hearing that they could resolve
several disputes that were presented in their filings, the Court
will only summarize the primary contentions between the parties:
(1) methods of notice, (2) duration of opt-in period, and (3) the
applicable class and collective action definitions.
Separate or Hybrid Notice
The Plaintiffs propose that the class action notice be sent after
the opt-in period has expired. In support of their argument, the
Plaintiffs emphasize the differences between collective actions
and class actions and argue that sending notices of the actions
simultaneously will likely confuse the potential members.
The Defendants propose sending a hybrid notice, explaining that
any potential confusion can be overcome by careful wording and
thoughtful organization.
The Court has considered the parties' positions and finds that
the better course of action is to send the notices separately. In
so finding, the Court has considered the Defendants' concerns of
inefficiency versus the Plaintiffs' concerns of confusion. While
efficiency is important, the Court finds that the three-month
delay in sending the class action notice will not prejudice any
party.
Accordingly, the Court finds that sending separate notices in
this particular case will further the underlying purpose of the
notice process, which is simply to advise individuals of their
rights with respect to each action.
Methods of Service
The Plaintiffs have requested several methods of service,
including first-class mail, email, announcements over Defendant's
Qualcomm system, and a reminder postcard and email. The
Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs' proposed methods are
duplicative and unnecessary.
The Court has also considered the Plaintiffs' request to send
messages via Defendant's Qualcomm system and to send reminder
postcards and emails. The Court is unconvinced that these
additional methods of notice are necessary in this case. While
the Plaintiffs assert that truck drivers are transitory in
nature, the Court finds first-class mail and email notifications,
coupled with a longer opt-in period, are sufficient to advise
members of their rights without encouraging members to join the
suit or giving the impression that the Court approves the suit on
its merits.
Accordingly, the Court declines to order Defendant Colonial to
send messages via its Qualcomm system and further finds that
reminder postcards and emails are not necessary in this case.
Duration of Opt-In Period
The Plaintiffs request an opt-in period of 120 days given the
difficulties in contacting truck drivers. The Plaintiffs state
that commercial truck drivers often spend several consecutive
weeks or months on the road away from home.
The Defendants respond that a 60-day opt-in period is more
appropriate and that district courts within the Sixth Circuit
have repeatedly utilized a 60-day opt-in period for potential
FLSA plaintiffs.
The Court has considered the parties' arguments and finds 120
days to be excessive and 60 days to be insufficient under these
circumstances. Specifically, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs
have raised legitimate concerns that putative plaintiffs will not
receive notice given the nature of their job. Accordingly, the
Court finds that given this valid concern, the opt-in period
shall be ninety (90) days.
Class and Collective Action Definitions
The Plaintiffs assert that their definitions of the class and
collective actions, along with the time periods, are correct.
The Court has considered the definitions and finds that the
Defendants' description of the potential members is accurate.
With respect to both the collective and class actions, the
District Judge relied on the Independent Contractor Operating
Agreements to define the actions. For instance, in determining
whether class certification was appropriate, the District Judge
explained how liability can be determined on a class-wide basis
that is, by determining whether the ICOAs (Independent Contractor
Operating Agreements) violate the TIL (Truth in Lending)
regulations.
Similarly, with respect to the FLSA groups, the Court finds that
Driver-Trainees were similarly situated because they were
required to sign the Independent Contractor/Trainee Agreement and
that the Phoenix-Lease Drivers entered into materially similar
Lease Agreements and Independent Contractor Trainee/Agreements.
Accordingly, the Court finds Defendants' descriptions accurately
reflect the class and collective actions.
A full-text copy of the District Court's April 30, 2018
Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yadht8bb
from Leagle.com.
Theodus Davis, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Joshua S. Boyette, Swartz Swidler, LLC,
Justin L. Swidler, Swartz Swidler, LLC & Travis Martindale-
Jarvis, Swartz Swidler, LLC.
Colonial Freight Systems, Inc., Phoenix Leasing Of Tennessee,
INC. & Ruby McBride, Defendants, represented by Christopher J.
Eckhart -- ceckhart@scopelitis.com -- Scopelitis Garvin Light
Hanson & Feary, P.C., pro hac vice, E. Ashley Paynter --
PAYNTER@SCOPELITIS.COM -- Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson & Feary,
P.C., pro hac vice & Richard L. Hollow, Hollow & Hollow, LLC.
John Does 1-10, Defendant, represented by Richard L. Hollow,
Hollow & Hollow, LLC.
COLONIAL PARKING: Class Certification Denied as Moot in "Abraha"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court, District of Columbia, denied
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in the case captioned
Berthe Benyam Abraha, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Colonial Parking,
Inc., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 16-680 (CKK) (D.D.C.).
Plaintiffs Berthe Benyam Abraha, Esayas Akalu, Samuel Habtewoled,
and Gedlu Melke seek to certify a class in this action against
Defendants Colonial Parking, Inc. and FCE Benefit Administrators,
Inc. FCE agrees that a class should be certified, and Colonial
effectively concedes as much.
In their Complaint, the Plaintiffs proposed that the class
include all persons who were employed by Colonial from 2010
through the present for whom Colonial or FEC maintained a DUB
Account administered by FEC. Now they seek to include any person
who was entitled to a benefit from the Forge Health and Welfare
Plan at any time from January 1, 2002, through December 31, 2015.
The Plaintiffs argue that this expanded definition is warranted
by their finding, during discovery, that the Defendants engaged
in numerous acts of fraudulent concealment and that many of them
affected National Institutes of Health (NIH)] employees who
received distributions prior to 2010.
In response to the statute of limitations arguments of the
Defendants, the Plaintiffs maintain that the last action, for
purposes of 29 U.S.C. Section 1113, occurred in December 2015;
that recent Supreme Court precedent renders the Defendants'
defense off limits; and that the Plaintiffs may avail themselves
of the fraud and concealment exception to the statute of
limitations.
For those claims as to which Colonial does supply a proposed
definition, Colonial may be agreeing with the Plaintiffs (but not
FCE) when Colonial argues that the appropriate individuals be
Participants in the Forge Health and Welfare Plan. But Colonial
limits its proposal only to those who were entitled to a DUB
benefit distribution and who received it within the proposed
statute of limitations.
Colonial does not make clear, for example, (1) how a limitation
to Participants in the Forge Health and Welfare Plan differs from
that of former Colonial employees; or (2) why the Forge Health
and Welfare Plan is the more appropriate benchmark than the NIH
contract. Colonial does make some attempt to explain why the
Court should adopt language of entitlement and receipt, rather
than participation in, the relevant program, though even that
explanation is rather thin.
In addition, the Court finds that all parties have failed to
specifically brief the Rule 23 standards with the adequacy
necessary to facilitate the Court's decision. The Plaintiffs are
so summary in their treatment of some of the applicable standards
that, for example, they attempt to prove that they adequately
represent putative class members simply by stating that the
Plaintiffs stepped forward to bring this lawsuit on behalf of
their fellow employees and are very aware of the responsibilities
that that entails, and making a few observations about their
counsel's experience. For their part, the Defendants do not
address each of the Rule 23 standards with specificity.
Further Proceedings in This Case
In responding to a motion for leave to amend the Complaint, the
Defendants should raise any prejudice but should bear in mind the
generous standard by which the Court must assess any proposed,
pre-trial amendment under the Federal Rules. Accordingly, the
Court says the Defendants should not base any decision to oppose
amendment on their statute of limitations defenses. There will be
one or more subsequent opportunities to raise those defenses in
briefing motions under different standards that would properly
put the statute of limitations issue before this Court.
Accordingly, FCE's Motion to Strike Evidence Submitted by the
Plaintiffs in Support of the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification, contained within FCE's filing, is denied as moot.
The parties are directed to file a Joint Status, indicating
whether the Plaintiffs will take the opportunity to file a motion
for leave to amend the Complaint, whether the Defendants intend
to oppose that motion, and what briefing timeline the parties
would propose.
A full-text copy of the District Court's April 30, 2018
Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/yda32e6j
from Leagle.com.
BERTHE BENYAM ABRAHA, as individuals and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, ESAYAS AKALU, as individuals and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, SAMUEL HABTEWOLED, as individuals
and on behalf of all others similarly situated & GEDLU MELKE, as
individuals and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, represented by Susan Ruth Baron & Edward A. Scallet,
EASCOLAW,PLLC.
COLONIAL PARKING, INC., Defendant, represented by Attison L.
Barnes, III -- abarnes@wileyrein.com -- WILEY REIN LLP.
FCE BENEFIT ADMINISTRATORS, INC., Defendant, represented by
Michael J. Schrier -- mjschrier@duanemorris.com -- DUANE MORRIS,
LLP, Marc A. Koonin -- MAKoonin@duanemorris.com -- DUANE MORRIS
LLP, pro hac vice & Robert D. Eassa, SEDGWICK LLP, pro hac vice.
COMFY U.S.A.: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Garcia Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
ALFREDO GARCIA, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. COMFY U.S.A. APPAREL, INC.,
a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the
Defendant, Case No. BC709630 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 12, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid minimum and straight time Wages and
overtime compensation under the California Labor Code.
According to the complaint, throughout the time period involved
in the case, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff for all hours
worked (including minimum wages, straight time wages, overtime
and double-time wages), failed to provide Plaintiff with
uninterrupted meal periods, failed to authorize and permit
Plaintiff to take uninterrupted rest periods, failed to timely
pay all final wages to Plaintiff when Defendants terminated
Plaintiffs employment, and failed to furnish accurate wage
statements to Plaintiff.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kane Moon, Esq.
Justin F. Marquez, Esq.
Allen Feghali, Esq.
MOON & YANG, APC
1055 W. Seventh St., Suite 1880
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 232 3128
Facsimile: (213) 232 3125
E-mail: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com
justin.marquez@moonyanglaw.com
allen.feghali@moonyanglaw.com
CONN APPLIANCES: Appeals Decision in "Williams" Suit to 5th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Conn Appliances, Incorporated, filed an appeal from a
court ruling in the lawsuit styled Michaeline Williams v. Conn
Appliances, Incorporated, Case No. 5:17-CV-1264, in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks to enjoin CAI from placing any further telephone calls to
Mrs. Williams and the class in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, CAI has a practice of hoarding as
many potentially valid phone numbers for a particular account as
possible. CAI routinely uses the System to call more than one or
all of these hoarded numbers which have become associated with a
customer's account, including cell phone numbers, even when the
number does not belong to the customer or a co-borrower. In
addition to entering telephone numbers for non-customers into
credit applications that its employees learn of during the sales
or collections process, CAI has a practice of identifying phone
numbers from public or commercial databases that it believes, but
does not know to be, valid numbers for its customers using a
practice known as skip-tracing.
The appellate case is captioned as Michaeline Williams v. Conn
Appliances, Incorporated, Case No. 18-50371, in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee MICHAELINE WILLIAMS, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Russell S. Thompson, IV, Esq.
THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, P.L.L.C.
5235 E. Southern Avenue
Mesa, AZ 85206
Telephone: (602) 388-8898
Facsimile: (866) 317-2674
E-mail: TCLG@consumerlawinfo.com
Defendant-Appellant CONN APPLIANCES, INCORPORATED, is represented
by:
Michael Harvey, Esq.
MUNSCH HARDT KOPF & HARR, P.C.
700 Milam Street
Houston, TX 77002-2806
Telephone: (713) 222-4015
Facsimile: (713) 222-5835
E-mail: mharvey@munsch.com
- and -
Eric J. Troutman, Esq.
SEVERSON & WERSON
19100 Von Karman Avenue
Irvine, CA 92612
Telephone: (949) 442-7110
Facsimile: (949) 442-7118
E-mail: ejt@severson.com
CONSUMER PORTFOLIO: Bernals Sue over Debt Collection Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
ISRAEL BERNAL and MARCIA BERNAL, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CONSUMER
PORTFOLIO SERVICES, INC. and STATEWIDE RECOVERY SPECIALISTS, LLC,
the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00891-PP (E.D. Wisc., June 12,
2018), seeks redress for collection practices that violate the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and the Wisconsin Consumer
Protection Act.
According to the complaint, by repossessing Plaintiffs'
automobile without having obtained a judgment, provided a notice
of right to cure, or otherwise affect a voluntary surrender of
the vehicle, Defendants claimed a right with knowledge to know
such right did not exist.
CPS provides consumer lending services to individuals. CPS
issues, takes assignment of, and services loans to consumers to
finance vehicle purchases and other consumer credit
transactions.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are 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
CORELOGIC SAFERENT: Mitchell Appeals Ruling in "Witt" to 4th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Party-in-Interest Darryl Mitchell filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit titled Carolyn Witt, Tyrone Henderson,
James O. Hines, Jr., John Moore, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. CoreLogic SafeRent, LLC, Case No.
3:15-cv-00386-DJN, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia at Richmond.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
is brought against the Defendant for alleged violation of the
Fair Credit Reporting Act.
The appellate case is captioned as Darryl Mitchell v. CoreLogic
SafeRent, LLC, Case No. 18-1468, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Party-in-Interest-Appellant DARRYL MITCHELL appears pro se.[BN]
Plaintiffs CAROLYN WITT, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, JOHN MOORE, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, JAMES A. SCALES, NAKISHA DAVIS,
MORRELL DAVIDSON, KEVIN ODERA and LARRY GOODE are represented by:
Leonard Anthony Bennett, Esq.
Elizabeth W. Hanes, Esq.
Craig Carley Marchiando, Esq.
Susan Mary Rotkis, Esq.
CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
763 J. Clyde Morris Boulevard
Newport News, VA 23601
Telephone: (757) 930-3660
Facsimile: (757) 930-3662
E-mail: lenbennett@clalegal.com
elizabeth@clalegal.com
craig@clalegal.com
srotkis@clalegal.com
- and -
Matthew James Erausquin, Esq.
CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES
1800 Diagonal Road
Alexandria, VA 22314
Telephone: (703) 273-7770
E-mail: matt@clalegal.com
- and -
Dale Wood Pittman, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF DALE W. PITTMAN, P.C.
112-A West Tabb Street
Petersburg, VA 23803-3212
Telephone: (804) 861-6000
Facsimile: (804) 861-3368
E-mail: dale@pittmanlawoffice.com
Defendants CORELOGIC SAFERENT, LLC, and CORELOGIC NATIONAL
BACKGROUND DATA, LLC, are represented by:
David Neal Anthony, Esq.
Harrison Scott Kelly, Esq.
Timothy James St. George, Esq.
Alan Durrum Wingfield, Esq.
TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP
1001 Haxall Point
Richmond, VA 23219
Telephone: (804) 697-5410
E-mail: david.anthony@troutmansanders.com
scott.kelly@troutmansanders.com
timothy.stgeorge@troutmansanders.com
alan.wingfield@troutmansanders.com
CRAZY HORSE: Degidio Files Waiver to Respond to Supreme Ct. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Petitions for a writ of certiorari were filed on April 19, 2018,
and Alexis Degidio submitted a waiver of right to respond on May
21, 2018, in the lawsuit titled CRAZY HORSE SALOON AND RESTAURANT
INC., d/b/a THEE NEW DOLLHOUSE, Petitioner v. ALEXIS DEGIDIO,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
Respondent, Case No. 17-1573, in the Supreme Court of United
States.
The Lower Court case is entitled ALEXIS DEGIDIO, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. CRAZY HORSE SALOON
AND RESTAURANT INC., d/b/a THEE NEW DOLLHOUSE, Case No. 17-1145,
in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Defendant-Petitioner presented this question: Did the Court
of Appeals err when it found that the District Court could refuse
to enforce arbitration agreements entered into between the
Petitioner, Crazy Horse Saloon and Restaurant, Inc. ("Crazy
Horse") and Entertainers when the evidence does not show that
those agreements were obtained in a misleading or coercive
manner?
Respondent Alexis Degidio, who had no arbitration agreement,
instituted the proceedings by filing a complaint for a putative
Fair Labor Standards Act collective action and Rule 23 class
action based on state wage claims. Petitioner Crazy Horse filed
a Motion to Compel Arbitration for nine individuals, who filed
Consents to Join the collective action but had previously
executed arbitration agreements with Petitioner. The District
Court denied Petitioner Crazy Horse's motion to compel
arbitration for those nine individuals. Crazy Horse appealed to
the Fourth Circuit pursuant to the statute allowing appeals
regarding compelling arbitration. However, the Fourth Circuit
first denied the Petitioner's appeal and then its En Banc
Petition on February 22, 2018.[BN]
The Plaintiff-Respondent is represented by:
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
1133 Penn Ave., 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com
The Defendant-Petitioner is represented by:
James L. Holt, Jr., Esq.
JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Telephone: (901) 754-8001
Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
E-mail: jholt@jsyc.com
CREDIT BUREAU: Faces "Wilson" Suit in District of New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Bureau of
Napa County, Inc. The lawsuit is captioned as LORETTA WILSON
On behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. CREDIT BUREAU OF NAPA COUNTY, INC., doing business
as: CHASE RECEIVABLES, and JOHN DOES 1-25, the Defendants, Case
No. 2:18-cv-10485-MCA-CLW (D.N.J., June 12, 2018).
Credit Bureau operates as a collection agency. The Company offers
low dollar receivables management, patient budget plan cure,
delinquency management, early payment plan discount, and credit
bureau reporting services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ben A. Kaplan, Esq.
280 Prospect Ave. 6G
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 803 6611
Facsimile: (866) 596 4973
E-mail: benkap232@aol.com
Attorneys for Credit Bureau of Napa County, Inc.:
Andrew Joshua Blady, Esq.
SESSIONS, FISHMAN, NATHAN & ISRAEL
3682 Green Ridge Rd
Furlong, PA
Telephone: (267) 544 0840
E-mail: ablady@sessions.legal
CREDIT CONTROL: Faces "Centeno" Suit in N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Control,
LLC. The lawsuit is captioned as Marcelino Centeno, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Credit Control, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-04093 (N.D.
Ill., June 12, 2018).
Credit Control provides financial services. The Company provides
early out solutions, collections, and debt settlement
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Celetha Chatman, Esq.
COMMUNITY LAWYERS GROUP, LTD.
73 W. Monroe Street, Suite 514
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 757 1880
E-mail: cchatman@communitylawyersgroup.com
- and -
Michael Jacob Wood, Esq.
Community Lawyers Group, Ltd.
73 W. Monroe Street, Suite 514
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 757 1880
E-mail: mwood@communitylawyersgroup.com
CREDIT MANAGEMENT: Court Certifies Class in "Bassett" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned KELLY M. BASSETT, individually and as
heir and Personal Representative of the Estate of James M.
Bassett, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated;,
the Plaintiff, v. CREDIT MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., and JASON
MORLEDGE, the Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-00069-JFB-MDN (D.
Neb.), the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Bataillon entered an order on
June 28, 2018:
1. certifying a class of:
"(i) all persons with addresses in Nebraska; (ii) to whom
defendant CMS sent or served, or caused to be sent or
served, between March 1, 2016, and July 31, 2016, a county
court collection complaint in the form of (iii) in an
attempt to collect an alleged unpaid medical account; (iv)
that requested an award of statutory attorneys' fees and/or
prejudgment interest pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. section
25-1801";
2. appointing the law firms of Horwitz, Horwitz, and Car and
Reinbrecht as class counsel;
3. denying Plaintiff's motion to exclude expert testimony
consistent with this order; and
4. denying Defendants' motion for a hearing.
A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Djwkx55D
CROSS COUNTRY HEALTHCARE: Faces Suit over Background Checks
-----------------------------------------------------------
JANE DOE, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. CROSS COUNTRY HEALTHCARE, INC., OPTIMAL WORKFORCE
SOLUTIONS, LLC and MEDICAL STAFFING NETWORK, INC., the
Defendants, Case No. 7:18-cv-05333-VB (S.D.N.Y., June 13, 2018),
alleges that Defendants systematically violate section
1681b(b)(3) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act by using consumer
reports to take an adverse employment actions without,
beforehand, providing the person who is the subject of the report
sufficient and timely notification and a copy of the report and a
summary of rights under the FCRA, leaving the person who is the
subject of the report without any meaningful opportunity to
correct any errors on the report.
CCH describes itself as "a national leader in providing
healthcare staffing, recruiting and value-added workforce
solutions".[BN]
Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class:
Adam G. Singer, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ADAM G. SINGER, PLLC
445 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 1102
White Plains, New York 10601
Telephone: (212) 842 2428
E-mail: asinger@adamsingerlaw.com
- and -
James A. Francis, Esq.
David A. Searles, Esq.
FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C.
Land Title Building, Suite 1902
100 South Broad Street
Philadelphia, PA 19110
Telephone: (215) 735 8600
Facsimile: (215) 940 8000
E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
dsearles@consumerlawfirm.com
DALLAS COWBOYS: Underpays Cheerleaders, Wilkins Claims
------------------------------------------------------
ERICA WILKINS, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. DALLAS COWBOYS FOOTBALL CLUB,
LTD., the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-01511-S (N.D. Tex., June
12, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, minimum wages,
and all other available damages under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is a former employee of
Defendant who worked for Defendant as a cheerleader. Plaintiff's
dates of employment with Defendant are from approximately May 27,
2014 to approximately August 9, 2017. The Defendant paid
Plaintiff on an hourly basis, but for fewer hours than Plaintiff
actually worked per corresponding workweek. At other times,
Defendant paid Plaintiff a flat rate, as opposed to an hourly
rate. The Plaintiff routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per
workweek while performing her cheerleading job duties for
Defendant. However, Plaintiff was not paid time and one-half her
regular rate of pay for each and every hour worked over 40 in
each workweek during her employment with Defendant.
Dallas Cowboys operates as a football club and team in Texas. The
company offers tickets for football match venues to football
fans.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Allen Vaught, Esq.
Rebecca Currier, Esq.
BARON & BUDD, P.C.
3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100
Dallas, TX 75219
Telephone: (214) 521 3605
Facsimile: (214) 520 1181
E-mail: avaught@baronbudd.com
rcurrier@baronbudd.com
DANONE NORTH: "Brown" Suit Over False Labeling of Milk Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jon S. Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss
the case, CRYSTAL BROWN, Plaintiff, v. DANONE NORTH AMERICA, LLC,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-07325-JST (N.D. Cal.).
Brown purchased several varieties of Horizon Organic milk
approximately once a week between January 2015 through January
2016. Prior to purchasing the milk, Brown read the Defendants'
labels. She purchased the milk in reliance on the labels'
indication that the milk was organic. The labels clearly state
that the milk is "organic" and that the milk contains DHA, and
the labels bear the United States Department of Agriculture
("USDA") organic certification logo.
Brown describes the milk in her complaint as certified organic.
The USDA database publicly shows that Horizon Organic milk with
DHA is currently certified organic by the USDA, and has been so
since 2013. Horizon Organic milk is more expensive that non-
organic milk. Brown alleges that the milk is not organic because
it contains DHA, a nutritional additive. According to Brown,
only certain nutritional additives, not including DHA, may be
added to organic food products. Therefore, Brown alleges that
the Defendants' labeling and advertising of Horizon Organic milk
as organic is false and misleading. She would not have purchased
the products or would not have paid the price she paid, had she
known the milk was not organic.
Defendant WWF Operating Co. ("WhiteWave"), erroneously sued as
WhiteWave Foods Co., produces and sells different varieties of
Horizon Organic milk. ECF No. WhiteWave is a subsidiary of
Danone. Horizon Organic's market share of the organic milk
market exceeds 40 percent.
Brown's putative class action complaint alleges that the
Defendants violated California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL").
Specifically, Brown alleges that the Defendants committed: (1)
unlawful business practices, (2) unfair business practices, (3)
fraudulent business practices all by making misrepresentations
and material omissions. She also alleges that the Defendants
fraudulently violated the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act
("CLRA") by knowingly and falsely representing the milk as
organic.
The Defendants now move to dismiss Brown's complaint. They argue
that the Plaintiff's claims that they misrepresented Horizon
Organic milk as organic in violation of state law are impliedly
preempted by the federal certification scheme. They further
argue that the Plaintiff cannot allege the injury required to
demonstrate standing under California state law because the
Defendants' labels fully disclosed the facts giving rise to the
Plaintiff's claims. To support this contention, the Defendants
include a declaration from Stanley Marcello, a "Senior Director,
Tax," who declares that Danone is a "separate corporate entity."
The declaration does not explain for which company Marcello is a
director.
Judge Tigar finds that Brown's claims are preempted by the OFPA
certification scheme. Brown's state law claims that the
certified organic milk is not really organic directly conflict
with OFPA's primary purposes: (1) a uniform national standard,
and (2) exclusive federal enforcement of such standard. He says
there is simply no way to rule in Brown's favor without
contradicting the certification decision, and, through it, the
certification scheme that Congress enacted in the OFPA.
The Judge also finds that in a ruling on a 12(b)(6) motion, a
court cannot consider evidence outside the pleadings without
converting the motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment
and giving the opposing party an opportunity to respond. The
Judge accordingly declines to consider the Marcello declaration.
Under the allegations of the complaint, which the Court takes as
true, Danone and WhiteWave together produce, market, and sell
Horizon Organic milk. He declines to dismiss Danone as an
improper party.
In light of his conclusion that Brown's claims are preempted by
OFPA, and that she lacks standing under the UCL and CLRA, Judge
Tigar needs not address the Defendants' remaining arguments. He
granted the motion to dismiss in its entirety. The Plaintiff may
file an amended complaint within 21 days curing the defects
identified in the Order. If no such complaint is filed, the
Court will dismiss the case with prejudice.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 1, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/mdM9qs from Leagle.com.
Crystal Brown, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Brian Murphy, Braswell
Murphy, LLC, pro hac vice, Kasie Moore Braswell, Braswell Murphy,
LLC, pro hac vice, Leslie E. Hurst -- lhurst@bholaw.com -- Blood
Hurst & O'Reardon LLP, Paula R. Brown -- pbrown@bholaw.com --
Blood Hurst & O'Reardon LLP, Peter B. Fredman, Law Office of
Peter Fredman & Timothy G. Blood -- tblood@bholaw.com -- Blood
Hurst & O'Rearden, LLC.
Danone North America, LLC & Whitewave Foods Company, Defendants,
represented by Angela Christine Agrusa --
angela.agrusa@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper LLP.
DCP OPERATING: Faces "Miller" Suit in E.D. Oklahoma
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against DCP Operating
Company, LP. The case is styled as Donald D. Miller Revocable
Family Trust Trustee Donald D. Miller, on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DCP Operating Company, LP and
DCP Midstream, LP, Defendants, Case No. 6:18-cv-00199-SPS (E.D.
Okla., June 28, 2018).
DCP Midstream Operating, LP gathers, compresses, treats,
processes, transports, stores, and markets natural gas. The
company manufactures, stores, transports, and distributes NGL's
and propane in wholesale markets. Its Natural Gas Services
segment has a strategic presence in Texas, Michigan, Colorado,
Louisiana, the Gulf of Mexico, Oklahoma, and Wyoming and NGL
Logistics segment has strategically located NGL transportation
pipelines in Texas, Colorado, Kansas, and Louisiana. The company
was incorporated in 2005 and is based in Denver, Colorado.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Burrage, Esq.
Whitten Burrage
512 N Broadway, Ste 300
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Tel: (405) 516-7800
Fax: (405) 516-7859
Email: mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Daniel M. McClure, Esq.
Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP (Houston)
1301 McKinney, Ste 5100
Houston, TX 77010-3095
Tel: (713) 651-5151
Fax: (713) 651-5246
Email: dan.mcclure@nortonrosefulbright.com
- and -
Michael E. Smith, Esq.
Hall Estill Hardwick Gable Golden & Nelson (OKC)
100 N Broadway, Ste 2900
Oklahoma City, OK 73102-8865
Tel: (405) 553-2828
Fax: (405) 553-2855
Email: mesmith@hallestill.com
DEFENDERS INC: Appeals Remand Order in "Walsh" Suit to 3rd Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Defenders Inc. and ADT Security Services Inc. filed an
appeal from the District Court's memorandum and order entered in
the lawsuit styled NORMAN WALSH, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. DEFENDERS, INC., d/b/a Protect Your Home;
ADT SECURITY SERVICES, INC.; B&R RECOVERY LLC, Case No. 2-16-cv-
00753, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.
The District Court granted the Plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration of an order denying remand. Judge Esther Salas
vacated the District Court's November 15, 2016 Order and remanded
to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County.
The appellate case is captioned as Norman Walsh v. Defenders
Inc., et al., Case No. 18-2156, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, ADT and
Defenders filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit.
That appellate case is titled as Norman Walsh v. Defenders
Inc., et al., Case No. 18-8009.
The Plaintiff filed an initial complaint in state court. On
February 4, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The
crux of the Plaintiff's allegation is that the Defendants
"buried" unlawful provisions in its consumer contracts in
violation of numerous New Jersey laws. Defenders removed the
action to the District Court on February 11, 2016, asserting
federal diversity jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness
Act.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Appellant's brief and joint appendix was to be filed and
served by June 1, 2018;
-- Appellee's brief was to be filed and served by June 11,
2018; and
-- Appellant's reply brief, if any, was to be filed and served
by June 18, 2018.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee NORMAN WALSH, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, is represented by:
Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
KIM LAW FIRM
411 Hackensack Avenue, Suite 701
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 273-7117
E-mail: rkim@thekimlawfirmllc.com
- and -
Henry P. Wolfe, Esq.
THE WOLF LAW FIRM
1520 U.S. Highway 130, Suite 101
North Brunswick, NJ 08902
Telephone: (732) 545-7900
E-mail: hwolfe@wolflawfirm.net
Defendants-Appellants DEFENDERS INC., DBA Protect Your Home and
ADT SECURITY SERVICES INC. are represented by:
Charles C. Eblen, Esq.
SHOOK HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
2555 Grand Boulevard
Kansas City, MO 64108
Telephone: (816) 474-6550
Facsimile: (816) 421-5547
E-mail: ceblen@shb.com
- and -
Katherine O. Mowll, Esq.
SHOOK HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
Two Commerce Square
2001 Market Street, Suite 3000
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 278-2555
DEL TACO: Fails to Pay Wages, Castillo Says
-------------------------------------------
MIGUEL CASTILLO, individually and on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DEL TACO, LLC, a California
limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. BC709672 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 18, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid wages under the California Labor Code.
According to the complaint, the Defendants required the Plaintiff
and aggrieved employees to work through his or her rest and meal
breaks but did not pay lawful wages, in violation of the various
above applicable Wage Orders, regulations, statutes, and
ordinances. The Defendants were obligated to pay Plaintiff and
the aggrieved employees one hour compensation for each meal and
rest period interrupted or not provided to them. , Defendants
failed to pay all missed meal and rest period compensation due.
Del Taco Restaurants Inc. is an American fast food restaurant
chain which specializes in American-style Mexican cuisine as well
as American foods such as burgers, fries, and shakes.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ramin R. Younessi, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF RAMIN R. YOUNESSI
3435 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2200
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 480 6200
Facsimile: (213)480 6201
DIRECTV LLC: Seeks Fourth Circuit Review of Ruling in "Mey" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant DirecTV, LLC, filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit titled Diana Mey v. DIRECTV, LLC, et al., Case No.
5:17-cv-00179-JPB, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia at Wheeling.
The other Defendants are ADAM COX, AC1 COMMUNICATIONS, IQ
MARKETING 2, CORP., d/b/a Pacificom, and MICHAEL ASGHARI.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks an injunction requiring the Defendant to cease all
unsolicited telemarketing calls and activities, all expenses of
this action and such other and further relief under the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
The appellate case is captioned as Diana Mey v. DIRECTV, LLC,
Case No. 18-1534, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Opening Brief and Appendix were due on June 25, 2018; and
-- Response Brief is due on July 23, 2018.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee DIANA MEY, individually and on behalf of a
class of all persons and entities similarly situated, is
represented by:
John William Barrett, Esq.
Ryan McCune Donovan, Esq.
Sandra Henson Kinney, Esq.
Jonathan R. Marshall, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP
209 Capitol Street
Charleston, WV 25301-0000
Telephone: (304) 345-6555
E-mail: jbarrett@baileyglasser.com
rdonovan@baileyglasser.com
skinney@baileyglasser.com
jmarshall@baileyglasser.com
Defendant-Appellant DIRECTV, LLC, is represented by:
Daniel E. Jones, Esq.
Archis Ashok Parasharami, Esq.
MAYER BROWN, LLP
1999 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006-1101
Telephone: (202) 263-3000
E-mail: djones@mayerbrown.com
aparasharami@mayerbrown.com
- and -
Sarah A. Phipps, Esq.
Danielle M. Waltz, Esq.
JACKSON KELLY, PLLC
1600 Laidley Tower
500 Lee Street, East
P. O. Box 553
Charleston, WV 25322
Telephone: (304) 340-1071
E-mail: sarah.a.phipps@jacksonkelly.com
dwaltz@jacksonkelly.com
DIRECTV LLC: Seeks 11th Cir. Review of Decision in "Cordoba" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant DIRECTV, LLC, filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit styled Sebastian Cordoba v. DIRECTV, LLC, Case No.
1:15-cv-03755-MHC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the class
action accuses DirecTV of making illegal telemarketing calls to
names on the National Do Not Call Registry.
In an order, Judge Mark H. Cohen held that unsolicited telephone
calls are an invasion of privacy under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act that constitute a concrete injury necessary to
demonstrate Article III standing, noting that an injury can be
intangible and still be considered "concrete."
The appellate case is captioned as Sebastian Cordoba v. DIRECTV,
LLC, Case No. 18-12077, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Eleventh Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that the
Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons was due on or before
June 18, 2018, as to Appellee Sebastian Cordoba.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee SEBASTIAN CORDOBA, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Michael Joseph Boyle, Jr., Esq.
Matthew R. Wilson, Esq.
MEYER WILSON CO., LPA
1320 Dublin Rd., Suite 100
Columbus, OH 43215-1187
Telephone: (614) 224-6000
Facsimile: (614) 224-6066
E-mail: mboyle@meyerwilson.com
mwilson@meyerwilson.com
- and -
Douglas I. Cuthbertson, Esq.
Daniel M. Hutchinson, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
250 Hudson St., 8th Floor
New York, NY 10113
Telephone: (212) 355-9500
E-mail: dcuthbertson@lchb.com
dhutchinson@lchb.com
- and -
Jonathan David Grunberg, Esq.
Nicole Jennings Wade, Esq.
G. Taylor Wilson, Esq.
L. Lin Wood, Esq.
L. LIN WOOD, PC
1180 West Peachtree Street, Ste. 2400
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (404) 891-1402
Facsimile: (404) 506-9111
E-mail: jgrunberg@linwoodlaw.com
nwade@linwoodlaw.com
twilson@linwoodlaw.com
lwood@linwoodlaw.com
- and -
Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
Telephone: (415) 956-1000
Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
E-mail: jselbin@lchb.com
- and -
Matthew M. Wilkins, Esq.
KING & YAKLIN, LLP
192 Anderson Street, Suite 125
Marietta, GA 30060
Telephone: (770) 424-9235
Facsimile: (770) 424-9239
E-mail: mwilkins@kingyaklin.com
Defendant-Appellant DIRECTV, LLC, individually and as successor
through merger to DIRECTV, Inc., is represented by:
Ava Conger, Esq.
John P. Jett, Esq.
KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON, LLP
1100 Peachtree St., Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (404) 815-6500
E-mail: aconger@kilpatricktownsend.com
jjett@kilpatricktownsend.com
- and -
Hans J. Germann, Esq.
MAYER BROWN, LLP
71 S Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606-4637
Telephone: (312) 782-0600
E-mail: hgermann@mayerbrown.com
- and -
John E. Muench, Esq.
Andrew John Pincus, Esq.
Kyle J. Steinmetz, Esq.
MAYER BROWN, LLP
1999 K St. NW
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 263-3000
Facsimile: (202) 263-5220
E-mail: jmuench@mayerbrown.com
apincus@mayerbrown.com
ksteinmetz@mayerbrown.com
- and -
Kara W. Ong, Esq.
CINGULAR WIRELESS, LLC
5565 Glenridge Connector NE, Suite 1700
Atlanta, GA 30342-4756
Telephone: (404) 236-6000
DISH NETWORK: Ct. Awards Atty.'s Fees to Plaintiff in "Padberg"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Missouri, Central Division, granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Award
of Attorney's Fees, Expenses and Incentive Award in the case
captioned MIKE PADBERG, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DISH NETWORK L.L.C, a Colorado
limited liability corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:11-cv-04035-
NKL (W.D. Mo.).
The Settlement Agreement provides monetary relief for Class
Members, including: (A) monetary relief and credits for Class
Members who are current and former AT120+ Customers, paid from a
$2,700,000 Settlement Fund to be established by DISH, Sections
2.4, 6.2; and (B) credits for Class Members who are current and
former non-AT120+ Customers, to be provided by DISH separate from
the Settlement Fund.
In determining the reasonable number of hours expended by Class
Counsel, the Court is satisfied with relying on summaries and
affidavits of counsel. The Court notes that this case has been
heavily litigated since early 2011. As noted in the Plaintiff's
Application, this nationwide class case was filed more than seven
years ago.
Applying the lodestar analysis to Class Counsel's hourly rates
and hours expended, the Court finds that the requested attorney
fee is reasonable because, regardless of how much of the
Settlement Fund reverts to Class Counsel, it will still be less
than Class Counsel's lodestar. The total Settlement Fund, before
any payments, is $2,700,000. Class Counsel's lodestar is more
than $3 million, with an additional $711,278.16 in previously
incurred costs and expenses, exclusive of the settlement
administration costs and expenses. Accordingly, even if there
were no class member claims, and no settlement administration
costs, reversion of the entire Settlement Fund to Class Counsel
as a fee would be reasonable.
The Court also finds that the litigation expenses referenced in
the Plaintiff's Application appear to be expenses of the type
that are routinely charged to paying clients and thus, an award
for recovery of these expenses is appropriate.
Accordingly, the Court grants the Plaintiff's Application for
Award of Attorneys' Fees, Expenses and Class Representative
Incentive Award. The Court approves Class Counsel's fee and
expense request in the form of the Settlement Fund Remainder, and
approves Plaintiff Mike Padberg's request for a class incentive
award in the amount of $15,000.
A full-text copy of the District Court's April 30, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ycb6m3kp from Leagle.com.
Mike Padberg, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Kevin P. Green --
kevin@ghalaw.com -- Goldenberg Heller & Antognoli, PC, pro hac
vice, Matthew A. Clement, Cook, Vetter, Doerhoff & Landwehr,
P.C., Edward D. Robertson, Jr. -- crobertson@bflawfirm.com --
Bartimus Frickleton Robertson Rader, Joseph A. Kronawitter --
jkronawitter@hab-law.com -- Horn, Aylward & Bandy, LLC, Kari A.
Schulte -- kschulte@cvdl.net -- Cook, Vetter, Doerhoff &
Landwehr, P.C., Mary D. Winter, Bartimus Frickleton Robertson
Rader, Robert A. Horn -- rhorn@hab-law.com -- Horn, Aylward &
Bandy, LLC, Thomas P. Rosenfeld -- tom@ghalaw.com -- Goldenberg
Heller & Antognoli, PC & Timothy W. Van Ronzelen, Cook, Vetter,
Doerhoff & Landwehr, P.C.
Dish Network LLC, Defendant, represented by Jessica L. Grant,
Coblentz, Patch, Duffy & Bass LLP, pro hac vice, Jonathan R.
Bass, Coblentz, Patch, Duffy & Bass LLP, pro hac vice, Katharine
T. Van Dusen, Coblentz Patch Duffy & Bass LLP, pro hac vice,
Lauren S. Kowal, Coblentz, Patch, Duffy & Bass LLP, pro hac vice,
Matthew Duff Turner -- mturner@armstrongteasdale.com --
Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Rees F. Morgan, Coblentz, Patch, Duffy &
Bass LLP, pro hac vice, Richard R. Patch, Coblentz, Patch, Duffy
& Bass LLP, pro hac vice, Sean M. Kiley, Coblentz Patch Duffy &
Bass LLP, pro hac vice & Matthew C. Dirkes, Coblentz, Patch,
Duffy & Bass LLP, pro hac vice.
DONALD J. TRUMP: Sued over Central American Minors Parole Program
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit, Case No. 3:18-cv-03539-LB (N.D. Cal.,
June 13, 2018), seeks to enjoin and restrain all Defendants, and
their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all
persons who are in active concert or participation with any of
them, from implementing or enforcing the decisions to terminate
the Central American Minors Parole program and mass rescind
conditional approval for parole status.
This lawsuit challenges the Trump Administration's termination of
the parole portion of the CAM program -- a program established in
2014 in response to the humanitarian crisis presented by
thousands of unaccompanied minors fleeing danger in El Salvador,
Guatemala, and Honduras and arriving at the Southern Border. Over
the years, the CAM Program enabled thousands of Central American
parents lawfully residing in the United States to safely and
legally bring their children to the United States as refugees or
parolees through an orderly process in which eligibility
determinations were made in the minors' home countries.
According to the complaint, this Administration's highly erratic
and unexplained termination of the CAM Parole program, which
began with secretly shutting down its operations immediately
after inauguration and culminated with the mass rescission of
conditional approval for parole status for nearly 3,000 children
in August 2017, can only be understood as another one of this
Administration's cruel and xenophobic policies against people it
has publicly labeled "animals."
The lawsuit is captioned as S.A.; J.A.; A.B.; R.C., on behalf of
himself and as Guardian Ad Litem for J.C., a minor child; M.C.;
D.D.; G.E., on behalf of himself and as Guardian Ad Litem for
B.E., a minor child; J.F., on behalf of himself and as Guardian
Ad Litem for H.F. and A.F., minor children, on behalf of
themselves and on behalf of a class of all similarly situated
individuals, and CASA, the Plaintiffs, v. DONALD J. TRUMP, in his
official capacity as President of the United States; U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
SERVICES; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE; KIRSTJEN NIELSEN, in her
official capacity as Secretary of Homeland Security; MICHAEL R.
POMPEO, in his official capacity as Secretary of State; L.
FRANCIS CISSNA, in his official capacity as Director of U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
the Defendants.
Donald John Trump is the 45th and current President of the United
States, in office since January 20, 2017. Before entering
politics, he was a businessman and television personality. The
United States Department of Homeland Security is a cabinet
department of the United States federal government with
responsibilities in public security, roughly comparable to the
interior or home ministries of other countries.[BN]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs:
Daniel B. Asimow, Esq.
Matthew H. Fine, Esq.
ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
Three Embarcadero Center, 10th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: 415 471 3100
Facsimile: 415 471 3400
E-mail: daniel.asimow@arnoldporter.com
matthew.fine@arnoldporter.com
- and -
John A. Freedman, Esq.
Gaela K. Gehring Flores, Esq.
David J. Weiner, Esq.
Dana O. Campos, Esq.
Mateo Morris, Esq.
ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
601 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20001-3743
Telephone: 202.942.5000
Facsimile: 202.942.5999
E-mail: john.freedman@arnoldporter.com
gaela.gehringflores@arnoldporter.com
david.weiner@arnoldporter.com
dana.campos@arnoldporter.com
mateo.morris@arnoldporter.com
- and -
Linda Evarts, Esq.
Kathryn C. Meyer, Esq.
Mariko Hirose, Esq.
INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE ASSISTANCE PROJECT
40 Rector Street, 9th Floor
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (646) 459 3057
Facsimile: (212) 533 4598
E-mail: levarts@refugeerights.org
kmeyer@refugeerights.org
mhirose@refugeerights.org
- and -
Phillip A. Geraci, Esq.
Susan S. Hu, Esq.
ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
250 West 55th Street
New York, NY 10019-9710
Telephone: (212) 836 8000
Facsimile: (212) 836 8689
E-mail: phillip.geraci@arnoldporter.com
susan.hu@arnoldporter.com
DR PEPPER: Excevarria Appeals S.D.N.Y. Rulings to Second Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Yasmin Excevarria and Joette Phoenix filed an appeal
from the District Court's order dated April 18, 2018, and another
order dated May 15, 2018, in their lawsuit entitled Excevarria,
et al. v. Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, et al., Case No. 17-cv-7957,
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
(New York City).
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
is brought against the Defendants for alleged violations of New
York's Unfair and Deceptive Business Practices Law, false
advertising law, negligent and intentional misrepresentation,
restitution, and breach of express and implied warranties.
The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves, other
Diet Dr. Pepper consumers, and the general public, to enjoin Dr.
Pepper from continuing to misleadingly advertise Diet Dr. Pepper,
and to recover restitution and damages for the class.
The appellate case is captioned as Excevarria, et al. v. Dr.
Pepper Snapple Group, et al., Case No. 18-1492, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants Yasmin Excevarria, on behalf of themselves,
all others similarly situated, and the general public, and Joette
Phoenix, on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated,
and the general public, are represented by:
Abraham Melamed, Esq.
DEREK SMITH LAW GROUP, PLLC
1 Penn Plaza
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (303) 929-3903
E-mail: abe@dereksmithlaw.com
Defendants-Appellees Dr. Pepper Snapple Group and Dr.
Pepper/Seven Up, Inc., are represented by:
Douglas W. Henkin, Esq.
BAKER BOTTS LLP
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY 10112
Telephone: (212) 408-2520
E-mail: douglas.henkin@bakerbotts.com
DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Ojeda Sues over Debt Collections Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
HECTOR OJEDA, pleading on his own behalf and on behalf of all
other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. DYNAMIC
RECOVERY SOLUTIONS, the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00180-KC
(W.D. Tex., June 13, 2018), seeks to recover damages arising from
Defendant's violations of the Fair Debt Collections Practices
Act.
According to the complaint, on or about June 22, 2017, Defendant
sent Plaintiff a collection letter, presenting the "current
balance" as $951.34, for a personal debt originating with Capital
One. The collection letter offered two payment options. Option
one (1) was a lump sum payment of $285.40 which was due on August
6, 2017. Option two (2) was to "resolve [the] account for $332.97
in three (3) monthly payments." Therefore, Option 2 clearly
offered payments over time. In the last line of the Collection
Letter, in much smaller print, Defendant states, "The law limits
how long you can be sued on a debt. Because of the age of your
debt, LVNV Funding LLC will not sue you for it and LVNV Funding
LLC will not report it to any credit reporting bureau." The
collection letter is misleading, confusing, deceptive, and unfair
as it misrepresents the nature, character, and/or legal status of
the alleged debt. The Letter did not indicate or inform Plaintiff
that a partial payment on the debt would restart the running of
the statute of limitations. In fact, had Plaintiff chosen a
payment plan option, and advised Defendant of this in writing,
the partial payment would revive the statute of limitations
rendering the Plaintiff worse off than if he had rejected the
offer.
Dynamic Recovery is a debt collector.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel Zemel, Esq.
ZEMEL LAW LLC
1373 Broad Street, Suite 203-C
Clifton, NJ 07013
Telephone: (862) 227 3106
E-mail: DZ@zemellawllc.com
DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Faces "Swann" Suit in N.D. Alabama
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dynamic Recovery
Solutions LLC. The case is styled as Susan Swann, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Dynamic Recovery Solutions LLC, a South Carolina limited
liability company and Jeffrson Capital Systems, LLC a Georgia
limited liability company, Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-01000-VEH
(N.D. Ala., June 28, 2018).
Dynamic Recovery Solutions LLC is a collections agency in
Greenville, SC.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bradford W Botes, Esq.
Bond, Botes, Reese & Shinn, P.C.
600 University Park Place, Suite 510
Birmingham, AL 35209
Tel: (205) 802-2200
Fax: (205) 870-3698
Email: bbotes@bondnbotes.com
DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Faces "Bryant" Suit in D. Colorado
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dynamic Recovery
Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Alexander Bryant
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC, Pinnacle Credit
Services, LLC and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-
01646-KLM (D. Colo., June 28, 2018).
Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC is a collection agency in
Greenville, SC.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yaakov Saks, Esq.
RC Law Group, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Tel: (201) 282-6500
Fax: (201) 282-6501
Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com
EAST CAPITOL: Preliminary Approval to "Kinard" Settlement Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned MILDRED KINARD, EARLENE WHEELER, VICKY
BORDEAUX and DONALD ROBINSON, the Plaintiffs, v. EAST CAPITOL
FAMILY RENTAL, L.P., A&R MANAGEMENT, INC., and KETTLER
MANAGEMENT, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-01935-TJK
(D.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order:
1. granting preliminary approval to a Proposed Settlement;
2. approving Proposed Notice filed concurrently with this
motion;
3. directing that Proposed Notice be immediately mailed to
Class Members;
4. approving appointment of Settlement Services, Inc., as the
Settlement Administrator;
5. approving Defendant's Class Action Fairness Act notice;
6. setting date of the Final Fairness Hearing at the Court's
earliest availability, but no sooner than 120 days from the
date of the granting of this Motion.
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=aXK2weIJ
Attorneys for Plaintiffs:
Chinh Q. Le, Esq.
Beth Mellen Harrison, Esq.
Rachel Rintelmann, Esq.
LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
1331 H Street, N.W. Suite 350
Washington, D.C. 20005
Telephone: (202) 628 1161
E-mail: cle@legalaiddc.org
Attorneys for Defendants East Capitol Family
David G. Sommer, Esq.
James D. Bragdon, Esq.
GALLAGHER EVELIUS & JONES LLP
218 N. Charles Street, Suite 400
Baltimore, MD 21201-4033
Telephone: (410) 727 7702
E-mail: dsommer@gejlaw.com
Attorneys for Defendant Kettler Management, Inc., and Rental,
L.P. & A&R Management, Inc.:
Nicholas Hallenbeck, Esq.
GORDON & REES LLP
1300 I Street, NW, Suite 825
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 399 1009
E-mail: nhallenbeck@gordonrees.com
ECOLAB INC: "Charlot" Suit Moved to District of New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY CHARLOT, ALAN REMACHE, and JOSE TEJADA, individually and
on behalf all others similarly, the Plaintiff, v. ECOLAB INC.,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10528, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, to the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Camden) on
June 13, 2018). The New Jersey District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:18-cv-10528 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiffs work for Ecolab as Route Managers performing
maintenance, installation, and repair services on commercial
dishwashing equipment. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs
regularly work in excess of 40 hours in a week for which Ecolab
does not pay them Overtime at a rate of one and one-half their
regular rate of pay.
The Defendant is a Fortune 500 company that had revenues of over
$6 billion in 2011.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin M. Swartz, Esq.
Molly A. Brooks, Esq.
OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
3 Park Avenue, 29th Fl.
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 245 1000
EDDIE GARZA: Maldonado Seeks Unpaid Compensation under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
RODOLFO MALDONADO, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. EDDIE GARZA SECURITY &
INVESTIGATIONS, EDDIE GARZA and AMANDA GARZA, the Defendant, Case
No. 2:18-cv-00168 (S.D. Tex., June 12, 2018), seeks to recover
compensation, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the provisions of Sections 207 and 216(b) of the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938.
According to the complaint, the Defendants knowingly and
deliberately failed to compensate Plaintiff and the FLSA
Collective Members overtime of at least one and one-half their
regular rates for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
workweek. Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective Members did not and
currently do not perform work that meets the definition of exempt
work under the FLSA. Specifically, Plaintiff and the FLSA
Collective Members performed routine and manual labor type job
duties as security guards.[BN]
Attorneys in Charge for Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members:
Clif Alexander, Esq.
Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
Alan Clifton Gordon, Esq.
Carter T. Hastings, Esq.
George Schimmel, Esq.
ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
819 N. Upper Broadway
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Telephone: (361) 452 1279
Facsimile: (361) 452 1284
E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
austin@a2xlaw.com
lauren@a2xlaw.com
cgordon@a2xlaw.com
carter@a2xlaw.com
geordie@a2xlaw.com
EDUCATIONAL FINANCIAL: Can't Collect Discharged Debt, Henry Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHANIE HENRY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. EDUCATIONAL FINANCIAL SERVICES, A
DIVISION OF WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A, the Defendant, Case No.
18-03154 (S.D. Tex., June 12, 2018), seeks injunctive relief
prohibiting Defendant from continuing to collect on discharged
debts.
According to the complaint, all class members share a similar
factual narrative. All class Members borrowed Consumer Education
Loans from Defendant. All Class Members filed for bankruptcy
protection in various district courts of the United States. At
the conclusion of these bankruptcy cases, all Class Members were
issued Discharge Orders. The statutory injunction effected by
these Discharge Orders extinguished all education-related debt
that was not excepted from discharge by 11 U.S.C. section
523(a)(8). Notwithstanding the discharge of these debts,
Defendant employed processes, practices, and acts designed to
mislead Class Members into believing that their debts were not
discharged and inducing them to make payments on extinguished
debts. The Defendant has misled Class Members and sought to
collect on discharged debts by use of dunning letters, emails,
text messages, and telephone calls demanding repayment. In
addition, to attempt to compel payment on these discharged debts,
Defendant has continued to report these debts as delinquent to
the major credit bureaus, and has failed to update these credit
reports. The Defendant has also commenced or continued legal
actions against Class Members to induce payment on their
discharged debts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam Corral, Esq.
CORRAL TRAN SINGH, LLP
1010 Lamar St., Ste., 1160
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (832) 975 7300
Facsimile: (832) 975 7301
E-mail: Adam.corral@ctsattorneys.com
- and -
Jason W. Burge, Esq.
Kathryn J. Johnson, Esq.
FISHMAN HAYGOOD L.L.P.
201 St. Charles Avenue, 46th Floor
New Orleans, LA 70170-4600
Telephone: (504) 586 5252
Facsimile: (504) 586 5250
E-mail: jburge@fishmanhaygood.com
kjohnson@fishmanhaygood.com
- and -
Austin Smith, Esq.
SMITH LAW GROUP
3 Mitchell Place
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (917) 992 2121
E-mail: Austin@acsmithlawgroup.com
- and -
Lynn E. Swanson, Esq.
JONES, SWANSON, HUDDELL & GARRISON, L.L.C.
601 Poydras Street, Suite 2655
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: (504) 523 2500
Facsimile: (504) 523 2508
E-mail: Lswanson@jonesswanson.com
- and -
Joshua B. Kons, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JOSHUA B. KONS, LLC
939 West North Avenue, Suite 750
Chicago, IL 60642
Telephone: (312) 757 2272
E-mail: joshuakons@konslaw.com
- and -
George F. Carpinello, Esq.
Adam R. Shaw, Esq.
Robert C. Tietjen, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
30 South Pearl St., 11th Floor
Albany, NY 12207
Telephone: (518) 434 0600
E-mail: gcarpinello@BSFLLP.com
adamshaw@BSFLLP.com
rtietjen@BSFLLP.com
EGS FINANCIAL: Faces "Allberry" Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against EGS Financial Care,
Inc. The case is styled as Loretta A Allberry, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EGS
Financial Care, Inc. and Alorica Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:18-
cv-03745 (E.D. N.Y., June 28, 2018).
EGS Financial Care, Inc. operates as a customer service
organization that delivers outsourced solutions for finance,
healthcare, retail, technology, telecommunication, transportation
and logistics, travel and hospitality, and utility industries in
the United States and internationally. It offers customer
acquisition, sales, customer retention, omnichannel, customer
experience transformation, contact center, self-service, social
care, product and technical support, back office customer care,
first party collection, back office financial care, early
intervention, fraud, credit, financial investigative, and
healthcare solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.
EP CHARGER: Fails to Pay Overtime Compensation, Yerena Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
OMAR YERENA, individually and on behalf of other individuals
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. EP CHARGER, LLC, a
California Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 25,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC 709654 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
June 12, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation
under the California Labor Code.
From June 2017 to March 2018, Plaintiff was required to work from
8 a.m. to 5 p.m. The Plaintiff was initially paid $13.00 per
hour, but his rate was changed to $11.00 per hour (legal minimum
wage) as part of a restructuring of mechanics' wages at
Defendant's business. Since Plaintiffs rate was changed to $11.00
per hour, his wage statements became incredibly complex, although
they clearly show that he was not paid the correct overtime
premiums -- e.g., he was not paid 1.5 times his regular hourly
rate of $11.00 for his overtime hours.
EP Charger is in the new and used car dealers business.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Young W. Ryu, Esq.
Jesse Yanco, Esq.
Jordan T. Wada, Esq.
LOYR, APC
3130 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 402
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (888) 365 8686
Facsimile: (800) 576 1170
E-mail: jordan.wada@loywr.com
young.ryu@loywr.com
jesse.yanco@loywr.com
EPR PROPERTIES: Faces "Williams" Suit in District of Colorado
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against EPR Properties. The
lawsuit is captioned as Margaret Williams, Individually and legal
guardian of Christopher Williams, on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. EPR Properties, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01466-MSK-KMT (D. Colo., June 12,
2018).
EPR Properties is a specialty real estate investment trust based
in the United States that currently invests in three primary
segments: Entertainment, Recreation and Education.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin James Sweet, Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH SWEET
KILPELA & CARPENTER LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322 9243
Facsimile: (412) 231 0246
E-mail: bsweet@carlsonlynch.com
EVERETT FINANCIAL: "Baretich" Suit Moved to S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Richard Baretich, Individually,
and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Everett Financial, Inc., doing
business as: Supreme Lending, a Texas Corporation, and DOES 1
through 100, Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 37-02018-
00024796-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of
California, County of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California (San Diego) on June 19, 2018.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-01327-MMA-BGS
to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Michael
M. Anello.
Everett Financial owns and operates mortgage banker.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Han, Esq.
JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
411 North Central Avenue, Suite 500
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 230 7502
Facsimile: (818) 230 7259
E-mail: dhan@justicelawcorp.com
Attorneys for Everett Financial, Inc.:
Charles L Post, Esq.
WEINTRAUB GENSHLEA CHEDIAK AND SPROUL
400 Capitol Mall
Eleventh Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: (916) 558 6000
Facsimile: (916) 446 1611
E-mail: cpost@weintraub.com
EXECAP INC: Faces "Winston" Suit in California State Court
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Execap, Inc. The
lawsuit is captioned as Christie Winston and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Does 1-20; Execap,
Inc.; Executive Autopilots, Inc.; and Andrey Kalchenko, the
Defendant, Case No. 34-2018-00234725-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct.,
June 13, 2018).[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ronald W. Makarem, Esq.
MAKAREM & ASSOCIATES
11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2440
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Telephone: (800) 610 9646
EXPERIAN DATA: Vance Appeals Ruling in "Patton" Suit to 9th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Samuel Vance filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit styled Maudie Patton, Jacqueline Goodridge and Virginia
Kaldmo, individually, and on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Experian Data Corp., Court Ventures, Inc.,
Infosearch.com, LLC and Does 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 8:17-cv-
01559-JVS-DFM, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Santa Ana.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was filed on September 30, 2015, in the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Orange and assigned Case
No. 8:15-cv-01142. The lawsuit was removed on September 8, 2017,
to the District Court. The Plaintiffs seek declaratory and
injunctive relief under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
The appellate case is captioned as Samuel Vance v. Experian Data
Corp., et al., Case No. 18-55669, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Transcript must be ordered by June 20, 2018;
-- Transcript is due on July 20, 2018;
-- Appellant Samuel Vance's opening brief is due on August 30,
2018;
-- Appellees Court Ventures, Inc., Experian Data Corp. and
U.S. Infosearch.com, LLC's answering brief is due on
October 1, 2018; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
service of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant SAMUEL VANCE, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Ben Barnow, Esq.
Erich Schork, Esq.
BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.
1 N. LaSalle
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 621-2000
E-mail: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com
e.schork@barnowlaw.com
- and -
Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
Paula R. Brown, Esq.
BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON LLP
501 West Broadway
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 338-1100
Facsimile: (619) 338-1101
E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com
pbrown@bholaw.com
Defendant-Appellee EXPERIAN DATA CORP., a Delaware corporation,
is represented by:
Edward San Chang, Esq.
Jeremy Close, Esq.
Richard Joseph Grabowski, Esq.
John A. Vogt, Esq.
JONES DAY
3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 800
Irvine, CA 92612-4408
Telephone: (949) 851-3939
Facsimile: (949) 553-7539
E-mail: echang@jonesday.com
jsclose@jonesday.com
rgrabowski@JonesDay.com
javogt@jonesday.com
Defendant-Appellee COURT VENTURES, INC., a California
corporation, is represented by:
Alton G. Burkhalter, Esq.
Daniel Joseph Kessler, Esq.
BURKHALTER KESSLER CLEMENT AND GEORGE LLP
2020 Main Street
Irvine, CA 92614
Telephone: (949) 975-7500
E-mail: aburkhalter@bkcglaw.com
dkessler@bkcglaw.com
Defendant-Appellee U.S. INFOSEARCH.COM, LLC, an Ohio limited
liability company, is represented by:
Sandra Calin, Esq.
KRAMER, DEBOER & KEANE
21860 Burbank Boulevard, Suite 370
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Telephone: (818) 657-0255
Facsimile: (818) 657-0256
E-mail: scalin@kdeklaw.com
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: "Wilson" Suit Moved to S.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled John Wilson and Nieysha White,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs. v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 37-02018-00019869-CU-NP-CTL, was removed from
the Superior Court of California, San Diego, to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California (San Diego) on June
12, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-
01249-BEN-BGS to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Roger T. Benitez.
Experian Information operates as an information services company.
The Company offers credit information, analytical tools, and
marketing.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
KAZEROUNIAN LAW GROUP, APC
245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (800) 400 6808
Facsimile: (800) 520 5523
E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
The Defendant is represented by:
John A. Vogt, Esq.
JONES DAY
3 Park Plaza, Suite 1100
Irvine, CA 92614
Telephone: (949) 553 7516
Facsimile: (949) 553 7539
E-mail: javogt@jonesday.com
EXPERT GROUP: Tenth Circuit Appeal Filed in Colony Insurance Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Colony Insurance Company filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit entitled Colony Insurance Company v. Expert
Group International Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-CV-02499-RPM, in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado - Denver.
The lawsuit arises from insurance-related issues.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the parties have
previously filed appeals from court rulings entered in the
lawsuit.
The appellate case is captioned as Colony Insurance Company v.
Expert Group International Inc., et al., Case No. 18-1221, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
The Defendants-Appellees are EXPERT GROUP INTERNATIONAL INC., DBA
Expert Au Pair; GO AU PAIR OPERATIONS, LLC, DBA American Cultural
Exchange; and AU PAIR INTERNATIONAL, INC.
The other Defendants are JOHANA PAOLA BELTRAN, LUSAPHO
HLATSHANENI, BEAUDETTE DEETLEFS, DAYANNA PAOLA CARDENAS CAICEDO
and ALEXANDRA IVETTE GONZALEZ, and those similarly situated.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Docketing statement, transcript order form and entry of
appearance were due on June 5, 2018, for Colony Insurance
Company; and
-- Notice of appearance was due on June 5, 2018, for Au Pair
International, Inc., Expert Group International Inc. and Go
Au Pair Operations, LLC.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant COLONY INSURANCE COMPANY is represented by:
Larry I. Gramovot, Esq.
GRAMOVOT & TAKACS, P.L.
1400 Village Square Boulevard, Suite 3-405
Tallahassee, FL 32312-1231
Telephone: (850) 325-1914
Facsimile: (866) 386-6321
E-mail: Larry@lig-law.com
- and -
Aaron J. Pratt, Esq.
Kyle P. Seedorf, Esq.
TAYLOR ANDERSON, LLP
1670 Broadway, Suite 900
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: (303) 551-6660
E-mail: apratt@talawfirm.com
kseedorf@talawfirm.com
The Defendants-Appellees are represented by:
Christopher R. Mosley, Esq.
SHERMAN & HOWARD LLC
633 17th Street, Suite 3000
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: (303) 297-2900
Facsimile: (303) 298-0940
E-mail: cmosley@shermanhoward.com
FACEBOOK INC: Kopecky Sues over Massive Data Exfiltration
---------------------------------------------------------
TRACEY KOPECKY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. FACEBOOK INC., a Delaware
corporation; CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company; and DOES 1-100, the Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-02573-PBT (E.D. Pa., June 19, 2018), alleges grievous and
unprecedented breach of trust and invasion of privacy by which
Facebook Inc. allowed Cambridge Analytica, LLC and other unknown
third party defendants access to, and the potential unlimited use
of, vast amounts of sensitive personal information, including
names, birthdates, locations, photos, videos, and likes
("Personal Information") from Facebook users without their
consent.
Facebook operates a social networking platform where its users
provide their Personal Information to Facebook under the belief
and agreement that Facebook will safeguard that information, and
that Facebook will share the information only with the persons,
entities, and groups with whom the user consents. Instead of
safeguarding this sensitive Personal Information, Facebook
provided it to third party application ("app") developers without
user consent. Once the user data was in the possession of the
third party app developers, Facebook exercised no control over
how the app developer used the data.
Cambridge Analytica, through the use of one third party app
developer, obtained Personal Information from more than 87
million Facebook users which it thereafter used to create
targeted political advertising and messaging in various United
States elections. Moreover, this intentional massive data
exfiltration is not an isolated incident but simply a high
profile exemplar.
According to the complaint, only after public outcry has Facebook
proposed remedial measures. Yet, these proposed measures remain
feeble and hollow. None of these stopgap measures adequately
remedy or prevent the improper and illegal conduct alleged. In
fact, users' data remains dangerously unprotected and open to
further abuse by third party app developers and anyone to whom
these third party app developers distribute the users' data.
Defendants' disregard for the protection of Plaintiffs and class
members' Personal Information has led Plaintiff to bring this
suit to protect their privacy interests and those of the
class.[BN]
Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class:
Simon Bahne Paris, Esq.
Patrick Howard, Esq.
Charles J. Kocher, Esq.
SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, BARRETT & BENDESKY, P.C.
One Liberty Place, 52nd Floor
1650 Market Place
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 575 3986
Facsimile: (215) 496 0999
E-mail: sparis@smbb.com
phoward@smbb.com
ckocher@smbb.com
FACEBOOK INC: Gullen Appeals N.D. Calif. Ruling to Ninth Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Frederick William Gullen filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit titled Frederick Gullen v. Facebook, Inc.,
Case No. 3:16-cv-00937-JD, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Francisco.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 27, 2018, the
District Court denied the Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Class
Action Complaint to add a second named plaintiff and by narrowing
the class definition.
The complaint alleges that Facebook, Inc. violated the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), by collecting Gullen's
biometric identifiers without notice or consent. Gullen sought
to represent all non-Facebook users who, while residing in the
State of Illinois, had their biometric identifiers, including
face templates' or face prints, collected, captured, received,
stored, used, or otherwise obtained by Facebook.
The appellate case is captioned as Frederick Gullen v. Facebook,
Inc., Case No. 18-15785, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Transcript must be ordered by May 31, 2018;
-- Transcript was due on July 2, 2018;
-- Appellant Frederick William Gullen's opening brief is due
on August 9, 2018;
-- Appellee Facebook, Inc.'s answering brief is due on
September 10, 2018; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
service of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant FREDERICK WILLIAM GULLEN, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Albert Y. Chang, Esq.
BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC.
7817 Ivanhoe Avenue
La Jolla, CA 92037
Telephone: (858) 914-2001
Facsimile: (858) 914-2002
E-mail: achang@bottinilaw.com
Defendant-Appellee FACEBOOK, INC., is represented by:
Lauren R. Goldman, Esq.
MAYER BROWN, LLP
1675 Broadway
New York, NY 10019-5820
Telephone: (212) 506-2500
E-mail: lrgoldman@mayerbrown.com
- and -
Michael Evan Rayfield, Esq.
MAYER BROWN LLP
1221 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 506-2560
E-mail: mrayfield@mayerbrown.com
- and -
John Nadolenco, Esq.
MAYER BROWN LLP
350 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 229-9500
Facsimile: (213) 625-0248
E-mail: jnadolenco@mayerbrown.com
- and -
Archis Ashok Parasharami, Esq.
MAYER BROWN LLP
1999 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 263-3000
E-mail: aparasharami@mayerbrown.com
FACEBOOK INC: Appeals Class Cert. Order in "Patel" to 9th Cir.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Facebook, Inc., filed an appeal from the District Court's April
16, 2018 order granting class action certification in the lawsuit
styled Nimesh Patel, et al. v. Facebook, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-
03747-JD, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Francisco.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 17, 2018, Judge
James Donato allowed a class action brought by Facebook users in
Illinois to go ahead.
The case was brought by Nimesh Patel and others representing a
class of Facebook users alleging that the "Tag Suggestions"
feature violates their privacy rights. Facebook's tagging
feature allows users to tag themselves or friends in photos, and
Facebook also uses facial recognition technology to suggest
friends be tagged. Patel alleged that the collection and storage
of such biometric data violates provisions of the Illinois
Biometric Privacy Act.
The appellate case is captioned as Nimesh Patel, et al. v.
Facebook, Inc., Case No. 18-15982, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Mediation Questionnaire was due on June 6, 2018;
-- Transcript must be ordered by June 28, 2018;
-- Transcript is due on July 30, 2018;
-- Appellant Facebook, Inc.'s opening brief is due on
September 6, 2018;
-- Appellees Carlo Licata, Nimesh Patel and Adam Pezen's
answering brief is due on October 9, 2018; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
service of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees NIMESH PATEL, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, ADAM PEZEN and CARLO LICATA are
represented by:
Susan Katina Alexander, Esq.
Andrew Love, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD, LLP
One Montgomery Street
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 288-4545
E-mail: salexander@rgrdlaw.com
alove@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Stuart Andrew Davidson, Esq.
Mark J. Dearman, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
120 E. Palmetto Park Road
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Telephone: (561) 750-3000
E-mail: SDavidson@rgrdlaw.com
mdearman@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Shawn Anthony Williams, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
100 Pine Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 288-4545
E-mail: swilliams@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
EDELSON P.C.
350 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 1400
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 589-6370
E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com
- and -
John Aaron Lawson, Esq.
EDELSON P.C.
123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
San Francisco, CA 94107
Telephone: (415) 212-9300
E-mail: alawson@edelson.com
- and -
Michael P. Canty, Esq.
Corban S. Rhodes, Esq.
LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005-1108
Telephone: (212) 907-0700
E-mail: mcanty@labaton.com
crhodes@labaton.com
Defendant-Appellant FACEBOOK, INC., is represented by:
Lauren R. Goldman, Esq.
MAYER BROWN LLP
1675 Broadway
New York, NY 10019-5820
Telephone: (212) 506-2500
E-mail: lrgoldman@mayerbrown.com
- and -
Michael Evan Rayfield, Esq.
MAYER BROWN LLP
1221 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 506-2560
E-mail: mrayfield@mayerbrown.com
- and -
John Nadolenco, Esq.
MAYER BROWN LLP
350 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 229-9500
E-mail: jnadolenco@mayerbrown.com
- and -
Andrew John Pincus, Esq.
MAYER BROWN LLP
1999 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 263-3220
E-mail: apincus@mayerbrown.com
FARMERS GROUP: Barnes et al. Suit Moved to E.D. Arkansas
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Jared Barnes, Billy Nichols, and
Carolyn Nichols on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Farmers Group Inc., Farmers
Insurance Exchange, and Farmers Insurance Company Inc., the
Defendants, Case No. 60CV-18-03112, was removed from the Pulaski
County Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Arkansas (Little Rock) on June 20, 2018. The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:18-cv-00410-BSM to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Brian S.
Miller.
Farmers Insurance Group is an American insurer group of
automobiles, homes and small businesses and also provides other
insurance and financial services products.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
201 North Franklin Street, Suite 700
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 223 5505
Facsimile: (813) 222 4736
E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com
- and -
Joseph Henry Bates, III, Esq.
CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
519 West Seventh Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: (501) 312 8500
Facsimile: (501) 315 8505
E-mail: hbates@cbplaw.com
- and -
Ryan McGee, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
One Tampa City Center
201 North Franklin Street, Suite 700
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 223 5505
- and -
Tiffany M. Wyatt Oldham, Esq.
CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
519 West Seventh Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: (501) 312 8500
Facsimile: (501) 312 8505
E-mail: toldham@cbplaw.com
- and -
William G. Horton, Esq.
NOLAN, CADDELL & REYNOLDS, P.A.
211 North 2nd Street
Rogers, AR 72765
Telephone: (479) 464 8269
E-mail: bhorton@justicetoday.com
Attorneys for Defendants:
Marilyn Brown, Esq.
Stacy Allen, Esq.
JACKSON WALKER L.L.P.
100 Congress Avenue
Suite 1100
Austin, TX 78701
Telephone: (512) 236 2000
Facsimile: (512) 236 2002
- and -
William A. Waddell, Jr., Esq.
FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK, LLP
Regions Center, Suite 2000
400 West Capitol Avenue
Little Rock, AR 72201-3522
Telephone: (501) 370 1510
E-mail: waddell@fridayfirm.co
FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Batai Appeals Decision in Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Batai, Joel Brenner, Kevin Gaberlavage and Lazy Dogs
Partnership LLLP, some of the Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled In
Re Ferrellgas Partners, L.P. Securities Litigation, Case No. 16-
cv-7840, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York (New York City), filed an appeal from the District
Court's memorandum and order dated March 30, 2018.
The appellate case is captioned as In re Ferrellgas Partners,
L.P. Securities Litigation, Case No. 18-1286, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants Susan Batai, Joel Brenner, Trustee for the
Joel Brenner MPP Plan & Trust, Kevin Gaberlavage and Lazy Dogs
Partnership LLLP are represented by:
Johnston de F. Whitman, Jr., Esq.
KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
Telephone: (610) 667-7706
E-mail: jwhitman@ktmc.com
Defendants-Appellees Ferrellgas Partners, L.P., Ferrellgas, Inc.,
Stephen L. Wambold, Alan C. Heitmann and Julio E. Rios, II, are
represented by:
Jamie L. Wine, Esq.
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
885 3rd Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 906-1200
E-mail: jamie.wine@lw.com
FFE TRANSPORTATION: "Castillo" Suit Moved to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Jacinto Castillo, an individual,
on behalf of all others similarly situated and the general
public, the Plaintiff, v. FFE Transportation Services, Inc., a
Delaware corporation, and DOES 1-10, the Defendants, Case No.
CIVDS1811712, was removed from the San Bernardino Superior Court,
to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
(Eastern Division - Riverside) on June 13, 2018. The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:18-cv-01296-VAP-SHK to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Virginia A.
Phillips.
FFE Transportation Services, Inc. is the primary operating
subsidiary of Frozen Food Express Services, Inc. The company is a
Dallas, Texas based over-the-road transport company founded in
1946.[BN]
Attorneys for Plaintiff:
J D Henderson, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF J D HENDERSON
215 North Marengo Avenue Suite 322
Pasadena, CA 91101
Telephone: (626) 529 5891
E-mail: hendersonj2004@gmail.com
- and -
Ziad Elrawashdeh, Esq.
RAWA LAW GROUP APC
5843 Pine Avenue Suite A
Chino Hills, CA 91709
Telephone: (909) 393 0660
Facsimile: (909) 393 0430
E-mail: ziadrawa@gmail.com
Attorneys for FFE Transportation Services, Inc.:
David S Binder, Esq.
Melissa Hughes, Esq.
THARPE AND HOWELL LLP
15250 Ventura Boulevard 9th Floor
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403-3221
Telephone: (818) 205 9955
Facsimile: (818) 205 9944
E-mail: dbinder@tharpe-howell.com
mhughes@tharpe-howell.com
FINANCIAL ENGINES: Rubenstein Balks at Merger Deal with Edelman
---------------------------------------------------------------
JERRY RUBENSTEIN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. FINANCIAL ENGINES, INC.,
BLAKE R. GROSSMAN, JOSEPH A. GRUNDFEST, E. OLENA BERG-LACY, HEIDI
KUNZ, ROBERT A. HURET, MICHAEL E. MARTIN, LAWRENCE M. RAFFONE,
JOHN B. SHOVEN, and DAVID B. YOFFIE, the Defendants, Case No.
3:18-cv-03542-EMC (N.D. Cal., June 13, 2018), seeks to enjoin
Defendants from holding stockholder vote and taking any steps to
consummate a proposed merger transaction unless and until
material information is disclosed to the Company's stockholders
sufficiently in advance of the Stockholder Vote or, in the event
the Proposed Transaction is consummated, to recover damages
resulting from the Defendants' violations of the Exchange Act.
This action is brought as a class action by Plaintiff on behalf
of himself and the other public stockholders of Financial
Engines, Inc. against Financial Engines and the members of the
Company's board of directors for their violations of Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 14a-9, 17 C.F.R.
240.14a-9, in connection with the proposed acquisition of
Financial Engines by Edelman Financial, L.P.
On April 29, 2018, Financial Engines, Edelman, and Flashdance
Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and an indirect wholly
owned subsidiary of Edelman, entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger, pursuant to which Merger Sub will merge with and into
Financial Engines, with Financial Engines continuing as the
surviving corporation and as an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary
of Edelman. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, each
outstanding share of Financial Engines common stock will be
converted into the right to receive $45.00 per share in cash,
without interest and subject to required withholding taxes.
On June 8, 2018, to convince Financial Engines' stockholders to
vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, Defendants authorized
the filing of a materially incomplete and misleading Schedule 14A
Definitive Proxy Statement with the SEC, in violation of Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. In particular, the Proxy
contains materially incomplete and misleading information
concerning: (i) financial projections for Financial Engines; (ii)
the valuation analyses performed by Financial Engines' financial
advisor, Sandler O'Neill & Partners, L.P., in support of its
fairness opinion; and (iii) the background process leading up to
the Proposed Transaction. The special meeting of Financial
Engines stockholders to vote on the Proposed Transaction is
scheduled for July 16, 2018. It is imperative that the material
information that has been omitted from the Proxy is disclosed to
the Company's stockholders prior to the Stockholder Vote so that
they can properly exercise their corporate suffrage rights.
Financial Engines provides independent technology-enabled
financial advisory, discretionary portfolio management,
personalized investment advice, financial and retirement income
planning, and financial education and guidance services in the
United States.[BN]
Counsel for Plaintiff:
David E. Bower, Esq.
Juan E. Monteverde
Miles D. Schreiner
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
600 Corporate Pointe, Suite 1170
Culver City, CA 90230
Telephone: (213) 446 6652
Facsimile: (212) 202 7880
E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
mschreiner@monteverdelaw.com
dbower@monteverdelaw.com
FIRMUS MANAGEMENT: Faces "Foxx" Suit in W.D. Texas
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Firmus Management
and Construction LLC. The case is styled as Brittany Foxx and
Keith Perkins for themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Firmus Management and Construction LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-00541-RP (W.D. Tex., June 28, 2018).
Firmus Management & Construction LLC was founded in 2009. The
Company's line of business includes providing management services
on a contract or fee basis.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Britton D. Monts, Esq.
The Monts Firm
P.O.Box 164287
Austin, TX 78716
Tel: (512) 474-6092
Fax: (512) 692-2981
Email: bmonts@themontsfirm.com
- and -
Jason W. Snell, Esq.
The Snell Law Firm, PLLC
1615 West Sixth Street, Suite A
Austin, TX 78703
Tel: (512) 477-5291
Fax: (512) 477-5294
Email: firm@snellfirm.com
- and -
Ronald Martin Weber, Jr., Esq.
Crowley Norman LLP
Three Riverway, Suite 1775
Houston, TX 77056
Tel: (713) 651-1771
Fax: (713) 651-1775
Email: mweber@crowleynorman.com
FMS INVESTMENT: Corwise Appeals E.D.N.Y. Order to Second Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Cindy R. Corwise filed an appeal from a District Court
memorandum and order entered on May 1, 2018, in the lawsuit
entitled Corwise v. FMS Investment Corp., Case No. 17-cv-6493, in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
(Central Islip).
The nature of suit is stated as consumer credit.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was filed on November 8, 2017.
FMS Investment Corp. is a Maryland corporation that provides
receivables management solutions to financial service
institutions in the government and private sector.
The appellate case is captioned as Corwise v. FMS Investment
Corp., Case No. 18-1292, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant Cindy R. Corwise, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, is represented by:
David Michael Barshay, Esq.
BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (516) 741-4799
E-mail: dbarshay@bakersanders.com
Defendant-Appellee FMS Investment Corp. is represented by:
Aaron R. Easley, Esq.
SESSIONS, FISHMAN, NATHAN & ISRAEL L.L.C.
3 Cross Creek Drive
Flemington, NJ 08822
Telephone: (908) 237-1660
E-mail: aeasley@sessions.legal
FORD MOTOR: Fourth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Johnson" Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs CHARLES JOHNSON, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling in their consolidated lawsuit styled CHARLES JOHNSON, et
al. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Case No. 3:13-cv-06529, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia at
Huntington.
The nature of suit is stated as Motor Vehicle Product Liability.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs sought certification of 15 statewide classes.
The appellate case is captioned as Lance Belville, et al. v. Ford
Motor Company, Case No. 18-1470, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.[BN]
The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:
Jeff A. Almeida, Esq.
Kyle J. McGee, Esq.
GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
123 Justison Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 622-7000
Facsimile: (302) 622-7100
E-mail: jalmeida@gelaw.com
kmcgee@gelaw.com
- and -
Nathan B. Atkinson, Esq.
SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, PLLC
110 Oakwood Drive, Suite 500
Winston-Salem, NC 27103
Telephone: (336) 725-4496
E-mail: natkinson@spilmanlaw.com
- and -
Niall Anthony Paul, Esq.
SPILMAN, THOMAS & BATTLE, PLLC
Spilman Center
300 Kanawha Boulevard, East
P. O. Box 273
Charleston, WV 25321-0273
Telephone: (304) 340-3874
E-mail: npaul@spilmanlaw.com
- and -
Timothy C. Bailey, Esq.
L. Lee Javins, II, Esq.
BAILEY, JAVINS & CARTER, L.C.
P. O. Box 3712
Charleston, WV 25337-0000
Telephone: (304) 345-0346
E-mail: Timbailey@BJC4U.com
Ljavins@BJC4U.com
- and -
James R. Bartimus, Esq.
Stephen M. Gorny, Esq.
BARTIMUS, FRICKLETON & ROBERTSON, P.C.
11150 Overbrook Road, Suite 200
Leawood, KS 66211
Telephone: (913) 266-2300
Facsimile: (913) 266-2366
E-mail: jb@bflawfirm.com
steve@bflawfirm.com
- and -
Stacey Kelly Breen, Esq.
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, LLP
270 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10016-0000
Telephone: (212) 545-4600
Facsimile: (212) 545-4693
E-mail: Breen@whafh.com
- and -
Keith G. Bremer, Esq.
Jason H. Dang, Esq.
Alison K. Hurley, Esq.
Benjamin L. Price, Esq.
BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, LLP
20320 SW. Birch Street, Second Floor
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (949) 221-1000
Facsimile: (949) 221-1001
E-mail: kbremer@bremerwhyte.com
jdang@bremerwhyte.com
ahurley@bremerwhyte.com
bprice@bremerwhyte.com
- and -
Guy Richard Bucci, Esq.
HENDRICKSON & LONG, PLLC
214 Capitol Street
Charleston, WV 25301
Telephone: (304) 346-5500
E-mail: gbucci@handl.com
- and -
Grant Lavalle Davis, Esq.
Timothy C. Gaarder, Esq.
DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES
1100 Main Street
Kansas City, MO 64105
Telephone: (816) 421-1600
Facsimile: (816) 472-5972
E-mail: gdavis@dbjlaw.net
tgaarder@dbjlaw.net
- and -
Mark A. DiCello, Esq.
Robert F. DiCello, Esq.
DICELLO LAW FIRM
7556 Mentor Avenue
Western Reserve Law Building
Mentor, OH 44060
Telephone: (440) 953-8888
Facsimile: (440) 953-9138
E-mail: madicello@dicellolaw.com
rfdicello@dicellolaw.com
- and -
Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
John E. Tangren, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT & CASEY
10 North Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 214-7900
E-mail: alevitt@dlcfirm.com
jtangren@dlcfirm.com
- and -
Richard L. Merpi II, Esq.
E. Powell Miller, Esq.
THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
950 West University Drive, Suite 300
Rochester, MI 48307
Telephone: (248) 841-2200
Facsimile: (248) 652-2852
E-mail: rlm@millerlawpc.com
epm@millerlawpc.com
- and -
John Timothy Murray, Sr., Esq.
MURRAY AND MURRAY CO., L.P.A.
111 East Shoreline Drive
Sandusky, OH 44870
Telephone: (419) 624-3000
Facsimile: (419) 624-0707
E-mail: jotm@murrayandmurray.com
- and -
John Scarola, Esq.
C. Calvin Warriner III, Esq.
SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, P.A.
2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard
West Palm Beach, FL 33409
Telephone: (561) 686-6300
E-mail: jsx@searcylaw.com
ccw@searcylaw.com
- and -
Joseph J. Siprut, Esq.
Matthew M. Wawrzyn, Esq.
SIPRUT PC
17 North State Street, Suite 1600
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 236-0000
Facsimile: (312) 948-9212
E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com
mwawrzyn@siprut.com
- and -
Gregory M. Travalio, Esq.
Mark H. Troutman, Esq.
ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, LLC
Two Miranova Place, Suite 700
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: (614) 221-2121
Facsimile: (614) 365-9516
E-mail: gtravalio@isaacwiles.com
mtroutman@isaacwiles.com
Defendant-Appellee FORD MOTOR COMPANY is represented by:
Michael Bonasso, Esq.
William Jameson Hanna, Esq.
Susan W. Romaine, Esq.
Bradley J. Schmalzer, Esq.
FLAHERTY, SENSABAUGH & BONASSO, PLLC
200 Capitol Street
P. O. Box 3843
Charleston, WV 25338-3843
Telephone: (304) 347-4259
E-mail: mbonasso@flahertylegal.com
whanna@flahertylegal.com
bschmalzer@flahertylegal.com
- and -
Tennille Jo Checkovich, Esq.
Perry Watson Miles, IV, Esq.
Sarah Virginia Bondurant Price, Esq.
Brian David Schmalzbach, Esq.
John Tracy Walker, IV, Esq.
MCGUIREWOODS, LLP
800 East Canal Street
P. O. Box 3916
Richmond, VA 23219
Telephone: (804) 775-4758
Facsimile: (804) 440-7770
E-mail: tcheckovich@mcguirewoods.com
pmiles@mcguirewoods.com
vbondurant@mcguirewoods.com
bschmalzbach@mcguirewoods.com
twalker@mcguirewoods.com
- and -
Jill Crawley Griset, Esq.
MCGUIREWOODS, LLP
201 North Tyron Street
Charlotte, NC 28202
Telephone: (704) 343-2000
E-mail: jgriset@mcguirewoods.com
- and -
Peter J. Fazio, Esq.
AARONSON RAPPAPORT FEINSTEIN & DUETSCH
600 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 593-5458
E-mail: pjfazio@arfdlaw.com
- and -
Jeffrey Alan Holmstrand, Esq.
GROVE, HOLMSTRAND & DELK, PLLC
44 1/2 15th Street
Wheeling, WV 26003
Telephone: (304) 905-1961
- and -
Jodi Munn Schebel, Esq.
BOWMAN & BROOKE, LLP
1800 Fisher Building
3011 West Grand Boulevard
Detroit, MI 48202-0000
Telephone: (248) 205-3300
E-mail: jodi.schebel@bowmanandbrooke.com
- and -
Harold C. Zuckerman, Esq.
MCAFEE & TAFT
2 West Second Street
Tulsa, OK 74103
Telephone: (918) 587-0000
E-mail: harold.zuckerman@mcafeetaft.com
FORT ZUMWALT R-II: Eighth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Doe" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff James Doe filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled James Doe v. Matthew Hansen, et al., Case No.
4:16-cv-00546-JAR, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri - St. Louis.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs are minor children, who were videotaped while nude by
Matthew Hansen. Fort Zumwalt R-II School District was the
employer of Mr. Hansen. The School District operated a summer
camp located at Cuivre River State Park in Lincoln County,
Missouri. Mr. Hansen made his video recordings while the
students were at the summer camp.
The Case seeks compensatory damages on behalf of the minors on
legal claims, federal and state, for violations of the United
States Constitution, the Child Abuse Victims Rights Act of 1986,
as well as Missouri common law claims.
The appellate case is captioned as James Doe v. Matthew Hansen,
et al., Case No. 18-2093, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Eighth Circuit.[BN]
Fort Zumwalt R-II School District is a defendant in the lawsuit,
while Matthew M. Hansen, individually and in his official
capacity as a Former Teacher of the Fort Zumwalt R-II School
District, is a defendant-appellee.
The Defendants-Appellees are Bernard Dubray, Superintendent of
the Fort Zumwalt R-II School District, Official capacity only;
Mike Clemens, Assistant superintendent of the Fort Zumwalt R-II
School, Official capacity only; Patty Corum, Assistant
superintendent of the Fort Zumwalt R-II School District, Official
capacity only; Jackie Floyd, Assistant superintendent of the Fort
Zumwalt R-II School District, Official capacity only; Greg
Solomon, Employee of the Fort Zumwalt R-II School District,
Official capacity only; Nelda Wetzel, Principal of Lewis & Clark
Elementary School, Official capacity only; Jill Hutchenson,
Principal of Dardenne Elementary School, Official capacity only;
John and Jane Doe, Principals or principal designees in charge of
supervision at the Cuivre River summer camp, Official capacity
only; Dan Hadfield, 5th grade teacher from Progress South
Elementary School, Official capacity only; and John and Jane Doe,
5th grade teachers in charge of supervision at the Cuivre River
summer camp, Official capacity only.
Plaintiff-Appellant James Doe, on behalf of himself and 77 other
similarly situated individual minors next friend John Doe, is
represented by:
Larry Alan Bagsby, Esq.
THE BAGSBY LAW FIRM
125 N. Main Street, Suite 204
Saint Charles, MO 63301
Telephone: (636) 244-5595
E-mail: larrybagsby@aol.com
- and -
Daniel J. Gauthier, Esq.
PEDROLI & GAUTHIER LLC
7777 Bonhomme Avenue, Suite 2250
Saint Louis, MO 63105
Telephone: (314) 726-1817
E-mail: mylegalworld@sbcglobal.net
The Defendants-Appellees are represented by:
Celynda L. Brasher, Esq.
John Matthew Reynolds, Esq.
TUETH, KEENEY, COOPER, MOHAN & JACKSTADT, PC
34 N. Meramec, Suite 600
Saint Louis, MO 63105-0000
Telephone: (314) 880-3600
Facsimile: (314) 880-3601
E-mail: cbrasher@tuethkeeney.com
jreynolds@tuethkeeney.com
FRY'S ELECTRONICS: Violates Disabled Persons Act, DePillars Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL DePILLARS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. FRY'S ELECTRONICS, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. BC709630 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 14, 2018),
seeks to recover statutory damages and reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs on behalf of Plaintiff, and injunctive relief on behalf
of putative Class of mobility impaired/wheelchair bound persons,
arising from Defendant's violation of California's anti-
discrimination state statutes, the Unruh Civil Rights Act,
California Code, and the California Disabled Persons Act.
The Defendant allegedly failed to remove architectural and
communication barriers in existing stores, where such removal is
readily achievable and technically feasible, or failed to make
such goods, services, programs, facilities, privileges,
advantages, or accommodations available through alternative
methods, if removal of the barriers is not readily achievable or
technically feasible.
Fry's Electronics is an American big-box store and retailer of
software, consumer electronics, household appliances and computer
hardware. Fry's has in-store computer repair and custom computer
building services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Evan J. Smith, Esq.
BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
9595 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 900
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone: (877) 534 2590
Facsimile: (310) 247 0160
GALFAB ACQUISITIONS: "Kreischer" Suit Seeks OT Pay under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN KREISCHER, HENRY EPPS, WILLIAM BOX, JASON YENNA, THOMAS
NELSON, BRIAN BUCKMAN, CURLEY CONLEY, and JAMES GALBREATH,
On behalf of themselves and all others similarly-situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. GALFAB ACQUISITIONS, LLC, WASTEBUILT ENVIRONMENTAL
SOLUTIONS, LLC, GALFAB, LLC, GALFAB HOLDINGS, LLC, and BEN
SCHEINER, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-04068 (N.D. Ill., June
12, 2018), seeks to recover overtime pay under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
According to the complaint, Defendants were in the business of
manufacturing and selling products commonly used in the waste and
recycling industry, such as dumpsters, hoist, compactors, and
containers. Between January of 2013 and approximately September
of 2017, Defendants employed hundreds of laborers paid on a piece
rate at Galfab's Indiana Plant and Phoenix Plant to build the
products sold by Defendants. The Plaintiffs and those similarly-
situated are and/or were Piece Rate Employees during the
applicable statute of limitations period, through the present.
Piece Rate Employees generally worked a nine-and-a-half-hour day,
with half an hour automatically deducted for lunch, five days a
week. Thus, Piece Rate Employees regularly worked a scheduled 45-
hour workweek. Piece Rate Employees would be called upon to work
beyond their Scheduled Hours when necessary, to include working
late, coming in early, and working on Saturdays. The Employees
reported their time via a time punch. The Employees were paid a
piece rate for the products they built. The Employees would run
out of parts or supplies, the shop would be slow, or need
cleaning. The Employees would be paid an hourly rate for this
work when it needed to be performed ("Non-Production Work"). The
Employees were also paid hourly when they attended mandatory
safety meetings or other meetings. The Defendants did not pay
Piece Rate Employees overtime -- at all -- for time worked over
40 hours in a workweek. Rather than paying Piece Rate Employees
overtime, Defendants simply paid these employees their applicable
piece rate or hourly Non-Production Work rate for time worked
over 40 hours in a week.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Elizabeth A. Thompson, Esq.
Sharilee K. Smentek, Esq.
SAUL, EWING, ARNSTEIN & LEHR LLP
161 North Clark, Suite 4200
Chicago, IL 60601
Tel: (312) 876-7185
Fax: (312) 876-0288
Email: elizabeth.thompson@saul.com
sharilee.smentek@saul.com
- and -
Brian D. Spitz, Esq.
Chris P. Wido, Esq.
THE SPITZ LAW FIRM, LLC
25200 Chagrin Boulevard, Suite 200
Beachwood, OH 44122
Telephone: (216) 291 4744
Facsimile: (216) 291 5744
E-mail: brian.spitz@spitzlawfirm.com
chris.wido@spitzlawfirm.com
GANSEVOORT MARKET: Faces "Fischler" Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gansevoort Market,
Inc. The case is styled as Brian Fischler, Individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Gansevoort Market, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05840 (S.D.
N.Y., June 28, 2018).
Gansevoort Market, Inc. is offering a curated selection of
locally produced goods and delicious fare.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
Lipsky Lowe LLP
630 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10017-6705
Tel: (212) 392-4772
Fax: (212) 444-1030
Email: chris@lipskylowe.com
GEICO GENERAL: Seeks 2nd Cir. Review of Ruling in "Milligan" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Geico General Insurance Company and CCC Information
Services Inc. filed an appeal from a District Court order entered
on March 31, 2018, in the lawsuit styled Milligan v. Geico
General Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 16-cv-240, in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Central
Islip).
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks to recover actual, consequential, and punitive damages,
equitable and declaratory relief, costs and reasonable attorneys'
fees under GEICO Policies and New York Law.
The appellate case is captioned as Milligan v. Geico General
Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 18-1405, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee Lorena M. Milligan, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Sharon Almonrode, Esq.
THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
950 West University Drive
Rochester, MI 48307
Telephone: (248) 841-2200
Facsimile: (248) 652-2852
E-mail: ssa@millerlawpc.com
Defendant-Appellant CCC Information Services Inc. is represented
by:
Kathleen P. Lally, Esq.
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
330 North Wabash Avenue
Chicago, IL 60611
Telephone: (312) 876-7700
E-mail: Ekathleen.lally@lw.com
Defendant-Appellant Geico General Insurance Company is
represented by:
Michael P. Versichelli, Esq.
RIVKIN RADLER LLP
926 RXR Plaza
Uniondale, NY 11556
Telephone: (516) 357-3000
E-mail: michael.versichelli@rivkin.com
GEICO GENERAL: Seeks 11th Circuit Review of Ruling in "Roth" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant GEICO General Insurance Company filed an appeal from a
court ruling in the lawsuit titled Kerry Roth, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. GEICO General
Insurance Company, Government Employees Insurance Company, GEICO
Indemnity Company, GEICO Casualty Company, GEICO Advantage
Insurance Company, GEICO Choice Insurance Company, and GEICO
Secure Insurance Company, Case No. 0:16-cv-62942-WPD, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
(Case No. 113C-9330870) was filed in the 17th Judicial Circuit in
and for Broward County, Florida, and was later removed to the
District Court.
The Defendants own and operate an auto insurance company in
Florida.
The appellate case is captioned as GEICO General Insurance
Company v. Kerry Roth, Case No. 18-90016, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Respondent KERRY ROTH, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Andrew Lampros, Esq.
HALL & LAMPROS, LLP
1230 Peachtree St. NE, Suite 950
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (404) 876-8100
E-mail: alampros@hallandlampros.com
- and -
Christopher J. Lynch, Esq.
HUNTER WILLIAMS & LYNCH, PA
2977 McFarlane Road, Suite 301
Miami, FL 33133
Telephone: (305) 443-6200
Facsimile: (305) 443-6204
E-mail: clynch@hunterwilliamslaw.com
- and -
Tracy Lynne Markham, Esq.
AVOLIO & HANLON, PC
2800 N 5th Street, Suite 302
Saint Augustine, FL 32084
Telephone: (904) 794-7005
E-mail: tlm@avoliohanlonfl.com
- and -
Edmund A. Normand, Esq.
Jacob Lawrence Phillips, Esq.
NORMAND PLLC
62 W Colonial Drive, Suite 209
Orlando, FL 32801
Telephone: (407) 603-6031
E-mail: Ed@ednormand.com
jacob@ednormand.com
- and -
Bradley W. Pratt, Esq.
KING & SPALDING, LLP
1180 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 1700
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (404) 572-4600
E-mail: bpratt@kslaw.com
Defendant-Petitioner GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY is
represented by:
Michael R. Nelson, Esq.
EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US)LLP
1114 Avenue of the Americas, Floor 40
New York, NY 10036-7703
Telephone: (212) 389-5000
E-mail: mikenelson@eversheds-sutherland.com
- and -
Amelia Toy Rudolph, Esq.
EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP
999 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 2300
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (404) 853-8000
E-mail: amyrudolph@eversheds-sutherland.com
GEORGE'S INC: Faces "Cook" Suit in W.D. Arkansas
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against George's Inc. The
case is styled as Jerry Cook, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. George's Inc. and Glen Balch,
Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-05124-TLB (W.D. Ark., June 28,
2018).
George's Inc. processes poultry products. It offers frozen
boneless, skinless, and portion controlled breast products;
individually frozen whole cut-up chickens and parts; individually
frozen B-52 disjointed wings; frozen marinated, raw, and breaded
cut up chicken; frozen breaded chicken products; and controlled
vacuum packed poultry products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Luther Oneal Sutter, Esq.
Sutter & Gillham, P.L.L.C.
P. O. Box 2012
Benton, AR 72018
Tel: (501) 315-1910
Fax: (501) 315-1916
Email: luthersutter.law@gmail.com
GEORGIA, USA: Boyd Asks Appeals Court to Review Ruling in "Neal"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Norman L. Boyd filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered on April 18, 2018, in the lawsuit styled TRECIA NEAL ON
BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. NORMAN L.
BOYD, ET AL., Case No. 2014CV246395, in the Georgia Superior
Court, Fulton County.
Norman L. Boyd is the Chairman of Georgia's Department of
Community Health.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Trecia Neal,
who works for the DeKalb County school system, filed her
potential class action seeking reimbursement of premiums and
other damages. In it, she alleges the state's health benefit
plan, which is administered by the Department of Community
Health, failed to provide the enhanced benefits it promised her
and others who enrolled and paid for higher-priced health care
packages.
The appellate case is captioned as NORMAN L. BOYD, ET AL. vs.
TRECIA NEAL ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Case No. A18I0179, in the Court of Appeals for the
State of Georgia.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee TRECIA NEAL, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, is represented by:
Jeffrey L. Berhold, Esq.
JEFFREY L. BERHOLD, P.C.
1230 Peachtree St., Suite 1050
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (404) 872-3800
Facsimile: (678) 868-2021
- and -
Peter Andrew Lampros, Esq.
HALL & LAMPROS, LLP
Promenade II
Peachtree St. NW, Suite 950
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (404) 876-8100
E-mail: alampros@hallandlampros.com
- and -
Michael Travis Foust, Esq.
Allan Leroy Parks, Jr., Esq.
PARKS CHESIN & WALBERT, P.C.
75 Fourteenth Street, N.E., 26th Floor
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (404) 873-8000
Facsimile: (404) 873-8050
E-mail: tfoust@pcwlawfirm.com
E-mail: lparks@pcwlawfirm.com
The Defendant-Appellant is represented by:
Robin Joy Leigh, Esq.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
40 Capitol Square, SW
Atlanta, GA 30334
Telephone: (404) 656-3300
Facsimile: (404) 657-8733
E-mail: rleigh@law.ga.gov
GLOBAL CREDIT: Court Denies Approval of "Williams" Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled Samuel Williams, the Plaintiff, v. Global
Credit & Collections, et al., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-
03323 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Gary Feinerman entered an order
denying without prejudice the renewed joint motion for an order
conditionally certifying class and granting preliminary approval
of class settlement agreement, according to the docket entry made
by the Clerk on June 28, 2018.
A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=K5M0TYPY
GOLD'S GYM: Faces "Bishop" Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gold's Gym
International, Inc. The case is styled as Cedric Bishop, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Gold's Gym International, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05857
(S.D. N.Y., June 28, 2018).
Gold's Gym International, Inc. operates a chain of fitness gyms
in the United States and internationally.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Tel: (917) 299-6612
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Hansen Appeals D. Oregon Order to 9th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Leif Hansen filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit titled Leif Hansen v. GEICO, Case No. 3:17-cv-01986-MO,
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, Portland.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
is brought on behalf of GEICO customers alleging that the
insurance giant has routinely violated the terms of its auto
policies by refusing to pay for essential and critical vehicle
repairs.
According to the lawsuit, which is seeking class-action status,
GEICO has a nationwide, longstanding policy and practice of
refusing to pay for electronic vehicle scans, which help
determine the safety and repair status of a vehicle. On average,
these scans cost $100 and are required or recommended by nearly
all major auto manufacturers to ensure auto repairs are safe and
complete.
The appellate case is captioned as Leif Hansen v. GEICO, Case No.
18-35383, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Transcript must be ordered by June 6, 2018;
-- Transcript is due on July 6, 2018;
-- Appellant Leif Hansen's opening brief is due on August 15,
2018;
-- Appellee Government Employees Insurance Company's answering
brief is due on September 14, 2018; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
service of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant LEIF HANSEN, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Paul W. Conable, Esq.
Steven D. Olson, Esq.
Robert A. Koch, Esq.
TONKON TORP, LLP
888 S.W. Fifth Avenue
1600 Pioneer Tower
Portland, OR 97204-2099
Telephone: (503) 221-1440
E-mail: paul.conable@tonkon.com
steveno@tonkon.com
robert.koch@tonkon.com
Defendant-Appellee GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, a
Maryland corporation, is represented by:
Brian Blakley, Esq.
LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER LLP
3993 Howard Hughes Parkway
Las Vegas, NV 89169
Telephone: (702) 949-8200
E-mail: bblakley@lrrc.com
- and -
Dan W. Goldfine, Esq.
LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER CHRISTIE LLP
201 E. Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85004-2595
Telephone: (602) 262-5392
E-mail: dgoldfine@lrrc.com
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Russell Appeals S.D. Cal. Order to 9th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Marisha Russell filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit styled Marisha Russell v. GEICO, et al., Case No.
3:17-cv-00672-JLS-WVG, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California, San Diego.
The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The appellate case is captioned as Marisha Russell v. GEICO, et
al., Case No. 18-55682, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Mediation Questionnaire was due on June 5, 2018;
-- Appellant Marisha Russell's opening brief is due on
July 24, 2018;
-- Appellees Does and Government Employees Insurance Company's
answering brief is due on August 24, 2018; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
service of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant MARISHA RUSSELL, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, is represented by:
Craig Nicholas, Esq.
Alex Tomasevic, Esq.
NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP
225 Broadway
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 325-0492
E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org
atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org
Defendant-Appellee GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, a
Maryland corporation, is represented by:
Aaron Buckley, Esq.
PAUL, PLEVIN, SULLIVAN & CONNAUGHTON LLP
101 West Broadway
San Diego, CA 92101-8285
Telephone: (619) 237-5200
E-mail: abuckley@paulplevin.com
GUDRUN CORP: Website not Accessible to Blind, Wu Says
-----------------------------------------------------
KATHY WU AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
the Plaintiffs, v. GUDRUN CORP., the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-
05282-ALC (S.D.N.Y., June 12, 2018), seeks permanent injunction
to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices,
and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is a visually-impaired
and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to
read website content using her computer. Plaintiff uses the terms
"blind" or "visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual
impairments who meet the legal definition of blindness in that
they have a visual acuity with correction of less than or equal
to 20 x 200. Some blind people who meet that definition have
limited vision. Others have no vision.
The Plaintiff brings her civil rights action against Defendant
for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people.
Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby and
in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities
Act. Because Defendant's website, www.gudrenjoden.com/us, is not
equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it
violates the ADA.[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) 879 0240
Facsimile: (212) 982 6284
E-mail: danalgottlieb@aol.com
nyjg@aol.com
GULLIVER'S TAVERN: Seeks 1st Cir. Review of Ruling in "Levi" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Gulliver's Tavern, Inc., and Solid Gold Properties,
Inc., filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled
Levi, et al. v. Gulliver's Tavern, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-
cv-00216-WES-PAS, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Rhode Island, Providence.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs asked the Court to certify a class of:
"all individuals who have worked as entertainers performing
exotic dancing services at the Foxy Lady, located at 318
Chalkstone Avenue in Providence, Rhode Island, at any time
since May 23, 2012".
The appellate case is captioned as Levi, et al. v. Gulliver's
Tavern, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-8010, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Respondents RUBY LEVI, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, and Plaintiff MARISOL DELEON are
represented by:
Brant Casavant, Esq.
Stephen S. Churchill, Esq.
FAIR WORK PC
192 South Street, Suite 450
Boston, MA 02111
Telephone: (617) 231-6777
E-mail: brant@fairworklaw.com
steve@fairworklaw.com
Plaintiffs-Respondents RUBY LEVI, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, and EMILY CHICOINE; and Plaintiff
MARISOL DELEON are represented by:
Stephen J. Brouillard, Esq.
Theresa L. Sousa, Esq.
BIANCHI & BROUILLARD PC
56 Pine Street, Suite 250
Providence, RI 02903
Telephone: (401) 223-2990
Facsimile: (877) 548-4539
E-mail: sbrouillard@bbrilaw.com
tsousa@bbrilaw.com
Defendants-Petitioners GULLIVER'S TAVERN, INC., d/b/a Foxy Lady,
and SOLID GOLD PROPERTIES, INC., d/b/a Foxy Lady, are represented
by:
Anthony S. Califano, Esq.
Michael E. Jusczyk, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
2 Seaport Ln., Suite 300
Boston, MA 02210-1800
Telephone: (617) 946-4925
E-mail: acalifano@seyfarth.com
mjusczyk@Seyfarth.com
Defendants-Petitioners GULLIVER'S TAVERN, INC., d/b/a Foxy Lady,
and SOLID GOLD PROPERTIES, INC., d/b/a Foxy Lady; and Defendants
PATRICIA TSOUMAS, d/b/a Foxy Lady, and THOMAS TSOUMAS, d/b/a Foxy
Lady, are represented by:
Barry J. Miller, Esq.
Lauren J. O'Connor, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
2 Seaport Ln., Suite 300
Boston, MA 02210-1800
Telephone: (617) 946-4800
E-mail: bmiller@seyfarth.com
loconnor@seyfarth.com
- and -
Peter J. Comerford, Esq.
COIA & LEPORE, LTD.
226 South Main Street
Providence, RI 02903-0000
Telephone: (401) 751-5522
E-mail: pcomerfo@coialepore.com
HEADWATERS GROUP: "Elkins" Suit Moved to Southern Dist. of Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Charles Elkins and Jesus Tevino,
individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Headwaters Group Inc. and Gerren Ware, the
Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-00866, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Texas, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Corpus
Christi) on June 21, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 2:18-cv-00187 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos.
Mr. Elkins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated brought this Fair Labor Standards Act suit against the
Defendants. The Defendants allegedly did not pay Plaintiff, and
similarly situated employees, time-and-one-half their regular
rate of pay for the hours that Plaintiff and similarly situated
employees worked over 40 hours a week.[BN]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs:
Chris R Miltenberger, Esq.
1340 N White Chapel, Ste 100
Southlake, TX 76092
Telephone: (817) 416 5060
E-mail: chris@crmlawpractice.com
Attorneys for Defendants:
Paul G Kratzig, Esq.
PAUL G. KRATZIG ASSOC
615 N Upper Broadway, Ste 900
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Telephone: (361) 888 5564
Facsimile: (361) 888 5366
E-mail: paul@kratzig.com
HOMELAND SECURITY: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Order in "Rojas" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants L. Francis Cissna, Thomas D. Homan, Kevin K.
McAleenan, James McHenry, Kirstjen Nielsen and Jefferson B.
Sessions, III, filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit
entitled Concely Mendez Rojas, et al. v. Kirstjen Nielsen, et
al., Case No. 2:16-cv-01024-RSM, in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Washington, Seattle.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the four
Named Plaintiffs, refugees from Central and South America and the
Caribbean, filed their due-process class action in 2016. They
claim immigration agents never told them they had to file for
asylum within one year after they entered the United States, and
did not present the asylum-seekers with a viable path for meeting
that deadline.
The appellate case is captioned as Concely Mendez Rojas, et al.
v. Kirstjen Nielsen, et al., Case No. 18-35443, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Mediation Questionnaire was due on June 1, 2018;
-- Appellants L. Francis Cissna, Thomas D. Homan, Kevin K.
McAleenan, James McHenry, Kirstjen Nielsen and Jefferson B.
Sessions III, Attorney General's opening brief is due on
July 24, 2018;
-- Appellees Lidia Margarita Lopez Orellana, Concely Del
Carmen Mendez Rojas, Elmer Geovanni Rodriguez Escobar and
Maribel Suarez Garcia's answering brief is due on
August 23, 2018; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
service of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees CONCELY DEL CARMEN MENDEZ ROJAS, ELMER
GEOVANNI RODRIGUEZ ESCOBAR, LIDIA MARGARITA LOPEZ ORELLANA and
MARIBEL SUAREZ GARCIA, on behalf of themselves as individuals and
on behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by:
Matt Adams, Esq.
Glenda Melinda Aldana Madrid, Esq.
NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT
615 Second Avenue
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 957-8611
E-mail: matt@nwirp.org
glenda@nwirp.org
- and -
Vicky Dobrin, Esq.
Hilary Han, Esq.
DOBRIN & HAN, PC
705 Second Avenue, Suite 905
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 448-3440
E-mail: vicky@dobrin-han.com
hilary@dobrin-han.com
- and -
Mary A. Kenney, Esq.
Karolina Joanna Walters, Esq.
AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL
1331 "G" Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 507-7512
E-mail: mkenney@immcouncil.org
kwalters@immcouncil.org
- and -
Kristin Macleod-Ball, Esq.
Trina A. Realmuto, Esq.
AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL
100 Summer Street, 23rd Floor
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (857) 305-3722
E-mail: kmacleod-ball@immcouncil.org
trealmuto@immcouncil.org
Defendants-Appellants KIRSTJEN NIELSEN, Secretary of Department
of Homeland Security, in her official capacity; JEFFERSON B.
SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Attorney General of the United
States, in his official capacity; THOMAS D. HOMAN, Acting
Director for the United States Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, in his official capacity; L. FRANCIS CISSNA,
Director of United States Customs and Immigration Services, in
his official capacity; KEVIN K. MCALEENAN, Commissioner of U.S.
Customs and Border Protection, in his official capacity; and
JAMES MCHENRY, Director of the Executive Office for Immigration
Review, in his official capacity, are represented by:
Gladys Marta Steffens Guzman, Esq.
J. Max Weintraub, Esq.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
P.O. Box 878
Benjamin Franklin Station
Washington, DC 20044
Telephone: (202) 305-7181
E-mail: Gladys.Steffens-Guzman@usdoj.gov
jacob.weintraub@usdoj.gov
HOMESTREET BANK: Fails to Pay OT & Minimum Wages, Parseghian Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ARAZ PARSEGHIAN, individually, and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
HOMESTREET BANK, a Washington corporation; and DOES 1 through
100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. RG18908477 (Cal. Super.
Ct., June 12, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, unpaid
meal period premiums, unpaid rest period premiums, and unpaid
minimum wages, under the California Labor Code.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff commenced his
employment as a commission-based employee from approximately
October 2016 to April 2017 for Defendants in the State of
California. The Defendants hired Plaintiff and the other class
members, and paid them in-part or wholly in commissions for
selling loans, and failed to properly calculate and compensate
them for all hours worked, rest periods, missed meal periods
and/or rest breaks.
The Defendants had the authority to hire and terminate Plaintiff
and the other class members; to set work rules and conditions
governing Plaintiffs and the other class members' employment; and
to supervise their daily employment activities. The Defendants
exercised sufficient authority over the terms and conditions of
Plaintiffs and the other class members' employment for them to be
joint employers of Plaintiff and the other class members. The
Defendants directly hired and paid wages and benefits to
Plaintiff and the other class members. The Defendants continue to
employ commission-based employees within the State of California.
HomeStreet Bank is a community bank offering personal banking,
home loans, and business banking & loans with a focus on creating
long term relationships.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Han, Esq.
Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq.
North Central Avenue, Suite 500
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 230 7502
Facsimile: (818) 230 7259
E-mail: dhan@justicelawcorp.com
HONEYWELL INT'L: Eleventh Circuit Appeal Filed in "Santiago" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Karen Santiago filed an appeal from a court ruling in
her lawsuit titled Karen Santiago v. Honeywell International,
Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-25359-MGC, in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Ms. Santiago
sought certification of this class:
All residential property owners throughout the State of
Florida who had an analog meter removed and Smart Meter
installed by Honeywell for FPL. This Class would exclude
the approximately . . . [redacted]
The appellate case is captioned as Karen Santiago v. Honeywell
International, Inc., Case No. 18-12006, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- The appellant's brief was due on or before June 25, 2018;
-- The appendix is due no later than 7 days from the filing of
the appellant's brief; and
-- Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons was due on or
before June 11, 2018, as to Appellee Honeywell
International, Inc.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant KAREN SANTIAGO, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Elliot Burt Kula, Esq.
William Aaron Daniel, Esq.
KULA & ASSOCIATES, PA
11900 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 310
North Miami, FL 33181
Telephone: (305) 354-3858
Facsimile: (305) 354-3822
E-mail: elliot@kulalegal.com
william@kulalegal.com
- and -
David W. Brill, Esq.
BRILL RINALDI GARCIA
17150 Royal Palm Blvd., Suite 2
Weston, FL 33326
Telephone: (954) 876-4344
Facsimile: (954) 384-6226
E-mail: David@brillrinaldi.com
- and -
Joseph J. Rinaldi, Jr., Esq.
BRILL RINALDI GARCIA
999 Ponce De Leon Blvd., Ph 1120
Coral Gables, FL 33434
Telephone: (305) 809-8609
E-mail: Joe@brillrinaldi.com
- and -
Jeannete Christine Lewis, Esq.
LEWIS LEGAL GROUP, P.A.
8551 W. Sunrise Blvd., Suite 300
Plantation, FL 33322
Telephone: (954) 660-4499
Facsimile: (954) 660-4818
E-mail: jelewis@lewislegalgroup.com
- and -
Robert J. McKee, Esq.
KRUPNICK CAMPBELL MALONE BUSER SLAMA HANCOCK
LIBERMAN, PA
12 SE 7th St., Suite 801
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 763-8181
E-mail: rmckee@themckeelawgroup.com
Defendant-Appellee HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware
Corporation, is represented by:
Katherine E. Devlaminck, Esq.
Jeannine Lee, Esq.
Todd A. Noteboom, Esq.
STINSON LEONARD STREET LLP
150 S 5th St., Suite 2300
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 335-1548
Facsimile: (612) 335-1657
E-mail: katherine.devlaminck@stinson.com
jeannine.lee@stinsonleonard.com
todd.noteboom@stinsonleonard.com
- and -
Gregory Mark Palmer, Esq.
RUMBERGER KIRK & CALDWELL, PA
80 SW 8th St., Suite 3000
Miami, FL 33130-3026
Telephone: (305) 358-5577
E-mail: gpalmer@rumberger.com
INFINITY INSURANCE: 11th Circuit Appeal Filed in "Hallums" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Samuel Castillo and Shelithea Hallums filed an appeal
from a court ruling in their lawsuit titled SHELITHEA HALLUMS and
SAMUEL CASTILLO, individually and as representatives of a class
of similarly-situated persons v. INFINITY INSURANCE COMPANY and
INFINITY AUTO INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:16-cv-24507-FAM, in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs sought for certification of a class defined as all
persons, who Plaintiffs maintain should be returned the premiums
attributable to the illusory Rider, as relief consequent to a
declaratory judgment, and/or a fraudulent concealment or
negligent omission verdict.
The appellate case is captioned as Shelithea Hallums, et al. v.
IPCC, et al., Case No. 18-12138, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- The appellant's brief was due on or before July 2, 2018;
-- The appendix is due no later than 7 days from the filing of
the appellant's brief;
-- Appellant's Certificate of Interested Persons was due on or
before June 5, 2018, as to Appellant Samuel Castillo;
-- Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons was due on or
before June 19, 2018, as to Appellee Infinity Auto
Insurance Company.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants SHELITHEA HALLUMS, individually and as
representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, and
SAMUEL CASTILLO are represented by:
Eric A. Hernandez, Esq.
Jermaine Lee, Esq.
Arturo Carlos Martinez, Esq.
HERNANDEZ LEE MARTINEZ, LLP
9190 N Biscayne Blvd., Suite 204
Miami Shores, FL 33138
Telephone: (305) 842-2100
Facsimile: (305) 842-2105
E-mail: eric@whlmlegal.com
jlee@whlmlegal.com
arturo@whlmlegal.com
- and -
Todd L. Wallen, Esq.
SHOOK HARDY & BACON, LLP
201 S Biscayne Blvd., Suite 3200
Miami, FL 33131-4332
Telephone: (305) 358-5171
E-mail: twallen@shb.com
Defendants-Appellees INFINITY INSURANCE COMPANY and INFINITY AUTO
INSURANCE COMPANY are represented by:
Ramon Alberto Abadin, Esq.
SEDGWICK, LLP
1 Biscayne Tower, Suite 1500
2 S Biscayne Blvd.
Miami, FL 33131-1822
Telephone: (305) 671-2124
E-mail: ramon.abadin@sedgwicklaw.com
- and -
Raoul G. Cantero, Esq.
WHITE & CASE LLP
200 S Biscayne Blvd., Suite 4900
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 371-2700
E-mail: rcantero@whitecase.com
- and -
Christopher Swift-Perez, Esq.
WHITE & CASE LLP
Southeast Financial Center
200 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 4900
Miami, FL 33131-2352
Telephone: (305) 925-4799
Facsimile: (305) 358-5744
E-mail: cswift-perez@whitecase.com
- and -
Diana Nicole Evans, Esq.
BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS, LLP
100 N Tampa St., Suite 2200
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 229-3333
E-mail: dnevans@bradley.com
- and -
Michael R. Pennington, Esq.
John Thomas Richie, Esq.
BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS, LLP
1819 5th Avenue N
Birmingham, AL 35203
Telephone: (205) 521-8000
E-mail: mpennington@bradley.com
trichie@bradley.com
Defendant-Appellee JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NA, is represented by:
David DeSales Switzler, Esq.
STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN, LLP
200 S Biscayne Blvd., Suite 3100
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 358-9900
E-mail: dswitzler@stroock.com
INTEREXCHANGE INC: Class Notification Plan in "Beltran" Approved
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHANA PAOLA BELTRAN, LUSAPHO HLATSHANENI, BEAUDETTE
DEETLEFS, ALEXANDRA IVETTE GONZALEZ, JULIANE HARNING, NICOLE
MAPLEDORAM, LAURA MEJIA JIMENEZ, SARAH CAROLINE AZUELA RASCON,
CAMILA GABRIELA PEREZ REYES, CATHY CARAMELO, and LINDA ELIZABETH,
Plaintiffs, v. INTEREXCHANGE, INC., USAUPAIR, INC., GREATAUPAIR,
LLC, EXPERT GROUP INTERNATIONAL INC., d/b/a Expert AuPair,
EURAUPAIR INTERCULTURAL CHILD CARE PROGRAMS, CULTURAL HOMESTAY
INTERNATIONAL, CULTURAL CARE, INC., d/b/a Cultural Care Au Pair,
AUPAIRCARE INC., AU PAIR INTERNATIONAL, INC., APF GLOBAL
EXCHANGE, NFP, d/b/a/Aupair Foundation, AMERICAN INSTITUTE FOR
FOREIGN STUDY, d/b/a Au Pair in America, AMERICAN CULTURAL
EXCHANGE, LLC, d/b/a GoAuPair, AGENT AU PAIR, A.P.E.X. AMERICAN
PROFESSIONAL EXCHANGE, LLC, d/b/a ProAuPair, 20/20 CARE EXCHANGE,
INC., d/b/a The International Au Pair Exchange, ASSOCIATES IN
CULTURAL EXCHANGE, d/b/a GoAuPair, and GOAUPAIR OPERATIONS, LLC,
d/b/a GoAuPair, Defendants, Civil Action No. 14-cv-03074-CMA-CBS
(D. Colo.), Judge Christine M. Arguello of the U.S. District
Court for the District of Colorado granted the parties' Joint
Report Regarding Proposed Rule 23 Notification Plan.
The parties' Joint Motion requests that the Court enters their
proposed Rule 23 Notification Plan. Judge Arguello finds that
the form and content of the notice program described therein, and
the methods set forth of providing notice to the classes, meet
the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and other
applicable laws and rules, are the best notice practicable under
the circumstances, and will constitute due, adequate, and
sufficient notice to all persons entitled thereto. She therefore
approved the parties' Rule 23 Notification Plan and the proposed
notice.
The Judge directed JND Legal Administration to communicate with
the classes, consistent with the Joint Report, with an email to
the classes that includes the Class Notice, a link to the class
website, and a link to the exclusion request form. The email will
use the language proposed in the Joint Report, Exhibit A,
Paragraph V.
For the class members who cannot successfully email, JND Legal
Administration will text them with the language proposed in the
Joint Report, Exhibit A, Paragraph VI.
The members of the classes will have 90 days from the date that
class notice is sent to opt out, by submitting a fully-completed
Au Pair Class Action Exclusion Request Form.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 1, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/Ymf3Pd from Leagle.com.
Johana Paola Beltran, Lusapho Hlatshaneni, Beaudette Deetlefs &
Alexandra Ivette Gonzalez, and those similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, represented by Byron Pacheco -- bpacheco@bsfllp.com -
- Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Dawn Smalls --
dsmalls@bsfllp.com -- Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Joshua James
Libling -- jlibling@bsfllp.com -- Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP,
Juan Pablo Valdivieso -- jvaldivieso@bsfllp.com -- Boies Schiller
& Flexner, LLP, Matthew Lane Schwartz -- mlschwartz@BSFLLP.com --
Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Peter Murray Skinner --
pskinner@bsfllp.com -- Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Randall
Wade Jackson -- rjackson@bsfllp.com -- Boies Schiller & Flexner,
LLP, Sabria Alexandria McElroy -- smcelroy@bsfllp.com -- Boies
Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Sean Phillips Rodriguez --
srodriguez@bsfllp.com -- Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Sigrid
Stone McCawley -- smccawley@bsfllp.com -- Boies Schiller &
Flexner, LLP & Alexander Neville Hood -- info@towardsjustice.org
-- Towards Justice.
Juliane Harning, Nicole Mapledoram, and those similarly situated,
Laura Mejia Jimenez & Sarah Carolina Azuela Rascon, Plaintiffs,
represented by Byron Pacheco, Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Dawn
Smalls, Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Joshua James Libling,
Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Juan Pablo Valdivieso, Boies
Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Matthew Lane Schwartz, Boies Schiller &
Flexner, LLP, Peter Murray Skinner, Boies Schiller & Flexner,
LLP, Sean Phillips Rodriguez, Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP &
Alexander Neville Hood, Towards Justice.
Camila Gabriela Perez Reyes, Cathy Caramelo & Linda Elizabeth,
Plaintiffs, represented by Joshua James Libling, Boies Schiller &
Flexner, LLP, Sean Phillips Rodriguez, Boies Schiller & Flexner,
LLP & Dawn Smalls, Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP.
InterExchange, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brooke A. Colaizzi
-- bcolaizzi@shermanhoward.com -- Sherman & Howard, L.L.C.,
Raymond Myles Deeny -- rdeeny@shermanhoward.com -- Sherman &
Howard, L.L.C., Alyssa Lauren Levy -- alevy@shermanhoward.com --
Sherman & Howard, L.L.C., Heather Fox Vickles --
hvickles@shermanhoward.com -- Sherman & Howard, L.L.C. & Joseph
H. Hunt -- jhunt@shermanhoward.com -- Sherman & Howard, L.L.C.
USAuPair, INC, Defendant, represented by Chanda Marie Feldkamp --
cfeldkamp@kellywalkerlaw.com -- Kelly & Walker, LLC & William
James Kelly, III -- wkelly@kellywalkerlaw.com -- Kelly & Walker,
LLC.
GreatAuPair, LLC, Defendant, represented by Martin Jose Estevao -
- mestevao@armstrongte -- Armstrong Teasdale, LLP, Meshach
Yustine Rhoades -- mrhoades@armstrongteasdale.com -- Armstrong
Teasdale, LLP & Vance Orlando Knapp --
vknapp@armstrongteasdale.com --- Armstrong Teasdale, LLP.
Expert Group International, Inc, doing business as Expert AuPair,
Defendant, represented by Bogdan Enica, Bogdan Enica, Attorney at
Law.
EuRaupair InterCultural Child Care Programs, Defendant,
represented by David Meschke -- dmeschke@bhfs.com -- Brownstein
Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP & Martha Louise Fitzgerald --
mfitzgerald@bhfs.com -- Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP.
Cultural Homestay International, Defendant, represented by Adam
A. Hubbard -- aahubbard@hollandhart.com -- Holland & Hart, LLP,
James Edward Hartley -- jhartley@hollandhart.com -- Holland &
Hart, LLP & Jonathan S. Bender -- jsbender@hollandhart.com --
Holland & Hart, LLP.
Cultural Care, Inc., doing business as Cultural Care Au Pair,
Defendant, represented by Diane Rebecca Hazel -- dhazel@lrrc.com
-- Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, James Michael Lyons --
jlyons@lrrc.com -- Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, Jessica
Lynn Fuller -- jfuller@lrrc.com -- Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie
LLP, Joan A. Lukey -- joan.lukey@choate.com -- Choate, Hall &
Stewart, LLP, Justin J. Wolosz -- jwolosz@choate.com -- Choate,
Hall & Stewart, LLP, Kevin Patrick O'Keefe -- kokeefe@choate.com
-- Choate Hall & Stewart, LLP, Lyndsey Marie Kruzer --
lkruzer@choate.com -- Choate, Hall & Stewart, LLP, Michael T.
Gass -- mgass@choate.com -- Choate, Hall & Stewart, LLP, Robert
M. Buchanan, Jr. -- rbuchanan@choate.com -- Choate, Hall &
Stewart, LLP & Samuel Newland Rudman -- srudman@choate.com --
Choate Hall & Stewart, LLP.
AuPairCare, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jennifer Arnett
Roehrich -- jarnett-roehrich@grsm.com -- Gordon & Rees LLP,
Nathan Andrew Huey -- nhuey@grsm.com -- Gordon & Rees LLP, Peggy
E. Kozal -- pkozal@grsm.com -- Gordon & Rees LLP & Thomas Baker
Quinn -- tquinn@grsm.com -- Gordon & Rees, LLP.
Au Pair International, Inc. & American Cultural Exchange, LLC,
doing business as GoAuPair, Defendants, represented by Brett
Michelle Mull -- mull@wtotrial.com -- Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell,
LLP, Brian Alan Birenbach -- brian@rietzlawfirm.com -- Rietz Law
Firm, LLC, Kathryn A. Reilly -- reilly@wtotrial.com -- Wheeler
Trigg O'Donnell, LLP, Natalie Elizabeth West -- west@wtotrial.com
-- Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell, LLP & Victor William Scarpato, III --
scarpato@wtotrial.com -- Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell, LLP.
APF Global Exchange, NFP, doing business as Aupair Foundation,
Defendant, represented by Susan M. Schaecher --
sschaecher@fisherphillips.com -- Fisher & Phillips, LLP.
American Institute for Foreign Study, doing business as Au Pair
in America, Defendant, represented by Eric Jonathan Stock --
estock@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Joseph B.
Cartafalsa -- joseph.cartafalsa@ogletree.com -- Ogletree Deakins
Nash Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Robert M. Tucker -- Robert M. Tucker
-- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart, P.C. & Stephen J. Macri
-- stephen.macri@ogletree.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak &
Stewart, P.C.
Agent Au Pair & GoAuPair Operations, LLC, doing business as
GoAuPair, Defendants, represented by Brett Michelle Mull, Wheeler
Trigg O'Donnell, LLP, Kathryn A. Reilly, Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell,
LLP, Natalie Elizabeth West, Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell, LLP &
Victor William Scarpato, III, Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell, LLP.
A.P.E.X. American Professional Exchange, LLC, doing business as
ProAuPair & 20/20 Care Exchange, Inc, doing business as
International Au Pair Exchange, Defendants, represented by
Kathleen E. Craigmile -- kcraigmile@nixonshefrin.com -- Nixon
Shefrin Hensen Ogburn, P.C. & Lawrence Daniel Stone --
lstone@nixonshefrin.com -- Nixon Shefrin Hensen Ogburn, P.C.
International Care Limited, Movant, represented by Harvey J.
Wolkoff -- harveywolkoff@quinnemanuel.com -- Ropes & Gray, LLP.
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Faces "Bishop" Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against International
Business Machines Corporation. The case is styled as Cedric
Bishop, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. International Business Machines Corporation doing
business as: IBM, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05850 (S.D. N.Y.,
June 28, 2018).
The International Business Machines Corporation is an American
multinational technology company headquartered in Armonk, New
York, United States, with operations in over 170 countries.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.
INTERSTATE OIL: Faces "Garner" Suit in California State Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Inter State Oil
Company. The lawsuit is captioned as Chris Garner, on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Does 1-100 and Inter State Oil Company, the
Defendants, Case No. 34-2018-00234770-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct.,
June 13, 2018).
InterState Oil Company is a diversified fuel and lubricants
distributor servicing California and Nevada, with corporate
headquarters in Sacramento, CA.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Han, Esq.
JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
411 N Central Ave., Ste 500
Glendale, CA 91203-2095
Telephone: (818) 230 7502
Facsimile: (818) 230 7259
E-mail: dhan@justicelawcorp.com
IQ FORMULATIONS: Debernardis Appeals S.D. Fla. Order to 11th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Christina Damore and Joshua Debernardis filed an
appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit entitled Joshua
Debernardis, et al. v. IQ Formulations, LLC, et al., Case No.
1:17-cv-21562-DPG, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida.
The nature of suit is stated as tort product liability.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was filed on April 26, 2017, and was assigned to the Hon. Darrin
P. Gayles.
IQ Formulations is a health and fitness supplement provider.
The appellate case is captioned as Joshua Debernardis, et al. v.
IQ Formulations, LLC, et al., Case No. 18-11778, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that the
Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons was due on or before
May 25, 2018, as to Appellees Europa Sports Products, Inc. and IQ
Formulations, LLC.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants JOSHUA DEBERNARDIS, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated; and CHRISTINA DAMORE, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are
represented by:
Jonathan Betten Cohen, Esq.
Rachel Soffin, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
201 N. Franklin Street, 6th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 223-5505
Facsimile: (813) 223-5402
E-mail: jcohen@forthepeople.com
rsoffin@forthepeople.com
- and -
Richard L. Miller, II, Esq.
Joseph J. Siprut, Esq.
Richard S. Wilson, Esq.
SIPRUT, PC
17 N State St., Suite 1600
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 236-0000
Facsimile: (312) 948-9212
E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com
rwilson@siprut.com
- and -
Nick Suciu, III, Esq.
BARBAT MANSOUR & SUCIU, PLLC
1644 Bracken Rd.
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302
Telephone: (313) 303-3472
E-mail: nicksuciu@bmslawyers.com
Defendant-Appellee IQ FORMULATIONS, LLC, a Florida limited
liability company, is represented by:
Robert Twombly, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT TWOMBLY
9999 Ne 2nd Ave., Suite 306
Miami, FL 33138
Telephone: (786) 502-2038
E-mail: robert@whitetwombly.com
Defendant-Appellee EUROPA SPORTS PRODUCTS, INC., is represented
by:
Erin E. Bohannon, Esq.
Bruce A. Katzen, Esq.
Diane Wagner Katzen, Esq.
KLUGER KAPLAN SILVERMAN KATZEN & LEVINE, PL
201 S Biscayne Blvd., Floor 27
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 379-9000
E-mail: ebohannon@klugerkaplan.com
bkatzen@klugerkaplan.com
dkatzen@klugerkaplan.com
- and -
James P. Ellison, Esq.
HYMAN PHELPS & MCNAMARA, PC
700 13th St. NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20005-3960
Telephone: (202) 737-5600
E-mail: jellison@elattorneys.com
JONES MOTOR: Seventh Circuit Appeal Filed in "Daley" Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Michael Daley filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit entitled Michael Daley v. Jones Motor Company,
Incorporated, et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-00056-NJR-DGW, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.
The appellate case is captioned as Michael Daley v. Jones Motor
Company, Incorporated, et al., Case No. 18-1924, in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that
Appellant's brief was due on or before June 6, 2018, for Michael
Daley.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant MICHAEL DALEY, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Michael Todd Blotevogel, Esq.
ARMBRUSTER, DRIPPS, WINTERSCHEIDT & BLOTEVOGEL, LLC
219 Piasa Street
P.O. Box 8338
Alton, IL 62002
Telephone: (800) 917-1529
E-mail: mikeb@adwblaw.com
Defendant-Appellee JONES MOTOR COMPANY, INCORPORATED, is
represented by:
David M. Krueger, Esq.
BENESCH, FRIEDLANDER, COPLAN & ARONOFF
200 Public Square
2300 BP Tower
Cleveland, OH 44114-2378
Telephone: (216) 363-4500
E-mail: dkrueger@beneschlaw.com
Defendant-Appellee ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY is
represented by:
Beth Ann Berger Zerman, Esq.
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
550 W. Adams Street
Chicago, IL 60661-0000
Telephone: (312) 463-3363
E-mail: bethann.berger@lewisbrisbois.com
KANSAS, USA: Kobach Appeals Ruling in "Fish" Suit to 10th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Kris W. Kobach, in his official capacity as Secretary
of State for the state of Kansas, filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit entitled Fish, et al. v. Kobach, Case No.
2:16-CV-02105-JAR, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas - Kansas City.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs sought to represent two classes:
(1) all eligible Kansas motor-voter registrants who do not
currently appear on the active voter registration list
due to purported failure to submit documentary proof of
citizenship under Kan. Stat. Ann.; and
(2) Kansas residents eligible to vote who have submitted a
registration application but do not currently appear on
the active voter registration list due to purported
failure to submit documentary proof of citizenship
under Kan. Stat. Ann. and who do not have documentary
proof of citizenship records under their current name
on file with State agencies in Kansas.
The appellate case is captioned as Fish, et al. v. Kobach, Case
No. 18-3094, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees STEVEN WAYNE FISH, on behalf of themself and
all others similarly situated; DONNA BUCCI, on behalf of themself
and all others similarly situated; CHARLES STRICKER, on behalf of
themself and all others similarly situated; THOMAS J. BOYNTON, on
behalf of themself and all others similarly situated; DOUGLAS
HUTCHINSON, on behalf of themself and all other similarly
situated; and LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF KANSAS are represented
by:
Stephen Douglas Bonney, Esq.
ACLU FOUNDATION OF KANSAS
6701 West 64th Street, Suite 210
Mission, KS 66202
Telephone: (913) 490-4102
Facsimile: (913) 490-4119
E-mail: dbonney@aclukansas.org
- and -
Rodkangyil Orion Danjuma, Esq.
Dale Ho, Esq.
Sophia Lin Lakin, Esq.
Emily Rong Zhang, Esq.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 549-2563
E-mail: odanjuma@aclu.org
dale.ho@aclu.org
slakin@aclu.org
- and -
Daphne Ha, Esq.
Neil A. Steiner, Esq.
Rebecca Kahan Waldman, Esq.
DECHERT LLP
1095 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036-6797
Telephone: (212) 698-3500
E-mail: daphne.ha@dechert.com
neil.steiner@dechert.com
rebecca.waldman@dechert.com
- and -
Angela M. Liu, Esq.
DECHERT LLP
35 West Wacker Drive, Suite 3400
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 646-5800
E-mail: angela.liu@dechert.com
Defendant-Appellant KRIS W. KOBACH, in his official capacity as
Secretary of State for the State of Kansas, is represented by:
Sue Becker, Esq.
Kris William Kobach, Esq.
Garrett Roe, Esq.
KANSAS SECRETARY OF STATE
120 SW 10th Avenue, 1st Floor
Topeka, KS 66612-1594
Telephone: (785) 296-4564
E-mail: sue.becker@ks.gov
sos@ks.gov
garrett.roe@sos.ks.gov
KEEFE COMMISSARY: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Reichert" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JEFFREY REICHERT, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. KEEFE COMMISSARY NETWORK,
L.L.C. d/b/a Access Corrections; Rapid Investments, Inc., d/b/a
Rapid Financial Solutions, d/b/a Access Freedom; and Cache Valley
Bank, Defendant, Case No. C17-5848RBL (W.D. Wash.), Judge Ronald
B. Leighton of the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Washington, Tacoma, denied Defendants Rapid Investments, Inc.
and Cache Valley Bank's Motion to Compel Arbitration, and denied
Keefe's Motion to Stay or Dismiss Plaintiff's Claims.
Plaintiff Reichert was arrested on Oct. 21, 2016 by a Kitsap
County Sheriff's Deputy. Upon arrest, the deputy confiscated
$176.77 in cash from him. Reichert was released at 5:00 a.m. the
next day. Instead of receiving cash, Reichert was handed an
"AccessFreedom Card" -- a debit card issued by Defendants Cache
Valley and Rapid, pursuant to a contract between Kitsap County
and Keefe. Reichert was not provided with any paperwork
explaining the Card, or given any oral explanation of its terms.
When Reichert asked the jail officer for his cash, he was told
that he doesn't get his cash back, he gets a debit card.
Reichert did not request or apply for the Card. He never agreed
to receive the Card. He was not given any documentation showing
how much had been taken from him during his arrest, or how much
was loaded onto the Card. No one explained how to access his
money, that additional fees applied if he did not access it
within 72 hours, or that he would lose nearly 10% of his cash to
fees. He did not sign any document agreeing to the Card or its
terms. Reichert had no opportunity to reject the Card (or even
to affirmatively accept it).
The moving Defendants argue that by accepting and using the Card
he received, Reichert agreed to the terms contained within the
Cardholder Agreement. Reichert "accepted the offer" to use the
Card (and actually used it), thus forming a contract. They argue
that although Reichert claims he did not receive a copy of the
Cardholder Agreement when he was released, the back of the Card
provides Rapid's website, where those terms and conditions may be
found.
Moreover, they claim the contract contains an arbitration clause,
including a delegation clause, giving the arbitrator (rather than
the court) the power to decide questions of arbitrability in the
first instance. They claim that in the Ninth Circuit, delegation
clauses are to be enforced, unless there is a challenge specific
to the delegation clause. Because Reichert asserts no such
challenge, they claim, the delegation clause should be enforced.
The front and center issue in these two motions is whether a
binding contract, including a mandatory arbitration clause, was
formed under the circumstances of the case.
Judge Leighton is persuaded by the evidence that one was not. He
finds that the Defendants' practices are substantially similar to
those at issue in Regan v. Stored Value Cards, Inc. and Brown v.
Stored Value Cards, Inc., and there is no arbitration agreement
to enforce. All contracts, including those to arbitrate
disputes, must have mutual assent, and the Defendants' "contract"
to arbitrate is unenforceable and unconscionable under Washington
law. Hence, the Judge denied the Defendants' motions to compel.
He also denied Defendant Keefe's Motion to Stay or Dismiss
Plaintiff's Claims. He holds that Reichert's claims are not
couched in the language of contract law. Rather, they emanate
from the U.S. Constitution (Fifth Amendment); Federal statutory
law (Electronic Fund Transfer Act; State law (Washington Consumer
Protection Act6); and common law (Conversion and Unjust
Enrichment). Nothing before the Judge persuades him to dismiss
the Complaint. It should be noted, however, that nothing before
him leads it to believe a class action is the best way to deal
with this dispute.
The analysis of the prior cases, demonstrate a clear fork in the
road between valid contract (not actionable) and no contract
(actionable). This is just a cautionary tale for now. The Court
remains skeptical on the question of class status.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 1, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/1Uihtx from Leagle.com.
Jeffrey Reichert, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Laura R. Gerber --
lgerber@kellerrohrback.com -- KELLER ROHRBACK, Mark Adam Griffin
-- mgriffin@kellerrohrback.com -- KELLER ROHRBACK, Daniel
Marshall, HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER, pro hac vice, Lisa Faye
Petak -- lpetak@kellerrohrback.com -- KELLER ROHRBACK LLP, pro
hac vice, Masimba Mutamba, HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER, pro hac
vice & Sabarish Neelakanta, HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER, pro hac
vice.
Keefe Commissary Network LLC, doing business as Access
Corrections, Defendant, represented by Sylvia Karen Bamberger --
kbamberger@bpmlaw.com -- BETTS PATTERSON & MINES, Russell S.
Ponessa -- rponessa@hinshawlaw.com -- HINSHAW & CULBERTSON, pro
hac vice & Suzanne L. Jones -- sjones@hinshawlaw.com -- HINSHAW &
CULBERTSON, pro hac vice.
Rapid Investments Inc, doing business as Rapid Financial
Solutions doing business as Access Freedom & Cache Valley Bank,
Defendants, represented by Emily J. Harris --
eharris@corrcronin.com -- CORR CRONIN MICHELSON BAUMGARDNER FOGG
& MOORE LLP, George F. Verschelden --
george.verschelden@stinson.com -- STINSON LEONARD STREET LLP, pro
hac vice & Kristina Markosova -- kmarkosova@corrcronin.com --
CORR CRONIN MICHELSON BAUMGARDNER FOGG & MOORE LLP.
KING COUNTY, WA: Retroactive Contributions Ruling Upheld
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KEVIN DOLAN and a class of similarly situated
individuals, Respondents, v. KING COUNTY, a political subdivision
of the State of Washington, Respondent, DEPARTMENT OF RETIREMENT
SYSTEMS, Appellant, Case No. 49876-6-II (Wash. App.), Judge
Bradley A. Maxa of the Court of Appeals of Washington, Division
II, affirmed the trial court's interest order and judgment
requiring the County to pay only a portion of the interest, $10.5
million, on the retroactive contributions.
The appeal involves the remedies phase of a class action lawsuit
in which a class of public defenders employed by organizations
with which King County contracted alleged that the County had
been obligated to enroll them in Washington's Public Employees'
Retirement System ("PERS"). The Supreme Court held that the
County had such an obligation, and remanded for the trial court
to address remedies. The Department of Retirement Systems
("DRS") later intervened to address various remedy issues.
After more litigation and a second appeal, the class members and
the County reached a settlement in which the County agreed that
the class members would be retroactively eligible for PERS
service credit dating back to 1978. The County also agreed to
pay the full amount of retroactive contributions into PERS
relating to the class members. Left unresolved was whether the
County also would be required to pay approximately $64 million in
interest on the retroactive contributions to replace lost
investment returns or whether that amount would be "socialized" -
- spread out among existing PERS participants -- through an
increase of contributions from existing PERS participants.
While litigation regarding the interest issue was pending, DRS
issued a letter informing the County that DRS had decided under
authority granted in RCW 41.50.125 to charge the County the full
amount of the interest on the retroactive contributions. DRS
subsequently argued that because the County did not seek review
of this decision under the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"),
chapter 34.05 RCW, the trial court did not have jurisdiction to
address the interest issue. The trial court ruled that it had
jurisdiction. After an evidentiary hearing, the court ruled
based on equitable principles that the County would be required
to pay only a portion of the interest, $10.5 million, on the
retroactive contributions.
DRS appeals the trial court's order, arguing that (1) the trial
court erred in ruling on the County's interest obligation because
the County did not seek review of DRS's interest decision under
the APA; (2) the trial court erred in applying equitable
principles to determine the County's interest obligation when RCW
41.50.125 authorized DRS to make interest decisions; and (3) even
if the trial court properly addressed the interest issue, the
court erred because equity does not support imposing only a
portion of the interest obligation on the County.
Judge Maxa holds that that because the trial court obtained
original subject matter jurisdiction regarding the interest
matter before DRS' interest decision, under the "priority of
action" rule the trial court had exclusive authority to decide
the County's interest obligation. As a result, he holds that the
APA did not limit the trial court's ability to determine the
amount of interest the County should pay into PERS.
The Judge also holds the trial court did not err in exercising
its equitable authority despite DRS's interest decision because
RCW 41.50.125's authorization to DRS to charge interest on late
PERS payments was not mandatory or exclusive. Because RCW
41.50.125 does not state a requirement that interest must be
charged and does not expressly grant DRS exclusive authority over
the interest decision, the trial court retained authority to
address the interest issue based on equitable principles. Both
the trial court and DRS initially had authority to rule on the
interest issue. But the trial court had exclusive authority
under the priority of action rule because the court obtained
jurisdiction first.
Finally, the Judge holds that the trial court did not err in
ruling based on equitable principles that the County was required
to pay only a portion of the interest on the retroactive PERS
contributions. Requiring the County to be solely responsible
would be very burdensome, and would result in it reducing
services and incurring debt in addition to its current budget
deficit. By contrast, socializing the cost would be consistent
with the typical practice, and would result in an increase in
contribution rates that is substantially smaller than other
increases over the previous few years. And although some of DRS
challenges to other considerations may have merit, the trial
court had broad discretion in the exercise of its equitable
authority and there is no requirement that all the considerations
support the court's ruling.
Accordingly, Judge Maxa affirmed the trial court's interest order
and judgment.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 1, 2018 Unpublished Opinion
is available at https://is.gd/iSZghZ from Leagle.com.
Michael E. Tardif -- miket@fjtlaw.com -- Freimund Jackson &
Tardif PLLC, 711 Capitol Way S Ste 602, Olympia, WA, 98501-1236,
Jeffrey A.O. Freimund -- jefff@fjtlaw.com -- Freimund Jackson &
Tardif PLLC, 711 Capitol Way S Ste 602, Olympia, WA, 98501-1236,
Counsel for Appellant(s).
David Frank Stobaugh, Bendich Stobaugh & Strong PC, 701 5th Ave
Ste 4850, Seattle, WA, 98104-7062, Timothy J. Filer --
filet@foster.com -- Foster Pepper PLLC, 1111 3rd Ave Ste 3000,
Seattle, WA, 98101-3292, Emily Rose Kelly --
emily.kelly@foster.com -- Foster Pepper PLLC, 1111 3rd Ave Ste
3000, Seattle, WA, 98101-3292, Counsel for Respondent(s).
KNORR-BREMSE AG: Kubik Sues over No-Poach Agreements
----------------------------------------------------
EDWARD KUBIK, DEONDRA RANDLE, and ALLYN BASORE, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
FAIVELEY TRANSPORT S.A.; FAIVELEY TRANSPORT NORTH AMERICA, INC.;
KNORR-BREMSE AG; KNORR BRAKE COMPANY; NEW YORK AIR BRAKE
LLC; and WESTINGHOUSE AIR BRAKE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION d/b/a
WABTEC CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-01618-MGL
(D.S.C., June 13, 2018), seeks to recover treble damages,
attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and court costs, for
violations of Sherman Act of 1890 and Clayton Act of 1914.
The class action challenges a series of agreements between three
of the world's largest rail equipment suppliers not to solicit,
recruit, hire without prior approval, or otherwise compete for
employees (collectively, "No-Poach Agreements"). For many years,
beginning as early as 2009 and continuing until at least April
2018, these No-Poach Agreements were agreed upon, monitored and
enforced by high-level executives of Defendants and their co-
conspirators, with many critical contacts and communications
between the Defendants happening in this District. These No-Poach
Agreements restrained competition in the relevant labor market,
allocated employees between the companies, and deprived employees
of the ability to seek higher paying jobs or negotiate for better
compensation. Accordingly, the No-Poach Agreements are naked,
horizontal, market-allocation agreements that are per se
violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Russell T. Burke, Esq.
Chad A. McGowan, Esq.
MCGOWAN, HOOD & FELDER, LLC
1539 Health Care Drive
Rock Hill, SC 29732
Telephone: (803) 327 7800
Facsimile: (803) 328 5656
E-mail: cmcgowan@mcgowanhood.com
rburke@mcgowanhood.com
KNORR-BREMSE AG: Roozemond Sues over No-Poach Agreements
--------------------------------------------------------
JASON T. ROOZEMOND 5129 Sunscape Lane, South Fort Worth, TX
76123, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. KNORR-BREMSE AG Moosacher Street 80
80809 Munich, Germany, KNORR BRAKE COMPANY LLC, 1 Arthur Peck
Drive Westminster, MD 21157, NEW YORK AIR BRAKE LLC, 748 Starbuck
Avenue Watertown, NY 13601, BENDIX COMMERCIAL VEHICLE SYSTEMS
LLC, 901 Cleveland Street Elyria, OH 44035, WESTINGHOUSE AIR
BRAKE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, 1001 Air Brake Avenue Wilmerding,
PA 15148, WABTEC RAILWAY ELECTRONICS, INC., 21200 Dorsey Mill
Road Germantown, MD 20876, FAIVELEY TRANSPORT S.A., 3, Rue du 19
Mars 1962 92230 Gennevilliers, France, FAIVELEY TRANSPORT NORTH
AMERICA, INC., 1001 Airbrake Avenue Wilmerding, PA 15148,
RAILROAD CONTROLS, L.P., 9800 Hillwood Parkway, Suite 340
Fort Worth, TX 76177, XORAIL, INC. 1001 Airbrake Avenue
Wilmerding, PA 15148, and DOES 1-20, inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-cv-01750-CCB (D. Md., June 13, 2018), alleges that
Defendants have conspired to enter a series of unlawful
agreements, to restrain competition in the labor markets in which
they compete for employees.
The Defendants are each other's top competitors for rail
equipment used in freight and passenger rail applications. They
also compete with each other to attract, hire and retain various
skilled employees, including rail industry project managers,
engineers, sales executives, business unit heads and corporate
officers. Prior to its acquisition by Wabtec in November 2016,
Faiveley Transport S.A. also competed with Knorr and Wabtec to
attract, hire, and retain employees.[BN]
Attorneys for Plaintiff and the proposed Class:
William H. Murphy III, Esq.
Nicholas A. Szokoly, Esq.
Jessica H. Meeder, Esq.
MURPHY, FALCON & MURPHY
One South Street, 23rd Floor
Baltimore, MD 21202
Telephone: (410) 951 8744
Facsimile: (410) 539 6599
- and -
Patrick J. Coughlin, Esq.
David W. Mitchell, Esq.
Alexandra S. Bernay, Esq.
Carmen A. Medici, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101-8498
Telephone: 619 231 1058
Facsimile: 619 231 7423
- and -
Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
George C. Aguilar, Esq.
Michael J. Nicoud, Esq.
ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
600 B Street, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 525 3990
Facsimile: (619) 525 3991
KUSHY PUNCH: Edibles Have Low THC Amount, Lambert Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
TINA LAMBERT, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. KUSHY PUNCH, INC., a California
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. 37-2018-00030269-CU-BT- CTL (Cal. Super. Ct., June 19,
2018), alleges Defendants' unlawful, deceptive and unfair course
of conduct in manufacturing, marketing, and/or selling variety of
Edibles products with false Tetrahydrocannabinol amount.
This is a class action case brought on behalf of all purchasers
of Kushy Punch, Inc. edible products, including but not limited
to the Kushy Punch Sativa, Indica, Hybrid and Recover Gummy
Edibles. The Edibles are sold through various retailers
nationwide, including retailers in Plaintiff's home state of
California.
According to the complaint, Defendants' Edibles contain
materially less THC than advertised to consumers on product
packaging. The Plaintiff purchased Defendants Edible which
prominently, and in no uncertain terms, represented that the
product contained l00 mg of THC. Contrary to the "100 mg of THC"
claim on the product packaging, however, the offending Edibles
were made, manufactured, produced and/or sold with significantly
lower levels of THC than marketed. Independent laboratory testing
confirmed that the amount of THC actually contained in Defendants
Edible products is significantly lower than Defendant's falsely
advertised 100 mg of THC per unit on its packaging, in violation
of California's Unfair Competition Law codified at Business &
Professions Code Section 17200 et seq. As such. Defendants cannot
lawfully sell their Edibles and falsely claim that it contains 10
mg of THC.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John H. Donboli, Esq.
Raquel S. Mor, Esq.
DONBOLI LAW GROUP, APC
11682 El Camino Real, Suite 100
San Diego, CA 92130
Telephone: (858) 252 2015
Facsimile: (858) 724 1490
KYANI INC: Seeks 9th Circuit Review of Ruling in "Guo" RICO Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Michael Breshears, Kirk Hansen and Kyani, Inc., filed
an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Yan Guo, et
al. v. Kyani, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-08257-JAK-GJS, in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
Los Angeles.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case
asserts violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act.
The appellate case is captioned as Yan Guo, et al. v. Kyani,
Inc., et al., Case No. 18-55698, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Transcript must be ordered by June 29, 2018;
-- Transcript is due on July 30, 2018;
-- Appellants Michael Breshears, Kirk Hansen and Kyani, Inc.'s
opening brief is due on September 7, 2018;
-- Appellees Ju Jin Guo and Yan Guo's answering brief is due
on October 9, 2018; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
service of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees YAN GUO and JU JIN GUO, Individually; and
all those similarly situated, are represented by:
Blake J. Lindemann, Esq.
THE LINDEMANN LAW GROUP
433 N. Camden Dr., Fourth Floor
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (310) 279-5269
Facsimile: (310) 300-0267
E-mail: blake@lawbl.com
Defendants-Appellants KYANI, INC., an Idaho corporation; MICHAEL
BRESHEARS, an individual; and KIRK HANSEN, an individual, are
represented by:
Lawrence B. Steinberg, Esq.
BUCHALTER NEMER PLC
1000 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90017-2457
Telephone: (310) 460-4481
E-mail: lsteinberg@buchalter.com
LAS VEGAS SANDS: Summary Judgment in Securities Suit Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, POMPANO BEACH POLICE & FIREFIGHTERS' RETIREMENT
SYSTEM and ALASKA ELECTRICAL PENSION FUND, Lead Plaintiffs, On
Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. LAS VEGAS SANDS CORPORATION; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 17-15216 (9th Cir.), the U.S.
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the
district court's summary judgment in favor of the Defendants.
The Plaintiffs appeal an adverse summary judgment in their
securities fraud class action under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act, against Las Vegas Sands Corp.
("LVS"), Sheldon Adelson, LVS's majority stockholder and
controller, and William Weidner, the Chief Operating Officer.
The Plaintiffs challenge five sets of statements: (1) Senior VP
Henry's reassurances to investors that LVS had sufficient
liquidity and access to credit markets; (2) Adelson's statements
during the July 30, 2008, conference call; (3) the Defendants'
claims that the development in Southeast Asia was progressing and
the opening dates were on track; (4) Stone's statement that
Weidner had been misquoted regarding the 40% increase in costs in
Singapore; and (5) Weidner's substitution of quarterly revenues
for annual earnings on the April 30, 2008, earnings call.
Finally, they allege control person liability against Adelson and
Weidner under Section 20(a).
The Appellate Court finds that the district court properly found
that Henry's April 30, 2008, statements regarding LVS's financing
prospects and the interest from Asian banks were future-oriented,
looking to possible financing sources in the coming months. The
"Disclaimer" at the outset of the call was a "meaningful
cautionary statement" as required by 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-
5(c)(1)(A). These future-looking statements are protected by the
safe harbor provision in federal securities law.
Henry's other statements from April 30, 2008, about prior
conversations with banks and evaluating non-equity alternatives
were not misleading because LVS was, in fact, meeting with banks
and discussing financing options. Even though Henry's "ample
access" statement may be misleading, the Plaintiffs failed to
demonstrate how disclosing Henry's misstatement resulted in
dropping stock prices, rather than "changed economic
circumstances" from the contemporaneous global financial
recession. Therefore, the Plaintiffs cannot establish a genuine
issue of material fact as to loss causation resulting from
Henry's April 30 statements.
The Court further finds that the Plaintiffs cannot establish a
triable issue regarding Adelson's July 30, 2008 earnings call
statements. Adelson's statements that the company would not
seek equity financing, was considering various financing
alternatives, had flexibility in financing, the "fundamentals" of
LVS had not changed, and the pipeline was still continuing were
not misleading. In fact, they were true. The Plaintiffs failed
to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to falsity for
Adelson's July 30 statements and the remaining statements fall
within the safe harbor rule.
All of the statements regarding the progress of the projects on
the Cotai Strip were also true. The Court finds that none
affirmatively created an impression of a state of affairs that
differed in a material way from the one that actually existed.
The statement that Sites 5 and 6 were "on track" falls within the
safe harbor of forward-looking statements. It discusses "plans
and objectives of management for future operations" and was
accompanied by cautionary language.
While there may be a genuine issue of fact that Stone's statement
was misleading and made with scienter, the Plaintiffs cannot
establish loss causation. They Plaintiffs have not shown that
the revelation of that misrepresentation was a substantial factor
in causing the decline in the security's price.
The Appellate Court finds that the Plaintiffs failed to raise a
genuine issue of material fact as to loss causation for Weidner's
statement. Even if the Bank of America Report impacted the stock
price, the Plaintiffs do not demonstrate how Weidner's false
statement months before was a "substantial factor" in the decline
when the disclosure does not mention EBITDAR or Weidner's April
statement.
Finally, it finds that the Plaintiffs cannot raise a genuine
dispute under Section 20(a) for controlling person liability
against Weidner or Adelson because they cannot prove a primary
violation of underlying securities laws.
For these reasons, the Ninth Circuit affirmed. The Appellants
will bear the costs of appeal.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 1, 2018 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/Co4KBa from Leagle.com.
LASERSHIP INC: "Reynoso" Suit Moved to E.D. Virginia
----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Edward Reynoso, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly-situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Lasership Inc. and Blake Averill, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-
cv-11607, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
District Massachusetts, to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia (Alexandria) on June 25, 2018. The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-00782-LO-JFA to
the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Liam
O'Grady.
LaserShip is a regional last mile delivery company that services
the Eastern and Midwest United States.[BN]
Attorneys for Plaintiff:
Nicholas F. Ortiz, Esq.
Raven Moeslinger, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF NICHOLAS F. ORTIZ, P.C.
99 High Street, Suite 304
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 338 9400
Facsimile: (617) 507 3456
E-mail: nfo@mass-legal.com
rm@mass-legal.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Douglas J. Hoffman, Esq.
LEONARD RALSTON STANTON REMINGTON & DANKS
100 Thomas Jefferson St NW, Suite 609
Washington, DC 20007
Telephone: (202) 342 3342
- and -
Ethan J. Davis, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS, P.C.
500 N. Akard
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (617) 367 0025
E-mail: ethan.davis@jacksonlewis.com
LEXINGTON COUNTY, SC: Reinhart Appeals Ruling in "Brown" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Gary Reinhart, Rebecca Adams and Bryan Koon filed an
appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Twanda Brown,
et al. v. Gary Reinhart, et al., 3:17-cv-01426-MBS-SVH, in the
U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina at
Columbia.
The other Defendants are LEXINGTON COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA; ROBERT
MADSEN, in his official capacity as the Circuit Public Defender
for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of South Carolina; and ALBERT
JOHN DOOLEY, III, in his official capacity as the Associate Chief
Judge for Administrative Purposes of the Summary Courts in
Lexington County.
Gary Reinhart is the Chief Judge for Administrative Purposes of
the Summary Courts in Lexington County.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
accuses Lexington County of running a modern day debtors' prison.
According to ACLU and its legal ally, Lexington County runs a
nasty practice of routinely jailing individuals unable to pay
court-ordered fines on time. In some cases, they say, men and
women have had bench warrants issued for their arrest mere days
after accruing a past-due balance.
The appellate case is captioned as Twanda Brown, et al. v. Gary
Reinhart, et al., Case No. 18-1524, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees TWANDA MARSHINDA BROWN, SASHA MONIQUE DARBY,
CAYESHIA CASHEL JOHNSON, AMY MARIE PALACIOS, XAVIER LARRY
GOODWIN, RAYMOND WRIGHT, JR., on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, and NORA ANN CORDER are represented
by:
Nusrat Jahan Choudhury, Esq.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
125 Broad Street
New York, NY 10004-2400
Telephone: (212) 519-2500
E-mail: nchoudhury@aclu.org
- and -
Susan King Dunn, Esq.
ACLU OF SOUTH CAROLINA
P. O. Box 20998
Charleston, SC 29403
Telephone: (843) 720-1425
Facsimile: (843) 720-1428
E-mail: sdunn@aclusouthcarolina.org
- and -
Toby Marshall, Esq.
Eric Nusser, Esq.
TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
936 North 34th Street
Seattle, WA 98103
Telephone: (206) 816-6603
E-mail: tmarshall@terrellmarshall.com
eric@terrellmarshall.com
Defendants-Appellants GARY REINHART, in his individual capacity;
REBECCA ADAMS, in her official and individual capacities as the
Chief Judge for Administrative Purposes of the Summary Courts in
Lexington County and in her official capacity as the Judge of the
Irmo Magistrate Court; and BRYAN KOON, in his official capacity
as the Lexington County Sheriff, are represented by:
William Henry Davidson, II, Esq.
Kenneth Paul Woodington, Esq.
DAVIDSON, WREN & PLYLER, PA
1611 Devonshire Drive
P. O. Box 8568
Columbia, SC 29202-8568
Telephone: (803) 806-8222
LIFEHOUSE HOLDINGS: Violates Residents' Rights, Antoine Says
------------------------------------------------------------
MARIE ANTOINE, by and through her Successor in Interest, Marie
Antoine Pierre, the Plaintiff, v. LIFEHOUSE HOLDINGS, LLC;
LIFEHOUSE SAN DIEGO OPERATIONS, LLC; and DOES 1 through 250,
inclusive the Defendants, Case No. 37-2018-00030299-CU-MC-CTL
(Cal. Super. Ct, June 19, 2018), seeks to permanently enjoin
Defendants, and each of them, from violating residents' rights
pursuant to Health & Safety' Code section 1430(b).
According to the complaint, the Defendants have owned, licensed,
operated, administered, managed, directed, and/or controlled the
Facility within the three years prior to the filing of this
complaint through the date of the final disposition of this
action. In owning, operating, managing, administrating,
controlling, and/or supervising the Facility, Defendants were
required to comply with California statutory and regulatory law
governing the operation of skilled nursing facilities. In owning,
operating, managing, administrating, controlling, and/or
supervising the Facility, Defendants were also subject to the
authority of licensing and other governmental agencies, including
but not limited to the California Department of Public Health
(DPH), the California Department of Health Care Services (DHCS),
and the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).
The Plaintiff and the class were residents of the Facility who
entered into uniform Admissions Agreements with attachments
incorporated into said uniform Admission Agreement mandated by
and pursuant to Health & Safety Code section, 1599.74 with the
Defendants prior to becoming residents at the Facility. And in
fact the Defendants mandated as a condition of admission into the
Facility that the Plaintiff and the class members execute, or
have executed on their behalf, said uniform Admission Agreement,
a transaction for services with the Defendants.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen M. Garcia, Esq.
GARCIA, ARTIGLIERE & MEDBY
One World Trade Center, Suite 1950
Long Beach, CA 90831
Telephone: (562) 216 5270
Facsimile: (562) 216 5271
E-mail: edocs@lawgarcia.com
LLADRO USA: Faces "Wu" Suit in Southern District of New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lladro USA, Inc.
The lawsuit is captioned as Kathy Wu, individually and on behalf
of all other persons similarly situated, the Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-05311-JMF (S.D.N.Y., June 12, 2018). The case is assigned
to Hon. Judge Jesse M. Furman.
Lladro distributes porcelain figurines, collectibles, and gifts.
The company is based in Moonachie, New Jersey.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (917) 796 7437
Facsimile: (212) 982 6284
E-mail: danalgottlieb@aol.com
LOS ANGELES, CA: Leeds Sues over recycLA Program
------------------------------------------------
FREDERICK H. LEEDS, individually and as trustee of the Frederick
H. Leeds Intervivos Trust dated November 30, 1990; MALCOLM
BENNETT, an individual; and 7005 L.P., a California Limited
Partnership, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a public
entity; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No.
BC709658 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 14, 2018), alleges that
Plaintiffs and the Class have been damaged and are entitled to a
refund of all monies collected by and for the benefit of the City
under the recycLA program that are violative of Proposition 218,
plus reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.
This class action arises from the Defendants City of Los Angeles'
implementation of a program called "recycLA", which in July 2017
imposed a new commercial system for the private hauling of waste
and garbage from certain multi-unit dwellings and commercial
properties. Significantly, a key component of the recycLA program
is a tax that was illegally imposed by the City in violation of
Proposition 218.
Prior to July 2017, approximately 150 different private trash
haulers competed in both price and quality for the hauling and
removal of trash from properties not serviced by the City of Los
Angeles Department of Sanitation. Under the recycLA program, the
competitive system was eliminated. In its place, the City awarded
exclusive contracts to a handful of large waste hauling companies
(waste haulers) who each now have a monopoly for hauling trash in
one of eleven designated zones throughout the City of Los
Angeles.
Los Angeles is a sprawling Southern California city and the
center of the nation's film and television industry. Near its
iconic Hollywood sign, studios such as Paramount Pictures,
Universal and Warner Brothers offer behind-the-scenes tours.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brian S. Kabateck, Esq.
Christopher B. Noyes, Esq.
Shant A. Kamikian, Esq.
KABATECK BROWN KELLNER LLP
644 S. Figueroa Street
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 217 5000
Facsimile: (213) 217 5010
E-mail: bsk@alkbklawyers.com
cn@kbklawyers.com
sk@kbklawyers.com
- and -
Geoffrey M. Gold, Esq.
Jeffrey T. Harlan, Esq.
ERVIN COHEN & JESSUP LLP
9401 Wilshire Boulevard, Ninth Floor
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone: (310) 273 6333
Facsimile: (310) 859 2325
E-mail: iharlan@ecjlaw.com
ggold@ecjlaw.com
- and -
Richard L. Kellner, Esq.
KELLNER LAW GROUP PC
300 S. Grand Ave. 14th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (310) 780 6759
E-mail: rlk@kbklawyers.com
LTD FINANCIAL: Weiss and Johnson Sue over Debt Collection
---------------------------------------------------------
John Weiss and Adria Johnson, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. LTD Financial
Services Limited Partnership, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-
03462-JS-ARL (E.D.N.Y., June 13, 2018), seeks to recover damages
for Defendant's violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.
According to the complaint, in its efforts to collect the debt
alleged owed by Plaintiff Weiss, the Defendant contacted
Plaintiff Weiss by a letter dated June 9, 2017. In its efforts to
collect the debt alleged owed by Plaintiff Johnson, the Defendant
contacted Plaintiff Johnson by letter dated June 27, 2017. The
Letters each state, "Acceptance of this settlement offer,
selecting a repayment option and payment by the due date will
settle this debt in full with the current creditor."
The Letters each set forth two settlement Payment Plan options,
including dates certain by which the first payment (and
successive payments, if applicable) must be made. While a
settlement offer in and of itself is not improper, such offer
runs afoul of the FDCPA if it impresses upon the least
sophisticated consumer that if she does not pay by the settlement
deadline, she will have no further opportunity to settle her debt
for less than the full amount.
LTD Financial is a debt collector.[BN]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs:
BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (516) 203 7600
Facsimile: (516) 706 5055
E-mail: ConsumerRights@BarshaySanders.com
MARINER FINANCE: Pooner Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Pooner, 10300 Sunnylake Place Cockeysville, Maryland
21030, On behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. Mariner Finance, LLC 8211 Town Center Drive
Nottingham, Maryland 21236 a Maryland Limited Liability Corp.;
Joshua Johnson 8211 Town Center Drive Nottingham, Maryland 21236;
and Michele Strohm, 8211 Town Center Drive Nottingham, Maryland,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01736-ELH (D. Md., June 12,
2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated and
statutory damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Maryland Wage and Hour Law, and the Maryland Wage Payment and
Collection Law.
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all
persons similarly situated who have worked at any of the Mariner
Finance branch locations as account representatives and customer
service representatives throughout the United States, which is
owned, controlled and operated by the Defendants.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants at two branch
locations of Mariner Finance within the three years preceding the
filing of this lawsuit, i.e., June 2016 through April 9, 2018.
For the entire time that Plaintiff worked for Defendants, the
Plaintiff served as an account representative and earned an
hourly wage. Plaintiff's compensation arrangement was similar to
other Mariner Finance account representatives and customer
service representatives, insofar as all account representatives
and customer service representatives were paid an hourly rate as
opposed to a salary. The Plaintiff's final hourly rate was
$16.00/hour. Plaintiff worked in the Pikesville and Woodlawn
branches of Mariner Finance.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Howard B. Hoffman, Esq.
600 Jefferson Plaza, Suite 304
Rockville, MD 20852
Telephone: (301) 251 3752
Facsimile: (301) 251 3753
MATIAN FIRM: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, "Chavez" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
ALMA CHAVEZ, an individual, MELISSA DELGADO, an individual; and
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. THE MATIAN FIRM, a
professional corporation, Shawn Matian, an individual; and DOES 1
through 50 inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC709655 (Cal.
Super. Ct., June 13, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages and minimum/regular wages under the California Labor Code.
According to the complaint, Defendants' systematic pattern of
denying their employees specific rights afforded to them under
the California law, such as refusing to pay for time and a half
overtime for all overtime hours worked, and failing to allow for
meal and rest breaks. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have
increased its profits by violating state wage and hour laws and
exploiting its employees, by, among other things: (1) failing to
pay its employees all wages for time worked and (2) failing to
allow meal and rest periods.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Okorie Okorocha, Esq.
THE OKOROCHA FIRM
117 E. Colorado Blvd, Suite 465
Pasadena, CA 91105
Telephone: (310) 497 0321
E-mail: OO@OOESQ.COM
MDL 1570: Arrowood Appeals Order in 911 MDL to Second Circuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Arrowood Indemnity Company and Arrowood Surplus Lines
Insurance Company filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit styled Arrowood Indemnity Company, et al. v. Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia, et al., Case No. 17-cv-03908, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.
The lawsuit is part of the multidistrict litigation known as IN
RE: TERRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001, MDL No.
1:03-md-01570-GBD-SN.
Arrowood Indemnity Company, formerly known as Royal Indemnity
Company, and Arrowood Surplus Lines Insurance Company, formerly
known as Royal Surplus Lines Insurance Company, appeal to the
Second Circuit from each and every part of the Memorandum
Decision and Order entered on March 28, 2018, in favor of
Defendants Al Rajhi Bank, National Commercial Bank, and Saudi
Binladin Group.
The appellate case is captioned as Arrowood Indemnity Company, et
al. v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, et al., Case No. 18-1266, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]
The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:
James L. Bernard, Esq.
Robert Lewin, Esq.
Michele L. Jacobson, Esq.
Beth K. Clark, Esq.
Patrick N. Petrocelli, Esq.
STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
180 Maiden Lane
New York, NY 10038
Telephone: (212) 806-5400
E-mail: jbernard@stroock.com
rlewin@stroock.com
mjacobson@stroock.com
bclark@stroock.com
ppetrocelli@stroock.com
Defendant-Appellee Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is represented by:
Benjamin David Margo, Esq.
DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP
919 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (215) 704-4186
E-mail: bmargo@kellogghansen.com
Defendant-Appellee Al Rajhi Bank is represented by:
Christopher Mark Curran, Esq.
Nicole Erb, Esq.
WHITE & CASE LLP
701 Thirteenth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 626-3600
Facsimile: (202) 639-9355
E-mail: ccurran@whitecase.com
nerb@whitecase.com
Defendant-Appellee National Commercial Bank is represented by:
Mitchell Rand Berger, Esq.
Alan Todd Dickey, Esq.
Ronald Stanley Liebman, Esq.
SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP
2550 M Street NW
Washington, DC 20037
Telephone: (202) 457-5601
Facsimile: (202) 457-6315
E-mail: mitchell.berger@squirepb.com
alan.dickey@squirepb.com
rliebman@pattonboggs.com
- and -
Ugo Alfredo Colella, Esq.
THOMPSON HINE LLP
1919 M Street NW Suite 700
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 263-4192
Facsimile: (202) 331-8330
E-mail: UColella@duanemorris.com
Defendant-Appellee Saudi Binladin Group is represented by:
Fahad A. Habib, Esq.
JONES DAY
555 California Street, 26th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 875-5761
Facsimile: (415) 875-5700
E-mail: fahabib@jonesday.com
- and -
James Ernest Gauch, Esq.
Mary Ellen Powers, Esq.
JONES DAY
51 Louisiana Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: (202) 879-3880
Facsimile: (202) 626-1700
E-mail: jegauch@jonesday.com
mepowers@jonesday.com
- and -
Margaret C. Gleason, Esq.
JONES DAY
500 Grant Street
One Mellon Center, Suite 4500
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Telephone: (412) 391-3939
E-mail: mcgleason@jonesday.com
MDL 2741: "Young" Suit vs Monsanto Consolidated in N.D. Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled John Gordon Young, the Plaintiff,
v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-03514-VC,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
South Carolina to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (San Francisco) on June 13, 2018. The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-03514-VC to the
proceeding.
This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct
and proximate result of Defendant negligent and wrongful conduct
in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing
the active ingredient glyphosate.
The Young case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup
Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of
the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on
October 3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions
arising out of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide,
particularly its active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-
Hodgkin's lymphoma. Plaintiffs each allege that they or their
decedents developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup
over the course of several or more years. Plaintiffs also allege
that the use of glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients,
in particular the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA),
renders Roundup even more toxic than glyphosate on its own.
Issues concerning general causation, the background science, and
regulatory history will be common to all actions. In its October
3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL
involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the
Northern District of California will serve the convenience of the
parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct
of this litigation. Centralization will eliminate duplicative
discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings (including with
respect to discovery, privilege, and Daubert motion practice);
and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the
judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Vince
Chhabria. The lead case is 3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN]
Attorneys for Plaintiff:
Joe Mooneyham, Esq.
William A. Maxey, Esq.
Mooneyham Berry, Esq.
MOONEYHAM BERRY, LLC
Post Office Box 8359
Greenville, SC 29604
Telephone: (864) 421 0036
Facsimile: (864) 421 9060
E-mail: joe@mbllc.com
will@mbllc.com
MDL 2741: "Adams" Suit vs Monsanto Consolidated in N.D. Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled MICHAEL ADAMS, the Plaintiff, v.
MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-00139, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Arkansas, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California (San Francisco) on June 18, 2018. The Northern
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-03625-VC to the
proceeding.
This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct
and proximate result of Defendant negligent and wrongful conduct
in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing
the active ingredient glyphosate.
The Adams case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup
Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of
the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on
October 3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions
arising out of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide,
particularly its active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-
Hodgkin's lymphoma. Plaintiffs each allege that they or their
decedents developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup
over the course of several or more years. Plaintiffs also allege
that the use of glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients,
in particular the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA),
renders Roundup even more toxic than glyphosate on its own.
Issues concerning general causation, the background science, and
regulatory history will be common to all actions.
In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the
actions in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization in the Northern District of California will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and
Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the
MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is 3:16-md-02741-
VC.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mason Lee Boling, Esq.
Sean T. Keith, Esq.
KEITH, MILLER, BUTLER,
SCHNEIDER & PAWLIK, P.L.L.C.
224 South Second Street
Rogers, AR 72756
Telephone: (479) 621 0006
E-mail: mboling@arkattorneys.com
skeith@arkattorneys.com
MDL 2741: "Terry" Suit vs Monsanto Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled WILLIAM TERRY, the Plaintiff, v.
MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00064, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Mississippi, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California (San Francisco) on June 19, 2018.
The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-
03641-VC to the proceeding.
This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct
and proximate result of Defendant negligent and wrongful conduct
in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing
the active ingredient glyphosate.
The Terry case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup
Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of
the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on
October 3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions
arising out of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide,
particularly its active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-
Hodgkin's lymphoma. Plaintiffs each allege that they or their
decedents developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup
over the course of several or more years. Plaintiffs also allege
that the use of glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients,
in particular the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA),
renders Roundup even more toxic than glyphosate on its own.
Issues concerning general causation, the background science, and
regulatory history will be common to all actions.
In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the
actions in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization in the Northern District of California will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and
Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the
MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is 3:16-md-02741-
VC.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Trevor Bruce Rockstad, Esq.
DAVIS & CRUMP, PC
2601 14th Street
Gulfport, MS 39501
Telephone: (228) 863 6000
Facsimile: (228) 864 0907
E-mail: trevor.rockstad@daviscrump.com
MDL 2741: "Lovett" Suit vs Monsanto Consolidated in N.D. Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled TOMMY LOVETT and VALETTA LOVETT,
the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No.
4:18-cv-00727, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on June 14,
2018. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 3:18-cv-03546-VC to the proceeding.
This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct
and proximate result of Defendant negligent and wrongful conduct
in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing
the active ingredient glyphosate.
The Lovett case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re:
Roundup Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by
Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation on October 3, 2016. These actions share common factual
questions arising out of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup
herbicide, particularly its active ingredient, glyphosate, causes
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Plaintiffs each allege that they or their
decedents developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup
over the course of several or more years. Plaintiffs also allege
that the use of glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients,
in particular the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA),
renders Roundup even more toxic than glyphosate on its own.
Issues concerning general causation, the background science, and
regulatory history will be common to all actions.
In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the
actions in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization in the Northern District of California will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and
Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the
MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is 3:16-md-02741-
VC.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Eric Davis Holland, Esq.
HOLLAND, GROVES, SCHNELLER AND STOLZE
300 North Tucker Blvd., Suite 801
St. Louis, MO 63104
Telephone: (314) 241 8111
Facsimile: (314) 241 5554
E-mail: eholland@allfela.com
MDL 2742: Balyasny, Luxor Excluded fr. Securities Suit Deal Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge P. Kecin Castel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York excluded Balyasny Asset Management L.P. and
Luxor Capital Group, LP, from the proposed settlement class in
the case, IN RE: SUNEDISON, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION. THIS
ORDER RELATES TO: IN RE: TERRAFORM GLOBAL, INC. SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Case No. 16-md-2742 (PKC) (S.D. N.Y.).
The class plaintiff in In re Terraform Global, Inc. Securities
Litigation has challenged two opt-out notices submitted by
members of the proposed shareholder class. The class counsel
asserts that the opt-out submissions did not include adequate
"documentary proof" and asserts that they are therefore
ineffective. The shares held by the two shareholders assertedly
exceed the threshold number of opt outs that triggers the
Defendants' option to terminate the settlement, which the option
Defendants have purportedly exercised.
On April 27, 2018, the Court presided at a hearing on the class
counsel's challenge to the two opt-out submissions.
On Dec. 19, 2017, the Court granted the lead Plaintiff's
unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action
settlement, and approved the class-wide notice of settlement.
Paragraph 11 of the Court-approved Notice sets forth the manner
for requesting exclusion. It states in part that in order to be
valid, such request for exclusion must be submitted with
documentary proof (i) of each purchase and, if applicable, sale
transaction of Global common stock and (ii) demonstrating your
status as a beneficial owner of the Global common stock. Any
such request for exclusion must be signed and submitted by you,
as the beneficial owner, under penalty of perjury. The requests
for exclusion were to be submitted to the claims administrator no
later than March 27, 2018.
On March 27, 2018, Balyasny and Luxor submitted requests for
exclusion. The Counsel for Balyasny, Lowenstein Sandler LLP,
wrote to the claims administrator, Garden City Group, on or
before the opt-out deadline, identifying funds owned by Balyasny,
and stating that they request to be excluded from the Settlement
Class in In re TerraForm Global Inc. Securities Litigation, and
retain their rights and claims vis-Ö-vis TerraForm Global. The
letter included contact information for attorneys at Lowenstein
Sandler and for an individual at Balyasny.
Attached to the letter is a signed statement submitted under
penalty of perjury by Adam Finger, general counsel to Balyasny.
The submission attaches a 31-page spreadsheet that reflects the
Balyasny funds' transactions in TerraForm Global common stock,
including date, share price and quantity of sale or purchase.
Each page contains data on approximately 45 transactions.
Luxor also wrote to the claims administrator by letter from its
counsel, Lowenstein Sandler, with the same boldfaced request for
exclusion from the settlement class as submitted by Balyasny.
The letter, submitted before the opt-out date, includes contact
information for outside counsel and for the general counsel of
Luxor. It attaches a signed statement submitted under penalty of
perjury by Norris Nissim, general counsel to Luxor. The
submission attaches a six-page spreadsheet that lists the Luxor
funds' transactions in TerraForm Global common stock, including
date, share price and quantity of sales and purchases. Each page
contains data on approximately 45 transactions.
Upon application of the lead Plaintiff, the Court issued an Order
to Show Cause on April 29, 2018, directing the Balyasny and Luxor
funds to show cause as to why their requests for exclusion from
the class should not be deemed invalid. The lead Plaintiff urges
that the submissions of Balyasny and Luxor do not satisfy the
requirements of the Notice because they fail to attach
"documentary proof" in the form of "trade confirmations,
brokerage statements or similar documentation.
Balyasny and Luxor note that the Notice to the class does not
specify any particular forms of "documentary proof," such as
brokerage statements. They argue that it would be inconsistent
with due process and Rule 23(c)(2)(B) to improvise additional
documentation requirements. A Lowenstein Sandler attorney states
that he personally created the trading-data charts based on raw
data delivered by the two funds, and that brokerage statements on
behalf of the Balyasny funds alone would exceed 30,000 pages and
include transactions unrelated to TerraForm Global.
Having reviewed the exclusion requests of Balyasny and Luxor,
Judge Castel comfortably finds that they satisfy the requirements
of the Notice. The Notice does not specify that any particular
types of documentation must be submitted. It requires
"documentary proof (i) of each purchase and, if applicable, sale
transaction of Global common stock and (ii) demonstrating your
status as a beneficial owner of the Global common stock." Signed
statements from Balyasny and Luxor, submitted under penalty of
perjury, specifically state that the entities "are the beneficial
owners of the applicable securities," and annex a summary of
transactions prepared by counsel, based on the trading data
maintained by those entities.
The opt-out submissions must satisfy the requirements of the
Notice, which in turn, must satisfy the "plain, easily
understood" language requirement of Rule 23(c)(2)(B). In Plummer
v. Chemical Bank, which involved a class certified under Rule
23(b)(2), the Court noted that Rule 23, as it then existed, does
not require opt-out plaintiffs to file written reasons for their
exercise of choice. Any reasonable indication of a desire to opt
out should suffice.
In In re WorldCom, Inc. Securities Litigation, a dispute arose as
to whether a class member mailed a request for exclusion. Judge
Cote observed that the sparse case law on the issue suggests, and
the practicalities of class action administration require, that
the burden be on the class member to establish that he or she
made a sufficient effort to communicate an intent to opt out
through the appropriate channels. The class member must show
that notice was effectively and timely communicated. Because
flexibility in making this determination is appropriate, any
written evidence' containing a `reasonable indication of a desire
to opt out ought to be sufficient.
The Judge holds that Balyasny and Luxor's unmistakable intent to
opt out also weighs in favor of their exclusion from the class.
For the foregoing reasons, he finds that the opt-out submissions
of Balyasny and Luxor complied with the Court-approved Notice to
the Class. Balyasny and Luxor are excluded from the proposed
settlement class in the above-captioned action.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 1, 2018 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/fswEI3 from Leagle.com.
Charles Bloom, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated & Sharon Burnstein, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, represented by John
Jasnoch -- JJASNOCH@SCOTT-SCOTT.COM -- Scott+Scott, Attorneys At
Law, LLP, pro hac vice.
Omega Capital Investors, L.P., Omega Capital Partners, L.P.,
Omega Equity Investors, L.P., Omega Overseas Partners, Ltd.,
Cobalt Partners, LP., Cobalt Partners II, LP, Cobalt Offshore
Master Fund, LP, Cobalt KC Partners, LP, Glenview Capital
Partners, L.P., Glenview Institutional Partners, L.P., Glenview
Capital Master Fund, Ltd., Glenview Capital Opportunity Fund,
L.P. & Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System,
Plaintiffs, represented by Darren J. Robbins --
e_file_sd@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro
hac vice, Dennis J. Herman -- dennish@rgrdlaw -- Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, James I. Jaconette --
jamesj@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac
vice, Jennifer Nunez Caringal -- JCaringal@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Scott H. Saham --
scotts@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac
vice, Susan G. Taylor -- susant@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice & David Avi Rosenfeld --
DRosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.
Dina Horowitz, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by James J. Rosemergy --
jrosemergy@careydanis.com -- CAREY AND DANIS & Maurice B. Graham,
Gray, Ritter & Graham, P.C.
The Zecher Family Group, Plaintiff, represented by Norman E.
Siegel -- siegel@stuevesiegel.com -- Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP,
pro hac vice.
Municipal Employees' Retirement System of Michigan, Plaintiff,
represented by Adam David Hollander -- adam.hollander@blbglaw.com
-- Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, Katherine Mccracken
Sinderson, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, Maurice B.
Graham, Gray, Ritter & Graham, P.C. & Salvatore Jo Graziano --
sgraziano@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann
LLP.
Kenneth J. Moodie, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by J. Alexander Hood, II --
ahood@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Jeremy Alan
Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- POMERANTZ LLP & Michael J.
Flannery -- mflannery@cuneolaw.com -- Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca,
LLP, pro hac vice.
Robert Kunz, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by J. Christopher Wehrle --
chris@wehrlelaw.com -- WEHRLE LAW LLC.
Alexander Y Usenko, individually and all other similarly situated
Plan participants and beneficiaries on behalf of SunEdison
Retirement Saving Plan, Plaintiff, represented by Daniella Quitt
-- -- dquitt@hfesq.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Mark Alan
Potashnick, Weinhaus & Potashnick, pro hac vice, Robert I.
Harwood -- rharwood@hfesq.com -- Harwood Feffer LLP & Tanya
Korkhov -- tkorkhov@hfesq.com -- Harwood Feffer LLP.
Richard Wheeler, Plaintiff, represented by Don R. Lolli --
dlolli@dysarttaylor.com -- Dysart Taylor Cotter McMonigle &
Montemore, P.C, pro hac vice, Gregory M. Egleston --
gegleston@gme-law.com -- Gainey McKenna & Egleston & Thomas James
McKenna -- tjmckenna@gme-law.com -- Gainey McKenna & Egleston.
Julie Dull, Plaintiff, represented by Albert Yong Chang , Johnson
Bottini, LLP, Francis A. Bottini, Jr. , JOHNSON BOTTINI, LLP &
Richard B. Hein , LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD B. HEIN.
SUNEDISON, INC., Defendant, represented by Charles N. Insler --
cinsler@heplerbroom.com -- HEPLER BROOM, Glenn E. Davis --
gdavis@heplerbroom.com -- HEPLER BROOM, Mark Bruce Blocker --
MBLOCKER@SIDLEY.COM -- SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP, Christopher Kenneth
Meyer -- CMEYER@SIDLEY.COM -- SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP & Sarah A.
Hemmendinger -- SHEMMENDINGER@SIDLEY.COM -- SIDLEY AUSTIN, LLP &
James Eric Ivester -- eric.ivester@skadden.com -- Skadden, Arps
Et Al.
Ahmad Chatila & Brian Wuebbels, Defendants, represented by
Charles N. Insler, HEPLER BROOM, Glenn E. Davis, HEPLER BROOM,
Hille R. Sheppard -- HSHEPPARD@SIDLEY.COM -- SIDLEY AND AUSTIN,
Jaime Allyson Bartlett, SIDLEY AUSTIN, LLP, pro hac vice, Norman
J. Blears -- nblears@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP, Robin Eve
Weckin -- RWECHKIN@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP, pro hac vice,
Sara B. Brody -- SBRODY@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP, pro hac
vice, Sarah Alison Hemmendinger, Sidley Austin LLP, Chris K.
Meyer, Sidley Austin, LLP, Dorothy Jane Spenner --
DSPENNER@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP, Elizabeth Yvonne Austin
-- LAUSTIN@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin, LLP, Jaime Allyson
Bartlett -- JBARTLETT@SIDLEY.COM -- SIDLEY AUSTIN, LLP & Mark
Bruce Blocker -- MBLOCKER@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin, LLP.
Antonio R. Alvarez, Emmanuel Hernandez, Clayton Daley, Jr., James
B. Williams, Georganne Proctor & Randy H. Zwirn, Defendants,
represented by Glenn E. Davis, HEPLER BROOM, Hille R. Sheppard,
SIDLEY AND AUSTIN, Jaime Allyson Bartlett, SIDLEY AUSTIN, LLP,
pro hac vice, Norman J. Blears, Sidley Austin LLP, Robin Eve
Wechkin, Sidley Austin LLP, pro hac vice, Sara B. Brody, Sidley
Austin LLP, pro hac vice, Sarah Alison Hemmendinger, Sidley
Austin LLP, Chris K. Meyer, Sidley Austin, LLP, Dorothy Jane
Spenner, Sidley Austin LLP, Elizabeth Yvonne Austin, Sidley
Austin, LLP, Jaime Allyson Bartlett, SIDLEY AUSTIN, LLP & Mark
Bruce Blocker, Sidley Austin, LLP.
Steven Tesoriere, Defendant, represented by Glenn E. Davis,
HEPLER BROOM, Hille R. Sheppard, SIDLEY AND AUSTIN, Jaime Allyson
Bartlett, SIDLEY AUSTIN, LLP, pro hac vice, Norman J. Blears,
Sidley Austin LLP, Robin Eve Wechkin, Sidley Austin LLP, pro hac
vice, Sara B. Brody, Sidley Austin LLP, pro hac vice, Sarah
Alison Hemmendinger, Sidley Austin LLP, Chris K. Meyer, Sidley
Austin, LLP, Dorothy Jane Spenner, Sidley Austin LLP, Elizabeth
Yvonne Austin, Sidley Austin, LLP, Jaime Allyson Bartlett, SIDLEY
AUSTIN, LLP & Mark Bruce Blocker, Sidley Austin, LLP.
Peter Blackmore, Defendant, represented by Glenn E. Davis --
gdavis@heplerbroom.com -- HEPLER BROOM, Gregory Peter Boden --
gregory.boden@wilmerhale.com -- Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and
Dorr LLP, James F. Bennett, DOWD BENNETT, LLP, Jessica L. Lewis -
- jessica.lewis@wilmerhale.com -- Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale
and Dorr LLP, pro hac vice, John Rehmann, II --
jrehmann@dowdbennett.co -- DOWD BENNETT, LLP, Michael G.
Bongiorno -- michael.bongiorno@wilmerhale.com -- Wilmer Cutler
Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Rachel Lee Gargiulo --
rachel.gargiulo@wilmerhale.com -- Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale
and Dorr LLP, pro hac vice, Timothy J. Perla --
timothy.perla@wilmerhale.com -- Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and
Dorr, pro hac vice & Bradley M. Baglien --
bradley.baglien@wilmerhale.com -- Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale
and Dorr LLP.
Jeremy Avenier, Defendant, represented by Jaime Allyson Bartlett,
SIDLEY AUSTIN, LLP, pro hac vice, Norman J. Blears, Sidley Austin
LLP, Robin Eve Wechkin, Sidley Austin LLP, pro hac vice, Sara B.
Brody, Sidley Austin LLP, pro hac vice, Sarah Alison
Hemmendinger, Sidley Austin LLP, Chris K. Meyer, Sidley Austin,
LLP, Dorothy Jane Spenner, Sidley Austin LLP & Jaime Allyson
Bartlett, SIDLEY AUSTIN, LLP.
MDL 2836: Law Enforcement's Suit vs Merck Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as LAW ENFORCEMENT HEALTH BENEFITS INC., on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. MERCK & CO., INC.; MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP.;
SCHERING-PLOUGH CORP.; SCHERING CORP.; MSP SINGAPORE CO. LLC;
GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS, LTD.; GLENMARK GENERICS INC., U.S.A.;
and PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-
01900, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York, to U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia (Norfolk) on June 19, 2018. The
Virginia Eastern District Court assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-01003-
RBS-DEM to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge
Rebecca Beach Smith.
The Law Enforcement case is being consolidated with MDL 2836 re:
Zetia (Ezetimibe) Antitrust Litigation. The MDL was created by
Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation on June 6, 2018. The actions share factual issues
arising from allegations that defendants engaged in an unlawful
scheme to delay the introduction of generic competitors to
Merck's cholesterol drug Zetia. These issues, which include the
merits of a decade-old patent infringement action, appear
complex, and likely to require significant discovery.
Centralization would avoid duplication of that discovery, as well
as eliminate the potential for inconsistent rulings on class
certification and other pretrial matters. In its June 6, 2018
Order, the MDL Panel found these actions involve common questions
of fact, and that centralization in the Eastern District of
Virginia will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses
and promote the just and efficient conduct of this
litigation.[BN]
Attorneys for Law Enforcement Health Benefits Inc.:
Deborah A. Elman, Esq.
Robert G. Eisler, Esq.
GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
485 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (646) 722 8500
Facsimile: (646) 722 8501
E-mail: delman@gelaw.com
reisler@gelaw.com
Attorneys for Merck & Co, Inc.; Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.;
Schering-Plough Corp.; Schering Corp.; and MSP Singapore Co. LLC:
Eric J. Stock. Esq.
GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
200 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10166
Telephone: (212) 351 4000
Facsimile: (212) 351 4035
E-mail: estock@gibsondunn.com
Attorneys for Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd., and Glenmark
Generics Inc., U.S.A.:
Stacey Anne Mahoney, Esq.
MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP (NY-NA)
101 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10178
Telephone: (212) 309 6000
Facsimile: (212) 309 6001
E-mail: stacey.mahoney@morganlewis.com
Attorneys for Par Pharmaceutical, Inc.:
Eric Grannon, Esq.
Amanda L. Czocher, Esq.
WHITE & CASE LLP
701 Thirteenth Street NW
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 626 3600
Facsimile: (202) 639 9355
E-mail: egrannon@whitecase.com
lee.czocher@whitecase.com
MDL 2836: UFCW Local Suit vs Merck Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------
The case captioned as UFCW LOCAL 1500 WELFARE FUND, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MERCK
& CO., INC.; MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP.; SCHERING-PLOUGH CORP.;
SCHERING CORP.; MSP SINGAPORE CO. LLC; GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS,
LTD.; and GLENMARK GENERICS INC., U.S.A., the Defendants, Case
no. 1:18-cv-00763, was transferred from U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York, to U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia (Norfolk) on June 19, 2018. The
Virginia Eastern District Court assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-01000-
RBS-DEM to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge
Rebecca Beach Smith.
The UFCW case is being consolidated with MDL 2836 re: Zetia
(Ezetimibe) Antitrust Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of
the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on
June 6, 2018. The actions share factual issues arising from
allegations that defendants engaged in an unlawful scheme to
delay the introduction of generic competitors to Merck's
cholesterol drug Zetia. These issues, which include the merits of
a decade-old patent infringement action, appear complex, and
likely to require significant discovery. Centralization would
avoid duplication of that discovery, as well as eliminate the
potential for inconsistent rulings on class certification and
other pretrial matters. In its June 6, 2018 Order, the MDL Panel
found these actions involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization in the Eastern District of Virginia will serve the
convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and
efficient conduct of this litigation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Domenico Minerva, Esq.
Jay L. Himes, Esq.
Karin E. Garvey, Esq.
Matthew Joseph Perez, Esq.
Michael P. Canty, Esq.
Robin Ann van der Meulen, Esq.
Gregory Scott Asciolla, Esq.
LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 907 0700
Facsimile: (212) 818 0477
E-mail: dminerva@labaton.com
jhimes@labaton.com
kgarvey@labaton.com
mperez@labaton.com
mcanty@labaton.com
rvandermeulen@labaton.com
gasciolla@labaton.com
Attorneys for Merck & Co, Inc.; Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.;
Schering-Plough Corp.; Schering Corp.; and MSP Singapore Co. LLC:
Eric J. Stock. Esq.
GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
200 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10166
Telephone: (212) 351 4000
Facsimile: (212) 351 4035
E-mail: estock@gibsondunn.com
Attorneys for Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd., and Glenmark
Generics Inc., U.S.A.:
Stacey Anne Mahoney, Esq.
MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP (NY-NA)
101 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10178
Telephone: (212) 309 6000
Facsimile: (212) 309 6001
E-mail: stacey.mahoney@morganlewis.com
Attorneys for Par Pharmaceutical, Inc.:
Eric Grannon, Esq.
Amanda L. Czocher, Esq.
WHITE & CASE LLP
701 Thirteenth Street NW
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 626 3600
Facsimile: (202) 639 9355
E-mail: egrannon@whitecase.com
lee.czocher@whitecase.com
MDL 2836: Philadelphia Teachers' Suit vs Merck Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as PHILADELPHIA FEDERATION OF TEACHERS
HEALTH AND WELFARE FUND individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MERCK & CO., INC.; MERCK
SHARP & DOHME CORP.; SCHERING-PLOUGH CORP.; SCHERING CORP.; MSP
SINGAPORE CO. LLC; GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS, LTD.; GLENMARK
GENERICS INC., U.S.A.; and PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC., the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01216, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia - (Norfolk)
on June 19, 2018. The Virginia Eastern District Court assigned
Case No. 2:18-cv-01001-RBS-DEM 2:18-cv-01001-RBS-DEM to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Rebecca Beach
Smith.
The Philadelphia case is being consolidated with MDL 2836 re:
Zetia (Ezetimibe) Antitrust Litigation. The MDL was created by
Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation on June 6, 2018. The actions share factual issues
arising from allegations that defendants engaged in an unlawful
scheme to delay the introduction of generic competitors to
Merck's cholesterol drug Zetia. These issues, which include the
merits of a decade-old patent infringement action, appear
complex, and likely to require significant discovery.
Centralization would avoid duplication of that discovery, as well
as eliminate the potential for inconsistent rulings on class
certification and other pretrial matters. In its June 6, 2018
Order, the MDL Panel found these actions involve common questions
of fact, and that centralization in the Eastern District of
Virginia will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses
and promote the just and efficient conduct of this
litigation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam Gitlin, Esq.
David Rudolph, Esq.
Eric B. Fastiff, Esq.
Lin Y. Chan, Esq.
Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 956 1000
Facsimile: (415) 956 1008
E-mail: agitlin@lchb.com
drudolph@lchb.com
efastiff@lchb.com
lchan@lchb.com
jselbin@lchb.com
- and -
Marc H. Edelson, Esq.
EDELSON & ASSOCIATES LLC
3 Terry Drive, Suite 205
Newtown, PA 18940
Telephone: (215) 867 2399
Facsimile: (267) 685 0676
E-mail: medelson@edelson-law.com
Attorneys for Merck & Co, Inc.; Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.;
Schering-Plough Corp.; Schering Corp.; and MSP Singapore Co. LLC:
Eric J. Stock. Esq.
GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
200 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10166
Telephone: (212) 351 4000
Facsimile: (212) 351 4035
E-mail: estock@gibsondunn.com
Attorneys for Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd., and Glenmark
Generics Inc., U.S.A.:
Stacey Anne Mahoney, Esq.
MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP (NY-NA)
101 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10178
Telephone: (212) 309 6000
Facsimile: (212) 309 6001
E-mail: stacey.mahoney@morganlewis.com
Attorneys for Par Pharmaceutical, Inc.:
Eric Grannon, Esq.
Amanda L. Czocher, Esq.
WHITE & CASE LLP
701 Thirteenth Street NW
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 626 3600
Facsimile: (202) 639 9355
E-mail: egrannon@whitecase.com
lee.czocher@whitecase.com
MDL 2836: Providence Suit vs Merck Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------
The case captioned as City of Providence, Rhode Island, on its
own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Merck & Co, Inc.; Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.;
Schering-Plough Corp.; Schering Corp.; MSP Singapore Co. LLC;
Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd.; and Glenmark Generics Inc.,
U.S.A., the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-10498 was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for District of Massachusetts, to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia -
(Norfolk) on June 19, 2018. The Eastern District Court assigned
Case No. 2:18-cv-01002-RBS-DEM to the proceeding. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Rebecca Beach Smith.
The Providence case is being consolidated with MDL 2836 re: Zetia
(Ezetimibe) Antitrust Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of
the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on
June 6, 2018. The actions share factual issues arising from
allegations that defendants engaged in an unlawful scheme to
delay the introduction of generic competitors to Merck's
cholesterol drug Zetia. These issues, which include the merits of
a decade-old patent infringement action, appear complex, and
likely to require significant discovery. Centralization would
avoid duplication of that discovery, as well as eliminate the
potential for inconsistent rulings on class certification and
other pretrial matters. In its June 6, 2018 Order, the MDL Panel
found these actions involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization in the Eastern District of Virginia will serve the
convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and
efficient conduct of this litigation.[BN]
Attorneys for City of Providence, Rhode Island:
Todd A Seaver, Esq.
Nathaniel L. Orenstein, Esq.
BERMAN TABACCO
44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 433 3200
Facsimile: (415) 433 6382
E-mail: tseaver@bermantabacco.com
norenstein@bermantabacco.com
Attorneys for Merck & Co, Inc.; Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.;
Schering-Plough Corp.; Schering Corp.; and MSP Singapore Co. LLC:
Christopher D. Dusseault, Esq.
Michael M. Lee, Esq.
Samuel G. Liversidge, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
Telephone: (213) 229 7855
Facsimile: (213) 229 7520
E-mail: CDusseault@gibsondunn.com
mlee@gibsondunn.com
sliversidge@gibsondunn.com
- and -
Natashia Tidwell, Esq.
William H. Kettlewell, Esq.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
100 High Street, 20th Flr.
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 371 1000
E-mail: natashia.tidwell@hoganlovells.com
bill.kettlewell@hoganlovells.com
Attorneys for Glenmark Generics Inc., U.S.A.
Noah J. Kaufman, Esq.
MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
One Federal Street
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 341 7590
E-mail: noah.kaufman@morganlewis.com
MDL 2836: Self-Insured Schools' Suit vs Merck Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit captioned as SELF-INSURED SCHOOLS OF CALIFORNIA, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. MERCK & CO., INC.; MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP.;
SCHERING-PLOUGH CORP.; SCHERING CORP.; MSP SINGAPORE CO. LLC; PAR
PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.; GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.; and GLENMARK
GENERICS INC., U.S.A., the Defendants, Case No. 8:18-cv-00487,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, to U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia (Norfolk) on June 21, 2018. The Virginia
Eastern District Court assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-01004-RBS-DEM to
the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Rebecca
Beach Smith.
The Self-Insured Schools case is being consolidated with MDL 2836
re: Zetia (Ezetimibe) Antitrust Litigation. The MDL was created
by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation on June 6, 2018. The actions share factual issues
arising from allegations that defendants engaged in an unlawful
scheme to delay the introduction of generic competitors to
Merck's cholesterol drug Zetia. These issues, which include the
merits of a decade-old patent infringement action, appear
complex, and likely to require significant discovery.
Centralization would avoid duplication of that discovery, as well
as eliminate the potential for inconsistent rulings on class
certification and other pretrial matters. In its June 6, 2018
Order, the MDL Panel found these actions involve common questions
of fact, and that centralization in the Eastern District of
Virginia will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses
and promote the just and efficient conduct of this
litigation.[BN]
Attorneys for Self-Insured Schools of California:
Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
Nicomedes S. Herrera, Esq.
Ryan J. McEwan, Esq.
Kyla J. Gibboney, Esq.
V Chai Oliver Prentice, Esq.
JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC.
601 California Street, Suite 1000
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 500 6800
Facsimile: (415) 395 9940
E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
nherrera@saverilawfirm.com
rmcewan@saverilawfirm.com
kgibboney@saverilawfirm.com
vprentice@saverilawfirm.com
Attorneys for Merck and Co., Inc.; Merck Sharp and Dohme Corp.;
Schering-Plough Corp.; Schering Corp.; and MSP Singapore Co. LLC:
Christopher D. Dusseault, Esq.
Michael M. Lee, Esq.
Samuel G. Liversidge, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
Telephone: (213) 229 7855
Facsimile: (213) 229 7520
E-mail: CDusseault@gibsondunn.com
mlee@gibsondunn.com
Attorneys for Par Pharmaceutical, Inc.:
Amanda L. Czocher, Esq.
Bryan A Merryman, Esq.
Eric C Grannon, Esq.
WHITE & CASE LLP
701 13th St Nw
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 637 6185
Facsimile: (202) 639 9355
E-mail: lee.czocher@whitecase.com
bmerryman@whitecase.com
egrannon@whitecase.com
Attorneys for Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd., and Glenmark
Generics Inc., U.S.A.:
Sujal Shah, Esq.
MORGAN LEWIS AND BOCKIUS LLP
One Market Spear Street Tower
San Francisco, CA 94105-1596
Telephone: (415) 442 1000
Facsimile: (415) 442 1001
E-mail: sujal.shah@morganlewis.com
MDL 2843: "Williams" Suit vs. Facebook, CA Moved to California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled JACKIE WILLIAMS and Lee Sims, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. FACEBOOK, INC. and CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA, LLC, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00535, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for Northern District of Alabama, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (San
Francisco) on June 8, 2018. The Northern District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-03676-VC to the proceeding. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria.
The Williams case is being consolidated with MDL 2843 in re:
Facebook, Inc., Consumer Privacy User Profile Litigation. The MDL
was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation on June 6, 2018. In its June 6, 2018
Order, the MDL Panel found that centralization under Section 1407
will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and
promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. All
responding parties agree that the actions share factual issues
arising out of allegations that Cambridge Analytica and other
defendants exploited Facebook's platform to obtain user data, and
that Facebook should have imposed more robust controls on the use
of data by third party applications to prevent this conduct.
Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery. The lead
case is 3:18-md-02843-VC.
Facebook is an American online social media and social networking
service company based in Menlo Park, California.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brad Ponder, Esq.
Luke Montgomery, Esq.
MONTGOMERY PONDER, LLC
2226 1st Avenue South, Suite 105
Birmingham, AL 35233
Telephone: (205) 201 0303
Facsimile: (205) 208 9443
E-mail: luke@montgomeryponder.com
brad@montgomeryponder.com
- and -
Archibald I Grubb, II, Esq.
Leslie Lee Ann Pescia, Esq.
Wilson Daniel Miles, III, Esq.
BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES PC
272 Commerce Street
P O Box 4160
Montgomery, AL 36103-4160
Telephone: (334) 269 2343
Facsimile: (334) 954 7555
E-mail: archie.grubb@beasleyallen.com
leslie.pescia@beasleyallen.com
dee.miles@beasleyallen.com
Attorneys for Facebook Inc.:
Carl S Burkhalter, Esq.
Evan P Moltz, Esq.
Mitesh B Shah, Esq.
MAYNARD COOPER & GALE PC
1901 6th Avenue North
Birmingham, AL 35203-2618
AmSouth Harbert Plaza, Suite 2400
E-mail: emoltz@maynardcooper.com
mshah@maynardcooper.com
cburkhalter@maynardcooper.com
MDL 2843: "O'Hara" Suit vs Facebook, CA Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Jordan O'Hara, Brent Collins
Olivia Johnston, Anthony Bell, Juliana Watson, and Ann Kowaleski,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. Facebook Inc., a Delaware corporation; Cambridge
Analytica LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; Aleksandr
Kogan, an individual; Stephen K. Bannon, an individual; Does
1-10, inclusive, and Emerdata Limited, the Defendants, Case No.
8:18-cv-00571, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on June
8, 2018. The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:18-cv-03709-VC to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria.
The O'Hara case is being consolidated with MDL 2843 in re:
Facebook, Inc., Consumer Privacy User Profile Litigation. The MDL
was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation on June 6, 2018. In its June 6, 2018
Order, the MDL Panel found that centralization under Section 1407
will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and
promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. All
responding parties agree that the actions share factual issues
arising out of allegations that Cambridge Analytica and other
defendants exploited Facebook's platform to obtain user data, and
that Facebook should have imposed more robust controls on the use
of data by third party applications to prevent this conduct.
Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery. The lead
case is 3:18-md-02843-VC.
Facebook is an American online social media and social networking
service company based in Menlo Park, California.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Andrew J. Kubik, Esq.
EPPSTEINER LAW, APC
5519 Clairemont Mesa Blvd., Suite 5129
San Diego, CA 92117
Telephone: (858) 350 1500
Facsimile: (858) 598 5599
E-mail: ajk@eppsteiner.com
- and -
Aidan C McGlaze, Esq.
Paul L Hoffman, Esq.
SCHONBRUN SEPLOW HARRIS AND HOFFMAN LLP
11543 West Olympic Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Telephone: (310) 396 0731
Facsimile: (310) 399 7040
E-mail: amcglaze@sshhlaw.com
hoffpaul@aol.com
- and -
Amy Christine Johnsgard, Esq.
Ben Travis, Esq.
COAST LAW GROUP, LLP
1140 S. Coast Hwy 101
Encinitas, CA 92024
Telephone: (760) 942 8505
Facsimile: (760) 942 8515
E-mail: amy@coastlaw.com
ben@coastlaw.com
- and -
Charles J. LaDuca, Esq.
Michael J. Flannery, Esq.
CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
4725 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 200
Washington, DC 20016
Telephone: (202) 789 3960
Facsimile: (202) 789 1813
E-mail: charlesl@cuneolaw.com
mflannery@cuneolaw.com
- and -
Paula R. Brown, Esq.
Thomas Joseph O'Reardon, II, Esq.
Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON LLP
501 West Broadway, Suite 1490
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 338 1100
Facsimile: (619) 338 1101
E-mail: pbrown@bholaw.com
toreardon@bholaw.com
tblood@bholaw.com
- and -
Helen I. Zeldes, Esq.
COAST LAW GROUP LLC
1140 South Coast Highway 101
Encinitas, CA 92024
Telephone: (760) 942 8505
Facsimile: (760) 942 8515
E-mail: helen@coastlaw.com
Attorneys for Facebook Inc.:
Brian Michael Lutz, Esq.
Joshua S. Lipshutz, Esq.
Kristin A. Linsley, Esq.
Orin S Snyder, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
555 Mission Street, Suite 3000
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 393 8379
Facsimile: (415) 393 8306
E-mailL BLutz@gibsondunn.com
jlipshutz@gibsondunn.com
klinsley@gibsondunn.com
osnyder@gibsondunn.com
Attorneys for Cambridge Analytica LLC:
Mark C Scarsi, Esq.
MILBANK TWEED HADLEY AND MCCLOY LLP
2029 Century Park East 33rd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (424) 386 4000
Facsimile: (213) 892 4780
E-mail: mscarsi@milbank.com
MDL 2843: "Skotnicki" Suit vs Facebook, CA Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled CRAIG SKOTNICKI, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
FACEBOOK, INC., and CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA, the Defendants, Case No.
, 1:18-cv-00655, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the District of Delaware, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California (San Francisco) on June 25, 2018.
The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-
03790-VC to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Vince Chhabria.
The Skotnicki case is being consolidated with MDL 2843 in re:
Facebook, Inc., Consumer Privacy User Profile Litigation. The MDL
was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation on June 6, 2018. In its June 6, 2018
Order, the MDL Panel found that centralization under Section 1407
will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and
promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. All
responding parties agree that the actions share factual issues
arising out of allegations that Cambridge Analytica and other
defendants exploited Facebook's platform to obtain user data, and
that Facebook should have imposed more robust controls on the use
of data by third party applications to prevent this conduct.
Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery. The lead
case is 3:18-md-02843-VC.
Facebook is an American online social media and social networking
service company based in Menlo Park, California.[BN]
Attorneys for Craig Skotnicki, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated:
Christopher Page Simon, Esq.
David Gerard Holmes, Esq.
CROSS & SIMON, LLC
1105 North Market Street, Suite 901
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 777 4200
E-mail: csimon@crosslaw.com
dholmes@crosslaw.com
Attorneys for Facebook Inc.:
David Evan Ross, Esq.
KELOGG,HUBER,HANSEN,TODD,EVANS & FIGEL PLLC
1615 M Street, NW, Suite 400
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 326 7900
Facsimile: (202) 326 7999
- and -
Brian M. Lutz, Esq.
Joshua S. Lipshutz, Esq.
Kristin A. Linsley, Esq.
Orin Snyder, Esq.
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 955-8217
E-mail: blutz@gibsondunn.com
jlipshutz@gibsondunn.com
klinsley@gibsondunn.com
osnyder@gibsondunn.com
MEMPHIS, TN: Doe Appeals W.D. Tennessee Decision to Sixth Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Jane Does filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in their lawsuit styled Jane Doe, et al. v. City of Memphis, Case
No. 2:13-cv-03002, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Tennessee at Memphis.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the class
action was filed in December 2013. Jane Doe says she was raped
by a home intruder in March 2001, and provided bodily fluid
samples at a rape crisis center, but the Memphis Police
Department ignored the evidence. The lawsuit alleges that the
City didn't test more than 15,000 evidence kits for reported
sexual assaults and caused spoliation of the evidence.
The appellate case is captioned as Jane Doe, et al. v. City of
Memphis, Case No. 18-5565, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants JANE DOE, JANE DOE, No. 2, and JANE DOE,
No. 3, Individually and as class representatives of all others
similarly situated, are represented by:
Robert L. J. Spence, Jr., Esq.
SPENCEWALK, PLLC
80 Monroe Avenue
Garden Suite One
Memphis, TN 38103
Telephone: (901) 312-9160
Facsimile: (901) 521-9550
E-mail: rspence@spencewalk.com
Defendant-Appellee CITY OF MEMPHIS is represented by:
Barbaralette G. Davis, Esq.
MEMPHIS CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
125 N. Main Street, Suite 336
Memphis, TN 38103-0000
Telephone: (901) 576-6614
E-mail: barbaralette.davis@memphistn.gov
- and -
Robert D. Meyers, Esq.
GLANKLER BROWN
6000 Poplar Avenue, Suite 400
Memphis, TN 38119
Telephone: (901) 685-1322
E-mail: rmeyers@glankler.com
MICHIGAN: Certification of Class & Subclass Sought
--------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JOHN DOES No. 1-6, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. RICHARD
SNYDER, Governor of the Mag. J. David R. Grand State of Michigan,
and COL. KRISTE ETUE, Director of the Michigan State Police, in
their official capacities, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-
13137-RHC-DRG (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an
order:
1. certifying a primary class consisting of:
"people who are or will be subject to registration under
Michigan's Sex Offenders Registration Act";
2. certifying an ex post facto subclass, defined as:
"members of the primary class who committed their offense
or offenses requiring registration before April 12, 2011";
3. appointing John Does No. 1-5 be named as representatives of
the ex post facto subclass; and
4. appointing John Does No. 1-6 be named as representatives of
the primary class.
The ex post facto subclass seeks relief on Count IV (ex post
facto violation). The primary class seeks relief on Count I
(vagueness); Count II (strict liability), and Count III (First
Amendment).
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=cgvCAzPg
Attorneys for Plaintiffs:
Alyson L. Oliver, Esq.
OLIVER LAW GROUP P.C.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
363 W. Big Beaver Rd., Suite 200
Troy, MI 48226
Telephone: (248) 327 6556
E-mail: notifications@oliverlg.com
- and -
Paul D. Reingold, Esq.
MICHIGAN CLINICAL LAW PROGRAM
363 Legal Research Building
801 Monroe Street
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
Telephone: (734) 763 4319
E-mail: pdr@umich.edu
- and -
Miriam Aukerman, Esq.
Michael Steinberg, Esq.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
Fund of Michigan
1514 Wealthy SE
Grand Rapids, MI 49506
Telephone: (616) 301 0930
E-mail: maukerman@aclumich.org
msteinberg@aclumich.org
MIDLAND FUNDING: Walker Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
LATRENA WALKER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. LAW OFFICE OF STEPHEN P.
LAMB, MIDLAND FUNDING LLC and JOHN DOES 1-25, the Defendants,
Case No. 4:18-cv-04094-SOH (E.D. Ark., June 12, 2018), seeks to
recover damages and declaratory relief caused by Defendants
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
According to the complaint, on or about June 19, 2017, the
Defendant sent the Plaintiff an initial contact notice. The
Defendants have failed to provide the consumer with a proper,
initial communication letter by failing to clearly identify the
current creditor of the debt. The Plaintiff incurred an
informational injury as Defendants failed to advise identify of
current creditor. As a result of Defendants' deceptive,
misleading and unfair debt collection practices, Plaintiff has
been damaged.
Midland Funding LLC provides debt collection services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yaakov Saks, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282 6500
E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com
MIKE ZAFIROVSKI: Chen Appeals Opinion and Judgment in "Lucescu"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Kien Chen and Moreno Minto filed an appeal from the
District Court's opinion and order, and judgment, both dated
April 11, 2018, in their lawsuit styled Lucescu, et al. v.
Zafirovski, et al., Case No. 09-cv-4691, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City).
The lawsuit alleges violations of securities laws.
Mike Zafirovski has been a Senior Advisor of the Blackstone Group
LP since October 3, 2011, and has been an Executive Advisor at
The Blackstone Group, Private Equity Group, since October 2011.
He served as the Chief Executive Officer and President of Nortel
Networks Inc. He is the founder and president of The Zaf Group
LLC, established in November 2012.
The appellate case is captioned as Lucescu, et al. v. Zafirovski,
et al., Case No. 18-1438, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants Kien Chen and Moreno Minto are represented
by:
David Avi Rosenfeld, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
58 South Service Road
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: (619) 231-1058
E-mail: DRosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com
Defendants-Appellees Mike Zafirovski and Pavi Binning are
represented by:
Joel C. Haims, Esq.
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
250 West 55th Street
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 468-8000
E-mail: jhaims@mofo.com
MINA GROUP: Fails to Pay Regular & OT Wages, Freeman Says
---------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER FREEMAN, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE MINA GROUP, LLC, MG-101
CAL, LLC and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case
No. CGC-18-567288 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 14, 2018), seeks to
recover unpaid regular and overtime wages, including unpaid
compensation for meal and/or rest period violations, interest
thereon, liquidated damages and other penalties, injunctive and
other equitable relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs
under the California Labor Code.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has had a consistent
policy of (1) unlawfully denying Plaintiff and Class Members
statutorily-mandated meal and rest periods, (2) willfully failing
to provide Plaintiff and Class Members with accurate semimonthly
itemized wage statements reflecting the total number of hours
each worked, the applicable deductions, and the applicable hourly
rates in effect during the pay period, and (3) willfully failing
to pay compensation in a prompt and timely manner to Plaintiff
and those Class Members whose employment with Defendant has
terminated.
Mina Group, Inc. operates a chain of restaurants in Arizona,
California, Florida, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, and
Washington, D.C. The company was founded in 2002 and is based in
San Francisco, California.[BN]
Attorneys for Representative Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Class:
Scott Edward Cole, Esq.
Andrew Weaver, Esq.
SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC
Web: www.scafaw.com
1970 Broadway, Ninth Floor
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 891 9800
Facsimile: (510) 891 7030
E-mail: scole@scalaw.com
aweaver@scalaw.com
MITEL NETWORKS: Witmer Balks at Merger Deal with Searchlight
------------------------------------------------------------
The case, COLLEEN WITMER, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. MITEL NETWORKS
CORPORATION, JOHN P. MCHUGH, PETER D. CHARBONNEAU, BENJAMIN H.
BALL, DAVID M. WILLIAMS, TERENCE H. MATTHEWS, MARTHA H. BEJAR,
RICHARD D. MCBEE, and SUDHAKAR RAMAKRISHNA, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:18-cv-05672 (S.D.N.Y., June 21, 2018), stems from a
proposed transaction announced on April 24, 2018, pursuant to
which Mitel Networks Corporation will be acquired by affiliates
of Searchlight Capital Partners, L.P.
On April 23, 2018, Mitel's Board of Directors caused the Company
to enter into an arrangement agreement with MLN Acquisition Co
ULC and MLN TopCo Ltd. Pursuant to the terms of the Arrangement
Agreement, shareholders of Mitel will receive $11.15 in cash for
each share of Mitel common stock. On June 8, 2018, Defendants
filed a proxy statement with the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction.
The Proxy Statement, which scheduled a stockholder vote on the
Proposed Transaction for July 10, 2018, omits material
information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which
renders the Proxy Statement false and misleading.
Mitel Networks is a telecommunications company providing unified
communications solutions for business.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Timothy J. MacFall, Esq.
Brian D. Long, Esq.
Gina M. Serra, Esq.
RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
825 East Gate Boulevard, Suite 300
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (516) 683 3516
E-mail: tjm@rl-legal.com
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
E-mail: rm@maniskas.com
MO'S FISHERMAN: Court Denies Decertification Bid in "Rivera" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ERICK RIVERA et al., Plaintiffs, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, v. MO'S FISHERMAN
EXCHANGE, INC. et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. ELH-15-1427
(D. Md.), Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander of the U.S. District Court
for the District of Maryland (i) denied the Defendants' motion to
decertify the collective action; (ii) granted in part and denied
in part the Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment; and
(iii) granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' cross
motion for partial summary judgment.
Plaintiffs Melvin Mendoza, Rivera, and Armando Portillo filed the
initial Complaint on May 19, 2015. The Defendants answered on
Nov. 3, 2015. he action was conditionally certified on June 22,
2016. An Amended Complaint was filed on March 21, 2017, and the
Second Amended Complaint was docketed July 19, 2017.
According to the Plaintiffs, there are currently 30 Plaintiffs in
the case, all of whom are former employees of Mo's. They were
employed in various positions, including as servers, bartenders,
busboys, food preparers, cooks, and dishwashers. The majority of
them received tips. Therefore, those individuals were paid at a
below-minimum wage rate. However, they allege that their tips
were frequently withheld or taken by the Defendants, either
because the Defendants deducted a 3% credit card processing fee
from their tips, or because the Plaintiffs were required to
reimburse the restaurants for their customers' unpaid bills.
Many Plaintiffs claim unpaid overtime wages. They allege that
during certain weeks they worked more than 40 hours, but were not
paid time-and-a-half wages for their overtime hours. In
addition, they allege that they were denied their straight-time
wages for extended periods.
In a Second Amended Complaint, Rivera, Edwin Garcia Sosa, Pierre
Etheridge, and Dallas Royer, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, filed a wage action against seven
corporations that operate six restaurants at which they
previously worked: Mo's Fisherman's Exchange, Inc. (doing
business as Mo's and Mo's Towson); Mo's Pulaski Highway Corp.
(doing business as Mo's White Marsh, Mo's Seafood Restaurant, and
Mo's); Mo's Crab and Pasta Factory, Inc. (doing business as Mo's
Crab & Pasta and Mo's Little Italy); Mo's Belair Seafood, Inc.
(doing business as Mo's Fisherman's Wharf and Mo's Inner Harbor);
Mo's Fisherman's Ritchie Highway, Inc. (doing business as Mo's
Seafood Factory); Mo's Eastern Avenue, Inc. (doing business as
Mo's Seafood Factory Neighborhood Bar & Grill, and Mo's
Neighborhood Bar & Grill); and Fisherman's Wharf Inner Harbor,
Inc. (doing business as Mo's Fisherman's Wharf and Mo's Inner
Harbor). The Plaintiffs also sued defendant Mohammed S.
Manocheh, who owns and operates each of the restaurants.
In particular, the Plaintiffs allege violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"); the Maryland Wage and Hour Law ("MWHL");
and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law ("MWPCL"). They
assert, inter alia, that the Defendants willfully failed to pay
them the wages due and owing, including minimum wages and
overtime wages.
The Plaintiffs subsequently moved to certify the FLSA claim as a
collective action under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b). By Memorandum
Opinion and Order of June 23, 2016, Judge Hollander granted
conditional certification. Thereafter, numerous individuals
opted into the suit. Since then, quite a number of named and
opt-in Plaintiffs were voluntarily dismissed, including the
original named Plaintiff, Melvin Mendoza.
Four motions are now pending; the Memorandum Opinion addresses
three of them. The Defendants have filed a motion to decertify
the collective action, asserting that the Plaintiffs are not
similarly situated. The Plaintiffs oppose the Motion to
Decertify and have submitted many exhibits. The Defendants
replied.
Also pending are the parties' cross-motions for partial summary
judgment. The Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on
the issues of Defendant Manocheh's personal liability under the
FLSA and the Defendants' ability to claim a "tip credit" under
the FLSA.
The Defendants have filed a combined opposition to the
Plaintiffs' Motion and a cross-motion for partial summary
judgment on the issues of their eligibility for the "tip credit"
and the Plaintiffs' entitlement to overtime wages prior to July
1, 2014.
In addition, the Plaintiffs have filed a Motion for Sanctions for
Spoliation of Evidence. That motion is not addressed in the
Memorandum Opinion.
Judge Hollander denied the Motion to Decertify. However, she
says the trial will proceed on the basis of the three subclasses,
as outlined. She denied the Plaintiffs' Motion as to Manocheh's
liability, the Defendants' 3% credit card deduction from the
Plaintiffs' tips, and the Defendants' policy of requiring the
Plaintiffs to cover customers' checks. And, the Judge granted
the Plaintiffs' Motion as to the Defendants' failure to provide a
tip credit notice to 16 Plaintiffs. As for the Defendants'
Motion, she granted it only as to the issue of overtime pay under
the MWHL prior to July 1, 2014, and denied it as to all other
issues.
Among other things, the Judge disagrees with the Defendants'
motion to decertify. First, to the extent that the Plaintiffs'
claims are difficult to adjudicate because the Defendants lack
proper documentation of the Plaintiffs' work, the Defendants
should not benefit from their lax accounting. Second, several of
the Defendants' defenses appear to concern the amount of damages
rather than the question of liability. Testimony regarding
dates, hours and pay rate does not affect certification of the
collective action or impact the determination of whether the
Defendants practices violate the FLSA.
The Judge is persuaded that it is appropriate to divide the case
into three subclasses or groups: (1) the Plaintiffs who claim
unpaid overtime wages; (2) those who claim their tips were
illegally withheld or stolen; and (3) the Plaintiffs who claim
they were not paid straight wages for extended periods. Dividing
the Plaintiffs into separate groups, she says, will reduce the
risk of confusion and promote effective claim management. And,
she hasauthority to divide the members of the collective into
groups, for convenience.
Each of these three subclasses could have achieved certification
independently. But, it is not necessary to decertify them simply
because the Plaintiffs initially sought pre-discovery
certification on a common basis. Grouping the Plaintiffs will
spare the parties, as well as the Court, the unnecessary burden
of multiple trials involving much of the same evidence. The
details of the mechanics need not be resolved at this time.
As to the Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, the
Judge finds that Manocheh's interactions with employees,
especially his occasional directives to them and his attention to
restaurant finances, may indicate that Manocheh is more clearly
an "employer" with respect to the Plaintiffs than Catsimatidis.
However, the extent of Manocheh's involvement in the employment
side of the business appears to be disputed. As a result, she
cannot conclude, as a matter of law, that Manocheh is an employer
with respect to the Plaintiffs for purposes of the FLSA.
In addition, the Defendants assert that the missing tip credit
notice sheets were "apparently lost," but offer no evidence that
they were ever signed, other than broad statements from the
managers' depositions that "everybody got the paper." The Judge
finds that there is no genuine dispute over the fact that at
least 16 Plaintiffs belatedly received notice or did not
adequately receive notice at all. Therefore, as to these 16
Plaintiffs, she says the Defendants cannot claim the tip credit
for any hours worked prior to when they can prove the Plaintiffs
were given notice.
Finally, the Plaintiffs concede that, prior to July 1, 2014, the
MWHL did not afford them overtime protections. Therefore, the
Judge granted the Defendants' Motion on this question, without
prejudice to the Plaintiffs' right to argue that the Defendants'
violations of the FLSA were willful.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 1, 2018 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/blTcYS from Leagle.com.
Melvin Mendoza, Erick Rivera, also known as Erick Adari Rivera
Nolasco, Armando Portillo, also known as Neftaly Armando Portillo
Guevara, Douglas Edgardo Rivera, Wiliam Rivera, Samuel Gutierrez
Guevara, Garcia Edwin Sosa, Derek Kreiner, Jennifer Ragin,
Kristan L. Buchholz, Jennifer Crum, Pierre Etheridge, Michael B.
Gilland, Jr., Kari Perna, Patrick K. Wolford, Jessica Yeager,
Angel Quizhplema Chumaina, Angela Grossman, Samantha LaRicci,
Jessica Bittinger, Tia Downey, Kelly Wolf, Mary Ann Winterling,
Veronica Nicole Frye, Roxanne Warringten, Maritza Martinez, Caren
Roe, Dallas Royer, Angela Elias, Jennifer Kaplan, Tasha Meacham,
Nicole Carter, Vivian Rivera Lovo, Keith Hill, Kelly Holland,
Heather Myers, Robert Brajevich, Stephanie Kirtz, Stefan Kirtz,
Zakaria Ahmed, Thomas O'Donnell & Carlos Gomez, Plaintiffs,
represented by Andrew David Freeman -- adf@browngold.com -- Brown
Goldstein and Levy LLP, Brooke E. Lierman --
BLierman@browngold.com -- Brown Goldstein Levy, Jessica Paulie
Weber -- jweber@browngold.com -- Brown Goldstein and Levy LLP,
Monisha Cherayil, Public Justice Center & Sally Jean Dworak
Fisher, Public Justice Center Inc.
Fisherman's Wharf Inner Harbor, Inc., doing business as Mo's
Fisherman's Wharf, doing business as Mo's Inner Harbor, Mo's
Fisherman Exchange, Inc., doing business as Mo's, doing business
as Mo's Towson, Mo's Pulaski Highway Corp., doing business as
Mo's White Marsh, doing business as Mo's Seafood Restaurant,
doing business as Mo's, Mo's Crab and Pasta Factory, Inc., doing
business as Mo's Crab & Pasta, doing business as Mo's Little
Italy, Mo's Fisherman's Ritchie Highway, Inc., doing business as
Mo's Seafood Factory, Mo's Belair Seafood, Inc., doing business
as Mo's Inner Harbor, doing business as Mo's Fisherman's Wharf,
Mo's Eastern Avenue, Inc., doing business as Mo's Seafood Factory
Neighborhood Bar & Grill, doing business as Mo's Neighborhood Bar
and Grill, Mo's Crab & Pasta Factory, Inc. & Mohammed S.
Manocheh, doing business as Mo's Seafood Restaurant, doing
business as Mo's Fisherman's Wharf, doing business as Mo's, doing
business as Mo's Seafood Factory, doing business as Mo's Crab and
Pasta Factory, doing business as Mo's Neighborhood Bar and Grill,
also known as Mohammad S. Manocheh, doing business as Mo's Inner
Harbor, doing business as Mo's Towson, doing business as Mo's
White Marsh, Defendants, represented by Andrew Marc Dansicker --
ADANSICKER@DANSICKERLAW.COM -- Dansicker Law Firm.
MOUNTAIN FARMS: Suarez Seeks Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JORGE FREDY RAMIREZ SUAREZ and ENMANUEL ELIEZER PERALTA,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. MOUNTAIN FARMS, INC. (d/b/a DELMONICO), PAUL
PREVITI, and KYU OK HAN, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-05298
(S.D.N.Y., June 12, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the
New York Labor Law.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs are former employees
of Defendants. The Plaintiffs were employed as cleaners and food
preparers. The Plaintiffs regularly worked for Defendants in
excess of 40 hours per week without appropriate minimum wage or
overtime compensation for any of the hours that they worked.
Rather, Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of
their hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiffs the minimum wage
rate and overtime compensation for any hours worked over 40,
either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime
premium. Further, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs the
required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which they worked
over 10 hours per day. Furthermore, Defendants repeatedly failed
to pay Plaintiff Herrera wages on a timely basis. Defendants'
conduct extended beyond Plaintiffs to all other similarly
situated employees.
Mountain Farms is a premier provider of organically produced,
carbon and water neutral cannabis products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317 1200
Facsimile: (212) 317 1620
MTC FINANCIAL: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Manos" RICO Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Tara Borrelli, Jessie Manos and John Manos filed an
appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit entitled John Manos,
et al. v. MTC Financial, Inc., et al., Case No. 8:16-cv-01142-
CJC-KES, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, Santa Ana.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs sought to certify classes and subclasses:
FDCPA Assignment Class:
"(1) all individuals who held title to real property in the
State of California secured by a deed of trust or who signed
the promissory note underlying the security instrument (2)
against whom Defendants or their agents recorded a standard
form assignment of deed of trust to Ditech (3) when, at the
time of recordation, Fannie Mae owned the loan, note, and
deed of trust; and (4) the debt was incurred primarily for
personal, family, or household purposes. The period covered
is from 18 June 2015 to the time of the class certification
determination";
FDCPA Corporate Advances Class:
"(1) all individuals who held title to real property in the
State of California secured by a deed of trust or who signed
the promissory note underlying the security instrument (2)
against whom Defendants or their agents collected, or
attempted to collect, directly or indirectly, post-
acceleration late fees, flat legal fees, 'corporate
advances' for property inspections and appraisals, and/or
unspecified bankruptcy/foreclosure expenses, fees, and
costs; (3) when the loan was owned by Fannie Mae; (4) the
servicer was Ditech; and (5) the debt was incurred primarily
for personal, family, or household purposes. The period
covered is from 18 June 2015 to the time of the class
certification determination."
The Corporate Advances Class should include the following
sub-classes:
Late Fees Subclass: class members assessed post-acceleration
late charges;
Foreclosure Fees Subclass: class members assessed fixed
legal fees, trustee fees, unspecified
bankruptcy/foreclosure expenses, fees, and costs in relation
to a non-judicial foreclosure"; and
Preservation Fees Subclass: class members assessed flat fees
for repeated property inspections and/or appraisals after
default;
TILA/FDCPA Force-placed Insurance Class:
"(1) all borrowers charged for a force-placed hazard
Insurance policy placed on a property located within the
State of California (2) where the loan was owned by Fannie
Mae; (3) the servicer was Ditech; and (4) the debt was
incurred primarily for personal, family, or household
purposes. The period covered is from 18 June 2015 to the
time of the class certification determination.
RICO/Cal. Bus. & Prof Code 12700 Delinquency Class:
"(1) all individuals who held title to real property in the
State of California secured by a deed of trust or who signed
the promissory note underlying the security instrument; (2)
where the loan was owned by Fannie Mae; (3) the servicer was
either Ditech or CitiMortgage; and (4) where the servicer
reported the loan to Fannie Mae as code 80 (Breach Letter
Sent) or its equivalent. The period covered is from 18 June
2012 to the time of the class certification determination.
The Class should be subdivided into the following
sub-classes:
Ditech subclass: class members whose mortgages were directly
serviced by Ditech or its predecessor Green Tree Servicing;
and
CitiMortgage subclass: class members whose mortgages were
directly serviced by CitiMortgage
RICO/Cal. Bus. & Prof Code 12700 Insurance Class:
"(1) all individuals who held title to real property in the
State of California secured by a deed of trust or who signed
the promissory note underlying the security instrument; (2)
where the loan was owned by Fannie Mae; (3) the servicer was
either Ditech or CitiMortgage; and (4) where Defendants
mailed to the borrower notice of the placement of
force-placed insurance and a certificate of insurance
identifying the servicer as the insured-mortgagee. The
period covered is from 18 June 2012 to the time of the class
certification determination."
The Class should be subdivided into the following
sub-classes:
Ditech subclass: all class members whose mortgages were
directly serviced by Ditech or its predecessor Green Tree
Servicing; and
CitiMortgage subclass: all class members whose mortgages
were directly serviced by CitiMortgage.
The appellate case is captioned as John Manos, et al. v. MTC
Financial, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-55587, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Appellants Tara Borrelli, Jessie Manos and John Manos'
opening brief was due on June 29, 2018;
-- Appellees CitiMortgage, Inc., Ditech Financial, LLC, Does,
Federal National Mortgage Association, MTC Financial, Inc.
and Malcolm Cisneros ALC's answering brief is due on
July 30, 2018; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
service of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants JOHN MANOS, JESSIE MANOS and TARA BORRELLI,
individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals,
are represented by:
Nicolette Glazer, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF LARRY R. GLAZER
1875 Century Park East
Century City, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 407-5353
E-mail: nicolette@glazerandglazer.com
Defendants-Appellees MTC FINANCIAL, INC., and MALCOLM CISNEROS
ALC are represented by:
Joseph P. Buchman, Esq.
BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP
444 South Flower Street
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 236-0600
E-mail: jbuchman@bwslaw.com
- and -
Richard J. Reynolds, Esq.
BURKE WILLIAMS & SORENSEN LLP
1851 East First Street, Suite 1550
Santa Ana, CA 92705
Telephone: (949) 863-3363
E-mail: rreynolds@bwslaw.com
Defendants-Appellees DITECH FINANCIAL, LLC, and FEDERAL NATIONAL
MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION are represented by:
Erik W. Kemp, Esq.
SEVERSON & WERSON APC
One Embarcadero Center
San Francisco, CA 94111-3715
Telephone: (415) 398-3344
Facsimile: (415) 956-0439
E-mail: ek@severson.com
Defendant-Appellee CITIMORTGAGE, INC., is represented by:
Christopher S. Comstock, Esq.
MAYER BROWN LLP
71 South Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606-4637
Telephone: (312) 701-8386
E-mail: ccomstock@mayerbrown.com
- and -
Andrew Z. Edelstein, Esq.
MAYER BROWN LLP
350 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 229-5156
E-mail: AEdelstein@mayerbrown.com
N.A.R. INC: Lowery Sues over Debt Collections Practices
-------------------------------------------------------
Erica Lowery, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. N.A.R., Inc. and John Does 1-25, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00480-EJF (D. Utah, June 13, 2018),
seeks to recover damages and declaratory under the Fair Debt
Collections Practices Act.
According to the complaint, some time prior to June 13, 2017, an
obligation was allegedly incurred to Crest Financial Services,
LLC. The Crest Financial obligation arose out of transactions in
which money, property, insurance or services, which are the
subject of the transaction, are primarily for personal, family or
household purposes, specifically Crest Financial lends money for
personal and household goods.
The alleged Crest Financial obligation is a "debt" as defined by
15 U.S.C. section 1692a(5). Crest Financial is a "creditor" as
defined by 15 U.S.C. section 1692a(4). Crest Financial or a
subsequent owner of the Crest Financial debt contracted the
Defendant to collect the alleged debt. The Defendant collects and
attempts to collect debts incurred or alleged to have been
incurred for personal, family or household purposes on behalf of
creditors using the United States Postal Services, telephone and
internet.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brett D. Cragun, Esq.
CRAGUN & CRAGUN
PO Box 160234
Clearfield, UT 84016
Telephone (801) 513 2060
Facsimile (801) 513 2082
E-mail: Brett@BrettCragun.com
NATION STAR: Alhassid Appeals S.D. Florida Ruling to 11th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Sara Alhassid filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit titled Sara Alhassid v. Nation Star Mortgage, LLC,
Case No. 1:14-cv-20484-BB, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida.
The appellate case is captioned as Sara Alhassid v. Nation Star
Mortgage, LLC, Case No. 18-11985, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Appellant's Certificate of Interested Persons was due on or
before May 25, 2018, as to Appellant Sara Alhassid; and
-- Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons was due on or
before June 8, 2018, as to Appellee Nation Star Mortgage,
LLC.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant SARA ALHASSID, on her own behalf and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Jeffrey Louis Goodman, Esq.
WICKER SMITH O'HARA MCCOY & FORD, PA
2800 Ponce De Leon Blvd., Suite 800
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 448-3939
E-mail: jgoodman@wickersmith.com
- and -
Iris Joy Herssein, Esq.
WOLFSON & GROSSMAN
11900 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 760
N Miami, FL 33181
Telephone: (305) 893-5656
Facsimile: 893-5115
E-mail: iris@hersseinlaw.com
- and -
Reuven T. Herssein, Esq.
Geoff Hirshberg, Esq.
HERSSEIN LAW GROUP
1801 NE 123rd St., Suite 314
North Miami, FL 33181
Telephone: (305) 531-1431
Facsimile: (305) 531-1433
E-mail: reuven@hersseinlaw.com
geoff@hersseinlaw.com
- and -
Maury L. Udell, Esq.
BEIGHLEY MYRICK UDELL & LYNNE, PA
150 W Flagler St., Suite 1800
Miami, FL 33130
Telephone: (305) 349-3930
Facsimile: (305) 349-3931
E-mail: mudell@bmulaw.com
Defendant-Appellee NATION STAR MORTGAGE, LLC, d.b.a. Champion
Mortgage, is represented by:
Christopher Stephen Carver, Esq.
Michael Kevin Gutman, Esq.
AKERMAN, LLP
3 Brickell City Center
98 Se 7th St., Suite 1100
Miami, FL 3313
Telephone: (305) 982-5600
Facsimile: (305) 374-5095
E-mail: christopher.carver@akerman.com
michael.gutman@akerman.com
- and -
Henry H. Bolz, IV, Esq.
AKERMAN, LLP
350 E Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1600
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 468-2463
E-mail: henry.bolz@akerman.com
- and -
Erik W. Kemp, Esq.
Mark D. Lonergan, Esq.
John B. Sullivan, Esq.
Jonah S. Van Zandt, Esq.
SEVERSON & WERSON
One Embarcadero Center, Floor 26
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 398-3344
Facsimile: (415) 956-0439
E-mail: ek@severson.com
mdl@severson.com
jbs@severson.com
jvz@severson.com
Other professionals involved in the case are:
Katherine A. Aldrich, Esq.
David S. Kantrowitz, Esq.
GOODWIN PROCTER, LLP
100 Northern Ave.
Boston, MA 02210
Telephone: (617) 570-1000
E-mail: kaldrich@goodwinprocter.com
dkantrowitz@goodwinprocter.com
- and -
David L. Permut, Esq.
GOODWIN PROCTER, LLP
901 New York Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: (202) 346-4000
E-mail: dpermut@goodwinprocter.com
- and -
Franklin G. Burt, Esq.
CARLTON FIELDS JORDEN BURT, PA
100 SE 2nd St., Suite 4200
Miami, FL 33131-2113
Telephone: (202) 965-8100
E-mail: fburt@cfjblaw.com
- and -
Brendan Herbert, Esq.
LOCKE LORD, LLP
777 S Flagler Drive, Suite 215a
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Telephone: (561) 833-7700
E-mail: brendan.herbert@lockelord.com
- and -
Matthew G. Lindenbaum, Esq.
NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP
One Post Office Square, 30th Floor
Boston, MA 02109-2127
Telephone: (617) 573-4700
Facsimile: (617) 523-1231
E-mail: mlindenbaum@goodwinprocter.com
NATIONAL IMAGING: Mauthe Appeals E.D. Penn. Decision to 3rd Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Robert W. Mauthe filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit styled Robert W. Mauthe MD PC v. National Imaging
Associates Inc., Case No. 5-17-cv-01916, in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks statutory damages, trebling of statutory damages,
injunctive relief, compensation and attorney fees and all other
relief for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and
applicable regulations of the Federal Communications Commission.
The Plaintiff has a private medical practice in Center Valley,
Pennsylvania. He claims to have received unsolicited faxed ads
about the Defendant's radiology benefits management services
available through their Web site.
The appellate case is captioned as Robert W. Mauthe MD PC v.
National Imaging Associates Inc., Case No. 18-2119, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant ROBERT W MAUTHE MD PC, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, is represented by:
Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
David M. Oppenheim, Esq.
BOCK HATCH LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC
134 North La Salle Street, Suite 1000
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 658-5500
E-mail: phil@bockhatchllc.com
david@classlawyers.com
- and -
Richard E. Shenkan, Esq.
VIRGINIA SHENKAN LAW CENTER
P.O. Box 1130
New Castle, PA 16103
Telephone: (724) 652-8000
E-mail: rshenkan@shenkanlaw.com
Defendant-Appellee NATIONAL IMAGING ASSOCIATES INC. is
represented by:
Michael E. Baughman, Esq.
Eric S. Merin, Esq.
PEPPER HAMILTON LLP
3000 Two Logan Square
18th and Arch Streets
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 981-4964
E-mail: baughmam@pepperlaw.com
merine@pepperlaw.com
NATIONAL RECOVERIES: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in "Reizner" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Alex Reizner filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit titled Alex Reizner v. National Recoveries Inc., Case No.
2-17-cv-02572, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.
The nature of suit is stated as consumer credit.
The appellate case is captioned as Alex Reizner v. National
Recoveries Inc., Case No. 18-2008, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant ALEX REIZNER, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
Benjamin J. Wolf, Esq.
JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
375 Passaic Avenue
Fairfield, NJ 07004
Telephone: (973) 227-5900
E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com
bwolf@legaljones.com
Defendant-Appellee NATIONAL RECOVERIES INC. is represented by:
Mitchell L. Williamson, Esq.
BARRON & NEWBURGER, P.C.
458 Elizabeth Avenue, Suite 5371
Somerset, NJ 08873
Telephone: (732) 328-9480
E-mail: mwilliamson@BN-lawyers.com
NEST SEEKERS: Faces "Fischler" Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nest Seekers
International, LLC. The case is styled as Brian Fischler,
individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Nest Seekers International, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05878 (S.D. N.Y., June 28, 2018).
Nest Seekers LLC provides real estate brokerage services to
customers in the United States and internationally. It helps
customers in buying, selling, and renting residential and
commercial properties. The company also provides market analysis,
feasibility studies, and expert advice; design, branding, and
staging of properties or sales centers; marketing and advertising
campaigns for real estate; and pre development or investment
advisory services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
Lipsky Lowe LLP
630 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10017-6705
Tel: (212) 392-4772
Fax: (212) 444-1030
Email: chris@lipskylowe.com
NEW YORK: Court Grants Summary Judgment in "Miller" EPA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SHIRLEY MILLER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE CITY OF
NEW YORK, Defendant, Case No. 15cv7563 (S.D. N.Y.), Judge William
H. Pauley, III, of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York granted the City's motion for summary
judgment.
In October 2016, the Court, on consent, conditionally certified a
collective action on the Plaintiffs' Equal Pay Act ("EPA") claim
and certified a class action on the Plaintiffs' New York State
Human Rights Law ("SHRL") and New York City Human Rights Law
("CHRL") claims. Both classes were defined as female employees
who are or were employed as school crossing guards ("School
Crossing Guards") from September 2012 through December 2016.
Approximately 1,600 School Crossing Guards opted into the
collective action, and the SHRL and CHRL classes consist of over
2,000 individuals.
School Crossing Guards work for the New York City Police
Department ("NYPD"), and are tasked with managing the flow of
children and their parents at intersections near schools. They
do not sit for a civil service examination or undergo
psychological testing. There is no educational requirement or
need to possess a driver's license. They receive one week of
training.
While School Crossing Guards must be familiar with traffic
regulations, they do not enforce them. They are not authorized
to issue tickets and do not carry radios or electronic equipment.
They work a maximum of five hours per day and do not work nights,
holidays, or weekends.
The NYPD also employs traffic enforcement agents. The crux of
the Plaintiffs' claims is that School Crossing Guards are paid
less than Traffic Enforcement Agents Level II ("Traffic
Enforcement Agents"), even though they claim to do substantially
the same work.
In contrast to School Crossing Guards, Traffic Enforcement Agents
perform a variety of duties. Unlike School Crossing Guards,
Traffic Enforcement Agents are taught to stay in the intersection
and do not stand on the sidewalk. The qualifications to be a
Traffic Enforcement Agent are more rigorous than those for School
Crossing Guards. First, a Traffic Enforcement Agent must have
served as a Traffic Enforcement Agent Level I. To qualify as a
Traffic Enforcement Agent Level I, an applicant must pass a
written exam, psychological evaluation, medical screening, drug
screening, background investigation, and physical fitness test.
A Traffic Enforcement Agent Level I applicant must possess a
four-year high school diploma and a valid driver's license. A
Traffic Enforcement Agent Level I receives 10-11 weeks of
training on topics including New York traffic laws, radio call
signals and transmissions, hand signals, and field training.
When promoted to a Traffic Enforcement Agent Level II, an
individual receives additional training on directing traffic.
At the time that the case was filed, Traffic Enforcement Agents
received an annual salary ranging from $33,751 to $40,930 per
year, which equates to approximately $16.16 to $19.60 per hour.
In contrast, School Crossing Guards were paid at an hourly rate
ranging between $11.79 and $14.40 per hour. Compensation for
Traffic Enforcement Agents and School Crossing Guards are set
pursuant to separate collective bargaining agreements.
Approximately 44% of Traffic Enforcement Agents are female, while
56% are male. Approximately 96% of School Crossing Guards are
female, while 4% are male.
The City of New York moves for summary judgment in the class
action brought by female New York City school crossing guards
claiming violations of the EPA, SHRL, and CHRL.
Judge Pauley finds that the fact that Traffic Enforcement Agents
are occasionally assigned to School Crossing Guard posts is a
matter of necessity required when School Crossing Guards do not
report as scheduled for work. As Traffic Manager Joseph Ellis
III explained, Traffic Enforcement Agents are assigned to those
posts temporarily, and then return to their assigned duties. The
Judge holds that substantial differences in two positions, such
as those customarily associated with differences in wage levels
when the jobs are performed by persons of one sex only, will
ordinarily demonstrate an inequality as between the jobs
justifying differences in pay. No reasonable juror could find an
EPA violation based on the substantial differences between a
School Crossing Guard and Traffic Enforcement Agent.
He also finds that the Plaintiffs do not contend that they were
paid less than male School Crossing Guards. Instead, they
compare themselves to male Traffic Enforcement Agents. But all
that the Plaintiffs point to in arguing that these positions are
similarly situated is that some work duties overlap. He says
this ignores the myriad factors, such as education, training, job
requirements, job responsibilities, hours worked, and similar
working conditions, all of which need to be considered. He has
already explained those differences. In short, Traffic
Enforcement Agents and School Crossing Guards are not similarly
situated in all material respects to substantiate a SHRL claim.
Accordingly, no reasonable jury could find that the Plaintiffs
establish a prima facie case under the SHRL.
Finally, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs cannot compare
themselves to Traffic Enforcement Agents, as they are not
similarly situated. This is fatal to their prima facie case.
They also fail to offer any proof of discriminatory animus.
There is no evidence in this record of a discriminatory motive
underlying the disparate pay rates of School Crossing Guards and
Traffic Enforcement Agents. He says the mere existence of a
statistical imbalance between a covered entity's challenged
demographic composition and the general population is not alone
sufficient to establish a prima facie case of disparate impact
violation unless there is an identifiable policy or practice or
group of policies or practices that allegedly causes the
imbalance. The Plaintiffs point to no such policy. Nor could
they, given that 44% of Traffic Enforcement Agents are female.
For these reasons, Judge Pauley granted the City of New York's
motion for summary judgment dismissing the action. He directed
the Clerk of Court to terminate all pending motions and mark the
case as closed.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 1, 2018 Order is available at
https://is.gd/3m40NK from Leagle.com.
Jean Bloise, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Lead Plaintiff, represented by Richard Soto --
rsoto@afjlaw.com -- Hunton & Williams, LLP & Arthur Z. Schwartz -
- info@arthurzschwartz.com -- Advocates for Justice, Chartered
Attorneys.
Shirley Miller, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Richard Soto ,
Hunton & Williams, LLP & Arthur Z. Schwartz , Advocates for
Justice, Chartered Attorneys.
Karen Addison, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, et al., represented by Arthur Z. Schwartz, Advocates
for Justice, Chartered Attorneys.
Dominga Gab, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, pro se.
Elizabeth LaSalle, Plaintiff, pro se.
Janice Weston, Plaintiff, pro se.
City of New York, Defendant, represented by Aliza Jordana Balog,
New York City Law Department, Tanya N. Blocker, NYC Law
Department, Richard Soto, Hunton & Williams, LLP & Ryan Glenn
Shaffer, New York City Law Department.
Elaine Keys, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated & Bernice Thompson, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, ADR Providers, represented by Arthur Z.
Schwartz, Advocates for Justice, Chartered Attorneys.
NEW YORK, NY: Seeks 2nd Cir. Review of Judgment in "Nnebe" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Elizabeth Bonina, City of New York, Matthew Daus,
Joseph Eckstein, Charles Fraser and New York City Taxi and
Limousine Commission filed an appeal from the District Court's
amended opinion order and judgment dated April 26, 2018, in the
lawsuit styled Nnebe, et al. v. Daus, et al., Case No. 06-cv-
4991, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York (New York City).
Matthew Daus was the chairperson of the NYC Taxi and Limousine
Commission.
The appellate case is captioned as Nnebe, et al. v. Daus, et al.,
Case No. 18-1254, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 8, 2018, the
Plaintiffs filed an appeal from the District Court's amended
opinion, order, and judgment entered on March 27, 2018. That
appellate case is captioned as Nnebe, et al. v. Daus, et al.,
Case No. 18-866.
The lawsuit alleges that the New York City Taxi and Limousine
Commission's policy of suspending taxi drivers upon notification
of their arrest violates the United States Constitution, New York
state law, and New York City municipal law.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees Jonathan Nnebe, New York Taxi Workers
Alliance, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Kharirul Amin and Eduardo Avenaut are represented by:
Daniel L. Ackman, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL ACKMAN
222 Broadway
New York, NY 10038
Telephone: (917) 282-8178
Facsimile: (888) 290-3481
E-mail: dan@danackmanlaw.com
Defendants-Appellants Matthew Daus, Joseph Eckstein, Elizabeth
Bonina, The New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, The City
of New York and Charles Fraser are represented by:
Zachary W. Carter, Esq.
NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT
100 Church Street
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 356-1000
E-mail: zcarter@law.nyc.gov
NEW YORK, NY: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in "Calvo" Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Susan Calvo, Pedro Camacho, John Peters Professional
Limousines, Inc., Jacklyn Restrepo, Eamon Yuel and Yong Zhang
filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit titled
Calvo, et al. v. The City Of New York, et al., Case No. 14-cv-
7246, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York (New York City).
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 5, 2018, the
District Court denied the Plaintiffs' Second Motion for Class
Certification.
The case involves the former policy and practice of Defendant
City of New York to seize vehicles that were suspected of being
used illegally as vehicles for hire without a warrant and prior
to a hearing. After the District Court decided that the City's
practice was unconstitutional as applied to so-called first time
violators, the Plaintiffs sought class certification, which was
denied without prejudice because Plaintiffs failed to propose a
class defined in such a way that everyone within it had standing.
The appellate case is captioned as Calvo, et al. v. The City Of
New York, et al., Case No. 18-1666, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Petitioners Susan Calvo, John Peters Professional
Limousines, Inc., Jacklyn Restrepo, Pedro Camacho, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Yong Zhang and
Eamon Yuel are represented by:
Daniel L. Ackman, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL ACKMAN
222 Broadway
New York, NY 10038
Telephone: (917) 282-8178
E-mail: dan@danackmanlaw.com
Defendants-Respondents The City of New York, Meera Joshi, David
Yassky and Raymond Scanlon are represented by:
Zachary W. Carter, Esq.
NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT
100 Church Street
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 356-1000
E-mail: zcarter@law.nyc.gov
NEW YORK TEACHERS: Pellegrino & Vanostrand Sue State, Union
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against New York State
United Teachers. The lawsuit is captioned as Scott Pellegrino and
Christine Vanostrand, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. New York State United
Teachers; United Teachers of Northport, as representative of the
class of all chapters and affiliates of New York State United
Teachers; Northport-East Northport Union Free School District, as
representative of the class of all school districts in the state
of New York; Andrew Cuomo, in his official capacity as governor
of New York; Barbara Underwood, in her official capacity as
Attorney General of New York; John Wirenius, in his official
capacity as chair of the New York Public Employment Relations
Board; and Robert Hite, in his official capacity as member of the
New York Public Employment Relations Board, the Defendants, Case
No. 2:18-cv-03439-JMA-GRB (E.D.N.Y., June 13, 2018).
New York State United Teachers is a 600,000-member New York state
teachers union, affiliated since 2006 with the American
Federation of Teachers, the AFL-CIO, and the National Education
Association.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Paul R. Niehaus, Esq.
Kirsch & Niehaus, Esq.
150 East 58th Street, 22nd Floor
New York, NY 10155
Telephone: (212) 631 0223
Facsimile: (212) 624 0223
E-mail: pniehaus@niehausllp.com
NISSAN NORTH: Seeks 7th Circuit Review of Ruling in "Anglin" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Nissan North America, Incorporated, filed an appeal
from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled John Anglin v. Nissan
North America, Incorporated, Case No. 1:17-cv-04240, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
is brought over fraud-related issues.
Nissan North America, Inc. designs, develops, manufactures, and
markets Nissan and Infiniti vehicles in the United States,
Canada, and Mexico. The Company offers various cars, such as
sedans, electric cars, sports cars, crossovers and SUVs, minivans
and vans, trucks and commercial vehicles, and various
accessories.
The appellate case is captioned as John Anglin v. Nissan North
America, Incorporated, Case No. 18-2189, in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Transcript information sheet was due June 12, 2018; and
-- Appellant's brief is due on or before July 9, 2018, for
Nissan North America, Incorporated.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee JOHN ANGLIN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
John Sawin, Esq.
SAWIN LAW FIRM, LTD.
55 W. Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 853-2490
E-mail: jsawin@sawinlawyers.com
Defendant-Appellant NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INCORPORATED, a
California corporation, is represented by:
Gary Michael Miller, Esq.
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP
111 S. Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606-0000
Telephone: (312) 704-7700
E-mail: gmiller@shb.com
NOBLE HOUSE: Court Refuses to Stay "Holt" Suit
----------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California denied Defendant's Motion to Stay the case captioned
KATHLEEN HOLT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. NOBLE HOUSE HOTELS & RESORT, LTD.; and
DOES 1 TO 25, Defendants, Case No. 17cv2246-MMA (BLM) (S.D.
Cal.), pending the outcome of two test cases raising nearly
identical issues.
The Plaintiff filed this putative class action Complaint against
Defendant Noble House Hotels & Resort, LTD (Noble House) alleging
causes of action for violations of California's False Advertising
Law (FAL), California Business and Professions Code sections
17500; California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), California
Business and Professions Code sections 17200; and California's
Consumers Legal Remedy Act (CLRA), California Business and
Professions Code sections 1750.
Noble House moves to stay this action pending resolution of the
two test cases in San Diego Superior Court, arguing that
resolution of the test cases will provide guidance to this Court.
The Plaintiff opposes, arguing that resolution of the two test
cases will not be binding on this Court and will only postpone
the Court's decision in this case.
Here, the Court finds that a stay would result in the potential
of prejudicing the Plaintiff with regard to delayed discovery.
First, a stay may result in uncertainty for an indefinite period
of time as the test cases' schedule is likely to be delayed.
Second, if the Court grants a stay in this case, she may struggle
to obtain receipts or credit-card related information from third-
party vendors with potentially short retention periods.
The Court finds that a stay in this case is inappropriate. Noble
House has not shown this is one of those rare circumstances where
a party in one case must stand aside while a litigant in another
settles the rule of law that will define the rights of both.
Accordingly, the Court denies Noble House's motion to stay
pending resolution of the two test cases in state court.
A full-text copy of the District Court's April 30, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yaxlnhsx from Leagle.com.
Kathleen Holt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin Lemieux --
kevin@westcoastlitigation.com -- The Law Office of Kevin Lemieux,
APC, Yana A. Hart -- yana@westcoastlitigation.com -- Hyde &
Swigart, Abbas Kazerounian -- ak@kazlg.com -- Kazerounian Law
Group, APC, Clark Robert Conforti, Kazerouni Law Group APC,Joshua
B. Swigart -- josh@westcoastlitigation.com -- Hyde & Swigart &
Robert Lyman Hyde -- bob@westcoastlitigation.com -- Hyde &
Swigart.
Noble House Hotels & Resort, LTD, doing business as, Defendant,
represented by Darin Murl Sands -- sandsd@lanepowell.com -- Lane
Powell PC & Heidi Brooks Bradley -- bradleyh@lanepowell.com --
Lane Powell PC.
OAK RIVER: Wins Summary Judgment in "Shelby" Insurance Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Missouri, Western Division, granted Defendant's Motion for
Summary Judgment in the case captioned QUENTON SHELBY,
Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, v. OAK RIVER INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, No. 4:17-
cv-0224-DGK (W.D. Mo.).
This lawsuit is an attempt to recover on an uncontested judgment
entered in state court. This dispute originated in a separate
lawsuit brought by a used car dealer, Miller Investment Group
("MIG"), against Plaintiff Quenton Shelby ("Shelby") for a
deficiency on his secured car loan. In response to MIG's suit,
the Plaintiff filed a class-action counter-claim alleging MIG
violated the UCC and engaged in a deceptive pattern in
repossessing cars. MIG subsequently entered into a class-wide
settlement with the Plaintiff and assigned any claims it had
against its insurers to the Plaintiff and the other class
members. The Plaintiff subsequently filed this lawsuit seeking to
recover under insurance policies issued by Defendant Oak River
Insurance Company ("Oak River") for a "garage business."
Holding that Oak River owed no duty to defend or indemnify MIG
because the claims did not stem from "garage operations," the
motion is granted.
The proposed settlement agreement required MIG to take various
actions, including agreeing that it: ". . . will not contest a
judgment being entered against it in an amount to be determined
by the Court, comprising damages for wrongful repossession,
libel/slander/defamation, invasion of privacy, and other
uncertain or hard to quantify damages, plus prejudgment interest
and post-judgment interest. Shelby will seek a judgment equal to
the statutory damages provided in Section 9-625, the time price
differential (finance charge) paid by the Settlement Class, plus
prejudgment interest and post-judgment interest. The judgment
shall indicate only $450,000 may be satisfied from MIG's assets
for its obligations required under this Agreement and any
remaining amount may only be satisfied from MIG's insurance
policies in effect during the class period."
Under Missouri law, an insurer which announces a specific defense
to an insured's claim in a denial letter can be estopped from
subsequently relying on an inconsistent theory if the
announcement lulls the insured into relying on the insurer's
statement to his detriment.
In this case, Oak River has not asserted an inconsistent defense,
nor has MIG been prejudiced. The denial letter stated coverage
did not exist because there was no accident, bodily injury, or
property damage. Subsequently, in this litigation, Oak River
added to this list of defenses by arguing that the claims also
did not result from garage operations. Oak River's defense is not
inconsistent with these. In fact, the addition of this defense is
perfectly consistent with the language in the denial letter
cautioning that Oak River was not waiving its rights under any
other provision of the Policies," and that it might assert such
rights at some later time.
Even if this defense were somehow inconsistent with those claimed
in the denial letter, there has been no prejudice. Far from being
caught flat-footed by Oak River's defense, Shelby was well aware
of it. Indeed, his attorneys attempted to thwart this potential
defense by including in the proposed order approving the
settlement language describing the damages as compensatory
damages resulting from MIG's negligent conduct as part of
operations necessary or incidental to MIG's garage business.
Hence, Oak River is not estopped from raising it.
Because the Court holds the claims in the litigation do not
result from garage operations, there is no coverage under the
Policies, and Oak River is entitled to summary judgment.
A full-text copy of the District Court's April 30, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ybhur752 from Leagle.com.
Quenton Shelby, Plaintiff, represented by Jesse Rochman --
rochman@onderlaw.com -- OnderLaw, LLC & Martin L. Daesch --
daesch@onderlaw.com -- OnderLaw, LLC.
Oak River Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Kevin D.
Brooks -- Keven.Brooks@Kutak.Rock.com -- Kutak Rock, LLP & M.
Courtney Koger -- Courtney.Roger@Kutak.Rock.com -- Kutak Rock,
LLP.
OAKLAND MOTOR: Summerall Sues over Illegal Seizure of Vehicles
--------------------------------------------------------------
SARAH SUMMERALL, on behalf herself and all others similarly
situated, he Plaintiff, v. OAKLAND MOTOR CARS, INC., dba COLISEUM
LEXUS OF OAKLAND. SCR COLLISION SERVICES, INC., and DOES 1-10,
the Defendant, Case No. RG18908766 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 13,
2018), alleges that Defendants illegally seized and converted
consumer vehicles to their own possession when consumers refuse
to pay unlawful charges made for unauthorized repairs in
violation of California Business & Prof. Code.
The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants charged consumers for
unlawful and unauthorized repairs. As a result of these unlawful
business practices, Plaintiff alleges that she, and other
consumers have suffered injuries both in money lost from the
illegal charges made against them by Defendants.[BN]
Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Classes:
Roberto G. Ripamonti, Esq.
Alec Seaarich, Esq.
LOHR RIPAMONTI & SEGARICH LLP
Geary Street, 4th Fl.
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 683 7266
Facsimile: (415) 683 7267
E-mail: roberto.ripamonti@lrllp.com
alec.segarich@lrllp.com
OGDEN CAP: Website not Accessible to Blind, Olsen Says
------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS J. OLSEN, Individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. OGDEN CAP PROPERTIES, LLC,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05286 (S.D.N.Y., June 12, 2018),
alleges that Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and
operate its website, www.ogdencapproperties.com, to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff Olsen and
other blind or visually-impaired people.
The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, asserts claims under the Americans with Disabilities
Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City
Human Rights Law against Ogden. According to the complaint, the
Plaintiff is legally blind and denies full and equal access to
the Website.
Ogden owns and manages residential real estate properties. Its
property portfolio includes apartments, as well as commercial
properties.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq.
Christopher H. Lowe, Esq.
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
630 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor
New York, NY 10017 6705
Telephone: (212) 392 4772
E-mail: doug@lipskylowe.com
chris@lipskylowe.com
PACIFIC AMERICAN FISH: Fails to Pay Timely Wages, Recinos Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
EDWIN RECINOS, as an individual and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. PACIFIC AMERICAN FISH CO., INC., a
California corporation, PRIORITYWORKFORCE, INC. a California
corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No.
BC710735 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 21, 2018), alleges that
Defendants violated California law by preventing Class Members
and Subclass Members from taking their entitled rest breaks, meal
breaks, accurate itemized wage statements, wages upon
termination, and waiting time penalties upon termination.
Pacific American Fish Company imports, manufactures, and
distributes over 5000 seafood products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Armond M. Jackson, Esq.
JACKSON LAW, APC
2 Venture Plaza, Ste. 240
Irvine, CA 92618
Telephone (949) 281 6857
Facsimile (949) 777 6218
PENNSYLVANIA HIGHER EDUC: Salvatore Suit Moved to E.D. Pa.
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Danielle Salvatore, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
PENNSYLVANIA HIGHER EDUCATION ASSISTANCE AGENCY also known as:
PHEAA also known as: FEDLOAN SERVICING, the Defendant, Case No.
1:17-cv-00385, was removed/transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(Philadelphia) on June 19, 2018. The Eastern District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-02585-CDJ to the proceeding. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge C. Darnell Jones, II.
The Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency headquartered
in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, with regional offices throughout the
state.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brandon M. Wise, Esq.
PEIFFER ROSCA WOLF ABDULLAH CARR & KANE, APLC
818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2
St. Louis, MO 63104
Telephone: (314) 833 4825
- and -
Marion K. Munley, Esq.
MUNLEY, MUNLEY & CARTWRIGHT
The Forum Plaza
227 Penn Avenue
Scranton, PA 18503
Telephone: (570) 346 7401
The Defendant is represented by:
James J. Jarecki, Esq.
A HIGHER ED ASSIST AGY
1200 North Seventh St
Harrisburg, PA 17102
Telephone: (717) 720 1568
E-mail: jjarecki@pheaa.org
PENNSYLVANIA HIGHER EDUC: "Ford" Suit Moved to E.D. Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Plaintiff Ashley T. Ford,
David West, Samantha Binnie, Lindsey Jones, Jeremy Zimmerman
Marisa Burns, Sarah Repass Freund, Alyssa Pandolfi, Maggie A.
Webb, Ben Owen, Melinda Morales, Linda Repetz Werner, and
Alexandra Bolden, On behalf of Themselves and all Others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF EDUCATION and Elisabeth DeVos, in her official capacity as
Secretary of Education, the Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-00049,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) on June 20, 2018. The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-02582-CDJ to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge C. Darnell
Jones, II.
The United States Department of Education, also referred to as
the ED for Education Department, is a Cabinet-level department of
the United States government.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Andrew J. Gerling, Esq.
Troy J. Doucet, Esq.
DOUCET & ASSOCIATES
700 Stonehenge Parkway, Suite 2b
Dublin, OH 43017
Telephone: (614) 944 5219
The Defendants are represented by:
Karen E. Swanson-Haan, Esq.
Lisa Hammond Johnson, Esq.
OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY-CLEVELAND
801 Superior Avenue W, Suite 400
Cleveland, OH 44113
Telephone: (216) 622 3851
- and -
Terrance A. Mebane, Esq.
U.S. DEPT OF JUSTICE - COMMERCIAL LITIGATION BRANCH
Civil Division Suite 1116
1100 L Street NW
Washington, DC 20530
Telephone: (202) 307 0493
PEOPLES HOME: Fails to Pay OT & Minimum Wages, Cardenas Says
------------------------------------------------------------
EDWARD CARDENAS, individually, and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PEOPLES
HOME EQUITY, INC., a Tennessee corporation; and DOES 1 through
100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 37-2018-00031435-CU-OE-
CTL (Cal. Super. Ct., June 25, 2018), seeks to recover overtime
pay and minimum wages under the California Labor Code.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the other class
members worked over eight hours in a day, and/or 40 hours in a
week during their employment with Defendants. The Plaintiff
alleges that Defendants engaged in a pattern and practice of wage
abuse against their hourly-paid or non-exempt employees within
the State of California, involving, inter alia, failing to pay
them for all regular and/or overtime wages earned, missed meal
periods and rest breaks in violation of California law.
Peoples Home Equity, Inc. provides mortgage lending services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Han, Esq.
Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq.
Daniel J. Park, Esq.
JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
411 North Central Avenue, Suite 500
Glendale, California 91203
Telephone: (818) 230 7502
Facsimile: (818) 230 7259
PETLAND INC: Eleventh Circuit Appeal Filed in "Cisneros" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Rosalba Cisneros filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit styled Rosalba Cisneros v. Petland, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:17-cv-02828-MHC, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia.
The lawsuit alleges violations of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was filed on July 26, 2017, and assigned to the Hon. Judge Mark
H. Cohen.
Petland is a privately owned operator and franchisor of pet
stores based in Chillicothe, Ohio. Ed Kunzelman founded the
company in 1967.
The appellate case is captioned as Rosalba Cisneros v. Petland,
Inc., et al., Case No. 18-12064, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- The appellant's brief was due on or before June 25, 2018;
-- The appendix is due no later than 7 days from the filing of
the appellant's brief; and
-- Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or
before June 13, 2018, as to Appellee Petland, Inc.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant ROSALBA CISNEROS, On behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Kelsey Rinehart Eberly, Esq.
ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND
525 E Cotati Ave.
Cotati, CA 94931
Telephone: (707) 795-2533
E-mail: keberly@aldf.org
- and -
Anthony T. Eliseuson, Esq.
ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND
150 S Wacker Dr., Suite 2400
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (707) 795-2533
E-mail: aeliseuson@aldf.org
- and -
Michael Ira Fistel, Jr., Esq.
JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP
40 Powder Springs St.
Marietta, GA 30064
Telephone: (770) 200-3104
E-mail: michaelf@johnsonfistel.com
- and -
Jessica June Sleater, Esq.
ANDERSEN SLEATER SIANNI, LLC
1250 Broadway, 27th Floor
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (646) 599-9848
E-mail: jessica@andersensleater.com
- and -
William Woodhull Stone, Esq.
David Aaron Weisz, Esq.
JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP
40 Powder Springs St.
Marietta, GA 30064
Telephone: (770) 200-3112
Facsimile: (770) 200-3101
E-mail: WilliamS@johnsonandweaver.com
davidw@johnsonandweaver.com
Defendant-Appellee PETLAND, INC., is represented by:
Robert G. Cohen, Esq.
KEGLER BROWN HILL & RITTER
65 East State St., Suite 1800
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: (614) 462-5400
E-mail: rcohen@keglerbrown.com
- and -
Henry D. Fellows, Jr., Esq.
Michael Coleman Gretchen, Esq.
FELLOWS LABRIOLA, LLP
225 Peachtree St. NE, Suite 2300
Atlanta, GA 30303-1731
Telephone: (404) 586-2029
E-mail: hfellows@fellab.com
mgretchen@fellab.com
Defendants-Appellees BKG PETS, INC., and PETS BKG LLC are
represented by:
John E. Floyd, Esq.
BONDURANT MIXSON & ELMORE, LLP
1201 W Peachtree St. NW, Suite 3900
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (404) 881-4128
E-mail: floyd@bmelaw.com
Defendant-Appellee PAWSITIVE SOLUTIONS, INC., is represented by:
Eric S. Boos, Esq.
Michael Aaron Holt, Esq.
Humberto H. Ocariz, Esq.
SHOOK HARDY & BACON, LLP
201 S Biscayne Blvd., Suite 3200
Miami, FL 33131-4332
Telephone: (305) 358-5171
E-mail: eboos@shb.com
mholt@shb.com
hocariz@shb.com
- and -
Robert A. Luskin, Esq.
GOODMAN MCGUFFEY LINDSEY & JOHNSON, LLP
3340 Peachtree Rd. NE, Suite 2100
Atlanta, GA 30326
Telephone: (404) 264-1500
E-mail: rluskin@gmlj.com
PG&E CORPORATION: Weston Alleges Misleading Financial Reports
-------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID C. WESTON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. PG&E CORPORATION, ANTHONY F.
EARLEY, JR., JASON P. WELLS, GEISHA J. WILLIAMS, CHRISTOPHER P.
JOHNS, DINYAR B. MISTRY, and DAVID S. THOMASON, the Defendants,
Case No. 3:18-cv-03509 (N.D. Cal., June 12, 2018), alleges that
Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
The case is a federal securities class action on beha1f of all
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired PG&E common stock
between April 29, 2015, and June 8, 2018, inclusive.
According to complaint, the Defendants failed to disclose a true
and accurate picture of PG&E's business, operations, and
financial condition. The Defendants publicly issued materially
false and misleading statements and omitted material facts
necessary to make Defendants' statements not false or misleading,
causing PG&E's common stock to be artificially inflated.
Plaintiff and other Class members purchased PG&E's common stock
at those artificially inflated prices, causing them to suffer the
damages complained. When the truth about PG&E's misconduct and
its lack of operational and financial controls was revealed, the
value of the Company's common stock declined precipitously as the
prior artificial inflation no longer propped up its stock price.
The Pacific Gas and Electric Company is an investor-owned utility
with publicly traded stock that is headquartered in the Pacific
Gas & Electric Building in San Francisco.[BN]
Counsel for Individual and Representative Plaintiff David C.
Weston:
Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 291 2420
Facsimile: (415) 484 1294
E-mail: ek@zlk.com
rrivas@zlk.com
PHOENIX, AR: Udd Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
----------------------------------------------
Darren Udd, filing individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. The City of Phoenix, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-01868-MHB (D. Ariz., June 14, 2018),
seeks to recover overtime pay under Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff and those similarly situated received compensation
from the City of Phoenix as hourly employees and were never
designated as exempt from the overtime provisions of the FLSA.
They were subject to a common set of payroll procedures and
bureau practices.
The Plaintiff and those similarly situated routinely worked well
in excess of 40 hours during most workweeks. While they received
overtime wages for a fraction of those overtime hours, it was
common practice for the Plaintiff and many other Bureau
detectives to work significant off-the-clock hours for which they
did not receive proper compensation or overtime pay.
The City of Phoenix maintains and operates the City of Phoenix
Police Department as its primary law enforcement agency. The City
provides the compensation and controls the terms and conditions
of employment of the individuals working in the Phoenix Police
Department. The law enforcement officers and detectives of the
Phoenix Police Department are represented by the Phoenix Law
Enforcement Association. The City of Phoenix and PLEA have
entered into a contract covering the employment of the members of
PLEA. The City of Phoenix is the legally recognized employer
under the FLSA.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael R. Pruitt, Esq.
Nathaniel Hill, Esq.
JACKSON WHITE
40 North Center, Suite 200
Mesa, AR 85201
Telephone: (480) 464 1111
Facsimile: (480) 464 5692
E-mail: centraldocket@jacksonwhitelaw.com
mpruitt@jacksonwhitelaw.com
nhill@jacksonwhitelaw.com
PHOENIX FINANCIAL: Spillman Sues over Debt Collection Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
CLAUDIA SPILLMAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PHOENIX FINANCIAL SERVICES
LLC dba INDIANA RESOLUTION GROUP LLC, LINK REVENUE RESOURCES, LLC
and JOHN DOES 1-25, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00375-CRS
(W.D. Ky., June 12, 2018), alleges that Defendants Violated the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
According to the complaint, some time prior to August 11, 2017,
an obligation was allegedly incurred to Saint Mary & Elizabeth
Hospital. The SMEH obligation arose out of transactions in which
money, property, insurance or services were the subject of the
transactions. Specifically, this is a medical bill and Plaintiff
received these medical services primarily for personal, family or
household items. The alleged SMEH obligation is a "debt" as
defined by 15 U.S.C. section 1692a(5). SMEH is a "creditor" as
defined by 15 U.S.C. section 1692a(4). SMEH or Defendant Link, a
debt collector and the possible subsequent owner of the SMEH
debt, contracted the Defendant Phoenix to collect the alleged
debt. Defendants collect and attempt to collect debts incurred or
alleged to have been incurred for personal, family or household
purposes on behalf of creditors using the United States Postal
Services, telephone and internet.
Phoenix Financial Services LLC is a debt collection agency.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yaakov Saks, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282 6500
E-mail: Ysaks@steinsakslegal.com
PICK FIVE: "O'Keefe" Suit Moved to Middle District of Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled GENIVA O'KEEFE, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
PICK FIVE IMPORTS d/b/a MAXI-MATIC USA, INC., the Defendant, Case
No. 2:17-cv-08452, was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida (Tampa) on June 21,
2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:18-cv-01496-
MSS-AEP to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge
Mary S. Scriven.
The Plaintiff asks the Court for an Order awarding injunctive
relief by requiring Maxi-Matic, at its own expense, to issue
corrective actions, including notification, recall, inspection,
and, as necessary, repair and replacement of allege defective
pressure cooker.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Greg F. Coleman, Esq.
GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
Knoxville, TN 37929
Telephone: (865) 247 0080
Facsimile: (865) 522 0049
E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
- and -
Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
J. Hunter Bryson, Esq.
WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
900 W. Morgan St.
Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: (919) 600 5000
Facsimile: (919) 600 5035
E-mail: Dan@wbmllp.com
Hunter@wbmllp.com
- and -
Deborah R. Rosenthal, Esq.
SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLC
100 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1350
Los Angeles, CA 90245
Telephone: (415) 536 3986
E-mail: drosenthal@simmonsfirm.com
Attorneys for Defendant:
Thomas J Lincoln, Esq.
Jill Suzanne Chilcoat, Esq.
Jordan T Nager, Esq.
LINCOLN GUSTAFSON AND CERCOS LLP
550 West C Street Suite 1400
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233 1150
Facsimile: (619) 233 6949
E-mail: tlincoln@lgclawoffice.com
jchilcoat@lgclawoffice.com
jnager@lgclawoffice.com
- and -
Uri Litvak, Esq.
Michael B. Buckley, Esq.
Buckley Law Group, PA
3637 4th St N Ste 330
St Petersburg, FL 33704-1336
Telephone: (727) 822 4800
Facsimile: (727) 822 4855
E-mail: ulitvak@buckleylawgroup.com
mbuckley@buckleylawgroup.com
PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Andrews"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Plains All American Pipeline, L.P., and Plains
Pipeline, L.P., filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit styled Keith Andrews, et al. v. Plains All American
Pipeline, L.P., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-04113-PSG-JEM, in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los
Angeles.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon.
Philip S. Gutierrez entered an order granting Plaintiffs' renewed
motion for class certification and denying Defendants' motion to
strike.
The Court certified the Real Property Subclass pursuant to Rule
23(b)(3):
"Residential beachfront properties on a beach and residential
properties with a private easement to a beach (collectively
"Included Properties") where oil from the 2015 Santa Barbara
oil spill washed up, and where the oiling was categorized as
Heavy, Moderate or Light to Plaintiffs' renewed motion.
Excluded from the proposed Subclass are: (1) Defendants, any
entity or division in which Defendants have a controlling
interest, and their legal representatives, officers,
directors, employees, assigns and successors; and (2) the
judge to whom this case is assigned, the judge's staff, and
any member of the judge's immediate family.
The appellate case is captioned as Keith Andrews, et al. v.
Plains All American Pipeline, L.P., et al., Case No. 18-80054, in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Respondents KEITH ANDREWS, et al., are represented by:
William M. Audet, Esq.
AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: (415) 568-2555
E-mail: waudet@audetlaw.com
- and -
Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq.
Wilson M. Dunlavey, Esq.
Robert L. Lieff, Esq.
Sarah R. London, Esq.
Robert J. Nelson, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 956-1000
Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
E-mail: ecabraser@lchb.com
wdunlavey@lchb.com
rlieff@lieff.com
slondon@lchb.com
rnelson@lchb.com
- and -
A. Barry Cappello, Esq.
David Cousineau, Esq.
Leila J. Noel, Esq.
CAPPELLO & NOEL LLP
831 State Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Telephone: (805) 564-2444
Facsimile: (805) 965-5950
E-mail: abc@cappellonoel.com
dcousineau@cappellonoel.com
lnoel@cappellonoel.com
- and -
Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
Juli E. Farris, Esq.
Daniel Parke Mensher, Esq.
Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
KELLER ROHRBACK LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-1900
E-mail: gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
jfarris@kellerrohrback.com
dmensher@kellerrohrback.com
lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
- and -
Matthew J. Preusch, Esq.
KELLER ROHRBACK LLP
1129 State Street, Suite 8
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Telephone: (805) 456-1496
E-mail: mpreusch@kellerrohrback.com
Defendants-Petitioners PLAINS ALL AMERICAN PIPELINE, L.P., a
Delaware limited partnership, and PLAINS PIPELINE, L.P., a Texas
limited partnership, are represented by:
Henry Weissmann, Esq.
Daniel Benjamin Levin, Esq.
Fred Anthony Rowley, Jr., Esq.
MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
350 South Grand Avenue, 50th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 683-9150
E-mail: Henry.Weissmann@mto.com
daniel.levin@mto.com
Fred.Rowley@mto.com
- and -
Aaron Daniel Pennekamp, Esq.
MUNGER TOLLES & OLSON, LLP
560 Mission Street, 27th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 512-4091
E-mail: Aaron.Pennekamp@mto.com
PRAXAIR INC: Faces "Garcia" Suit in N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Praxair, Inc. The
case is styled as Rita Garcia individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Praxair, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, Praxair Distribution, Inc., a Delaware corporation
and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-
03887 (N.D. Cal., June 28, 2018).
Praxair, Inc. is an American worldwide industrial gases company.
It is the largest industrial gases company in North and South
America, and the third-largest worldwide by revenue.
The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.
PREMIER NUTRITION: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Sonner" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Kathleen Sonner filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit styled Kathleen Sonner v. Premier Nutrition
Corporation, Case No. 3:13-cv-01271-RS, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco.
The appellate case is captioned as Kathleen Sonner v. Premier
Nutrition Corporation, Case No. 18-15890, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Transcript must be ordered by June 18, 2018;
-- Transcript is due on July 16, 2018;
-- Appellant Kathleen Sonner's opening brief is due on
August 27, 2018;
-- Appellee Premier Nutrition Corporation's answering brief is
due on September 24, 2018; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
service of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant KATHLEEN SONNER, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
Thomas Joseph O'Reardon, II, Esq.
BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON LLP
501 West Broadway
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 338-1100
Facsimile: (619) 338-1101
E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com
toreardon@bholaw.com
- and -
Todd David Carpenter, Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER LLP
1350 Columbia Street, Suite 603
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 762-1900
Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
E-mail: todd@carpenterlawyers.com
Defendant-Appellee PREMIER NUTRITION CORPORATION, FKA Joint
Juice, Inc., is represented by:
Angel Antonio Garganta, Esq.
Jessica Grant, Esq.
VENABLE LLP
101 California Street, Suite 3800
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 653-3735
Facsimile: (415) 653-3755
E-mail: AGarganta@Venable.com
jgrant@venable.com
- and -
Trenton H. Norris, Esq.
Anton A. Ware, Esq.
ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
Three Embarcadero Center, 10th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-4024
Telephone: (415) 471-3303
E-mail: trent.norris@aporter.com
anton.ware@aporter.com
PRETIUM RESOURCES: Dismissal of "Martin" Suit Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GARY MARTIN, SANDRA LEE REYES-TROYER, Consolidated-
Plaintiffs-Appellants, MICHAEL YEO, Consolidated-Plaintiff-
Movant-Appellant, PRETIUM GROUP, TIM KOSOWSKI, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, RANDALL
DAMGAR, DENNIS P. SWEENEY, MARTIN MAYER, DIANA GARCIA,
Consolidated-Plaintiffs, v. ROBERT ALLAN QUARTERMAIN, KENNETH C.
McNAUGHTON, PRETIUM RESOURCES INC., Defendants-Appellees, PETER
ADRIAN JOHAN DE VISSER, Consolidated-Defendant-Appellee, JOSEPH
J. OVSENEK, JOHN SMITH, ROSS MITCHELL, TOM S.Q. YIP, SILVER
STANDARD RESOURCES INC., Defendants, Case No. 17-2135 (2d Cir.),
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the
district court's dismissal with prejudice of the Second
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint.
Holders of stock in Pretium brought the putative class action in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
alleging that Pretium and three of its officers violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well
as Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
On motion by Pretium, the district court dismissed the Second
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint ("complaint") with
prejudice.
Pretium acquired a gold-mining site known as the Brucejack
Project in 2010. It then hired several independent experts to
assist with various aspects of the Project's development.
Snowden Mining Industry Consultants, retained to estimate the
quantity of gold that the Project could produce, issued a report
in 2012, recommending that Pretium mine a sample of the Project
to confirm the estimate before undertaking full-scale mining.
Pretium made the results of the Snowden Report public and hired
Strathcona Mineral Services Ltd. to oversee and report on a
sampling program. It announced that it would release results
from the program as they were received, but that Strathcona would
report on the overall program at its conclusion. The program
commenced in June 2013.
In a series of public filings and press releases issued over the
next few months, Pretium reported favorable results from the
sampling program and expressed continued faith in Snowden's
estimates. Subsequent press releases confirmed the sampling
program's shift toward the Cleopatra Vein and indicated Pretium's
continued confidence in Snowden's projection of high-grade gold
mineralized domains in the Project.
Pretium's Oct. 9, 2013 press release announced that Strathcona
was resigning prior to the completion of the sampling program and
without issuing a report on it. In a press release issued
roughly two weeks later, it disclosed Strathcona's opinion that
Pretium's previous public statements suggesting that Snowden's
estimates remained viable were "erroneous and misleading."
Pretium's stock price declined by roughly 30% on the day of each
October press release. Three days after the second press release
was issued, the Plaintiffs commenced the securities-fraud action.
The gravamen of their claim is that Pretium artificially inflated
the value of its stock by making materially false and misleading
statements about the sampling program. They, however, fail to
state a claim for securities fraud because none of the three
Pretium statements (or sets of statements) alleged to be
fraudulent actually constituted a material misrepresentation or
omission.
The complaint alleges that Pretium defrauded investors by
expressing continued faith in Snowden's estimates,
notwithstanding -- and without disclosing -- Strathcona's view
that the sampling program was not bearing out those projections.
The Appellate Court holds that this claim fails because the
complaint does not adequately plead that the Pretium statements
at issue were false or misleading. Contrary to the Plaintiffs'
contention, these were statements of Pretium's opinion, rather
than assertions of purported fact. They are therefore subject to
the standard set forth in Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers Dist.
Council Constr. Indus. Pension Fund for analyzing whether a
statement of opinion is false or misleading.
The complaint alleges that Pretium defrauded investors by touting
the results of the sampling program without disclosing that
Pretium had skewed the program toward the narrow and
unrepresentative Cleopatra Vein in order to yield more favorable
data. This claim fails because it was apparent from Pretium's
disclosures that the Cleopatra Vein was not representative of the
Project overall, the Judge says.
Finally, the complaint alleges that Pretium defrauded investors
by stating that it was planning, with Strathcona, to increase the
portion of the sample drawn from the Cleopatra Vein when, in
fact, Strathcona was not on board with that plan to "skew" the
sampling program. The Judge holds this claim fails because the
Plaintiffs do not plausibly allege that the purported
misstatement was material.
The Court has considered the Plaintiffs' remaining arguments and
find them to be without merit. For the foregoing reasons, it
affirmed the judgment of the district court.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 1, 2018 Summary Order is
available at https://is.gd/azE9MF from Leagle.com.
Daniel J. Kramer -- dkramer@paulweiss.com -- (with William B.
Michael -- wmichael@paulweiss.com -- and Neil P. Kelly --
nkelly@paulweiss.com -- on the brief), Paul, Weiss, Rifkind,
Wharton & Garrison LLP, New York, NY., for Defendants-Appellees
and Consolidated-Defendant-Appellee.
JEREMY A. LIEBERMAN -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- (with Michael
Grunfeld -- mgrunfeld@pomlaw.com -- on the brief), Pomerantz LLP,
New York, NY; Laurence M. Rosen -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The
Rosen Law Firm, P.A., New York, NY., for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Court OKs Final Approval of $30.3MM Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio, Western Division, granted Defendant's Motion for Final
Approval of Class Action Settlement in the case captioned DINO
RIKOS, TRACEY BURNS, and LEO JARZEMBROWSKI, On behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE
PROCTOR & GAMBLE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:11-cv-226 (S.D.
Ohio).
This case concerns the Defendant's labeling and advertising of
Align, an over-the-counter probiotic supplement. Align is
promoted as helping to build and maintain a healthy digestive
system, restore natural digestive balance, and protect against
occasional digestive upsets. The Plaintiffs allege Align does
not deliver the advertised benefits.
Under the Settlement Agreement, Defendant will pay up to about
$30.3 million in settlement benefits, with a minimum of $20.3
million in benefits.
First, under the Settlement, Settlement Class Members may receive
a Cash Refund of up to $49.26 for three purchases of Align. The
Cash Refund amount represents 50% of Align's average retail
price. The Defendant will pay out up to $15 million in Cash
Refunds. Second, in addition to Cash Refunds, the Defendant will
contribute a minimum of $5 million and up to $10 million worth of
Digestive Health Improvement Contributions (DHIC).
In the Sixth Circuit, district courts consider seven factors in
determining whether a class settlement is fair, reasonable, and
adequate: (1) the risk of fraud or collusion; (2) the complexity,
expense and likely duration of the litigation; (3) the amount of
discovery engaged in by the parties, (4) the likelihood of
success on the merits; (5) the opinions of class counsel and
class representatives; (6) the reaction of absent class members;
and (7) the public interest.
The Risk of Fraud or Collusion
The evidence before the Court clearly reflects that the
Settlement Agreement is the product of arms-length negotiations
conducted by experienced counsel on both sides. Nothing before
the Court suggests that the Settlement is the result of fraud or
collusion. The parties to this case have been anything but
collusive; the Court has observed the parties engage in vigorous,
hard-fought litigation over the course of more than seven years.
The Complexity, Expense, and Likely Duration of the Litigation,
and the Likelihood of Success on the Merits.
The complexity, expense, and likely duration of this case weigh
in favor of approving the Settlement Agreement. The Plaintiffs
maintain an unflagging belief in the strength of their claims but
admit they must balance this against the risks they perceive to
be inherent in continuing to litigate. Specifically, the
Plaintiffs are concerned about language in the Sixth Circuit's
opinion that suggests the Plaintiffs will have to re-argue the
issue of class-certification or worse, lose on the merits if
Align is proven to work for any sub-population.
The Amount of Discovery Engaged in By the Parties
The Settlement was reached after the parties conducted
substantial fact and expert discovery on all relevant issues.
Accordingly, the Court finds that the Settlement was the result
of informed negotiations by experienced counsel.
The Opinions of Class Counsel and Class Representatives
The Class Representatives approve the Settlement Agreement. Class
Counsel believe this settlement is fair, adequate and reasonable.
This factor weighs in favor of approval.
The Reaction of Absent Class Members.
The reaction of the class strongly supports approval. The
deadline for Settlement Class Members to request to be excluded
from the Settlement Class was March 17, 2018; as of March 1,
2018, the Claims Administrator had not received any requests for
exclusion. The deadline for Settlement Class Members to submit or
file a claim is May 16, 2018; as of February 28, 2018, the Claims
Administrator had processed 151,445 claim forms. Five individuals
filed written objections to the settlement, but their written
objections are not well-taken.
Accordingly, the Court grants the parties' motions for final
approval of the Settlement Agreement.
A full-text copy of the District Court's April 30, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y76o4xxq from Leagle.com.
Arianna Gallagher, Objector, represented by Simina Vourlis, The
Law Offices of Simina Vourlis.
Patrick S. Sweeney, Objector, pro se.
Christopher T. Cain, Objector, pro se.
Adam Brunet, Objector, pro se.
Dino Rikos, On Behalf of Himself, All Other Similarly Situated
and the General Public, Tracey Burns, On Behalf of Themselves,
All Others Similarly Situated and the General Public & Leo
Jarzembrowski, On Behalf of Themselves, All Others Similarly
Situated and the General Public, Plaintiffs, represented by Dana
E. Deering, Parry Deering Futscher & Sparks, PSC, Ronald Richard
Parry, Strauss Troy, Alex M. Tomasevic, Nicholas and Butler LLP,
pro hac vice, Craig McKenzie Nicholas, Nicholas and Butler, pro
hac vice, David A. Futscher, Futscher Law PLLC, Elaine A. Ryan --
eryan@bffb.com -- Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint, PC, pro
hac vice, Leslie E. Hurst -- lhurst@bholaw.com -- Blood Hurst &
O'Reardon LLP, pro hac vice, Patricia N. Syverson --
psyverson@bffb.com -- Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint, PC,
pro hac vice, Thomas Joseph O'Reardon, II -- toreardon@bholaw.com
-- Blood Hurst & O'Reardon LLP, pro hac vice & Timothy Gordon
Blood -- tblood@bholaw.com -- Blood Hurst & O'Reardon LLP, pro
hac vice.
Procter & Gamble Company, Defendant, represented by Donald
Jeffrey Ireland, Faruki Ireland Cox Rhinehart & Dusing PLL, Erin
Rhinehart, Faruki Ireland Cox Rhinehart & Dusing PLL, Adam S.
Tolin -- atolin@gdldlaw.com -- WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP, pro
hac vice, Allison M. Brown -- Allison.brown@weil.com -- WEIL,
GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP, pro hac vice & Diane P. Sullivan --
diane.sullivan@weil.com -- WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP, pro hac
vice.
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Sweeney Appeals Ruling in "Rikos" to 6th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick S. Sweeney filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit titled Rikos, et al. v. Procter & Gamble Company, Case
No. 1:11-cv-00226, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio at Cincinnati.
The nature of suit is stated as other fraud.
The appellate case is captioned as Rikos, et al. v. Procter &
Gamble Company, Case No. 18-3508, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Appellant Patrick S. Sweeney of Madison, Wisconsin, appears pro
se.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees DINO RIKOS, TRACEY BURNS and LEO
JARZEMBROWSKI, On Behalf of Themselves, All Others Similarly
Situated and the General Public, are represented by:
Dana E. Deering, Esq.
PARRY, DEERING, FUTSCHER & SPARKS, P.S.C.
P.O. Box 2618
Covington, KY 41012
Telephone: (859) 392-8660
E-mail: ddeering@pdfslaw.com
Defendant-Appellee PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY is represented by:
Erin E. Rhinehart, Esq.
FARUKI IRELAND COX RHINEHART & DUSING PLL
110 N. Main Street, Suite 1600
Dayton, OH 45402
Telephone: (937) 227-3700
E-mail: erhinehart@ficlaw.com
PROFESSOR GREEN: Yaw Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------
DALLAS YAW, Individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. PROFESSOR GREEN THUMB, INC., and
SHANNON SMITHSON, Individually, the Defendant, Case No. 8:18-cv-
01424-CEH-AAS (M.D. Fla., June 13, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime pay the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has been employed with
Defendants from approximately December 22, 2017 to March 28, 2018
as a laborer. As a laborer, Plaintiff worked in excess of 40
hours per work week, for which he was not compensated by
Defendants at a rate of time and one half his regular hourly
rate. For example, Plaintiff has been working approximately 55 to
60 hours per week for the last six months. The Plaintiff only
received his regular pay rate for hours worked over 40. The
Plaintiff was not compensated at a rate of one and a half times
his regular rate of pay for hours worked over 40.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Miguel Bouzas, Esq.
Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq.
FLORIN, GRAY, BOUZAS, OWENS, LLC
16524 Pointe Village Drive, Suite 100
Lutz, FL 33558
Telephone (727) 254 5255
Facsimile (727) 483 7942
E-mail: miguel@fgbolaw.com
gina@fgbolaw.com
wolfgang@fgbolaw.com
PVH CORPORATION: Ramos Sues over Phantom Discounts
--------------------------------------------------
MARIA RAMOS, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. PVH CORPORATION, a DELAWARE
Corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No.
34-2018-00234829 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 13, 2018), seeks
declaratory and injunctive relief as permitted by law or equity,
including: (i) enjoining Defendants from continuing unlawful
practices; and (ii) directing Defendants to identify, with Court
supervision, victims their misconduct and pay them all money they
are required to pay.
This is a class action regarding Defendants' false and misleading
advertisement of "market" prices, and corresponding phantom
"savings" on fashion apparel sold in their "Outlet" or "Factory"
stores; specifically Defendant's Van Heusen brand outlets.[BN]
Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class:
Gene J. Stonebarger, Esq.
Richard D. Lambert, Esq.
STONEBARGER LAW
75 Iron Point Circle, Suite 145
Folsom, CA 95630
Telephone: (916) 235 7140
Facsimile: (916) 235 7141
E-mail: gstonebarger@stonebargerlaw.com
rlambert@stonebargerlaw.com
- and -
Thomas A. Kearney, Esq.
Prescott W. Littlefield, Esq.
KEARWEY LITTLEFIELD LLP
3436 N. Veadugp Roaid, Suite 230
Glendale CA 91208
Telephone: (213) 473 1900
Facsimile: (213) 473 1919
E-mail: tak@kearneylittlefield.com
pwl@kearneylittlefield.com
RABOBANK N.A.: Villanueva Sues over Continued Overdraft Fee
-----------------------------------------------------------
JOE VILLANUEVA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. RABOBANK, N.A., and DOES 1 through
20, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 37-2018-00028998-CU-BT-CTL
(Cal. Super. Ct., June 12, 2018), seeks to recover damages and
other relief from Rabobank for its alleged deceptive assessment
and collection of so-called continued overdraft fees from its
customers in violation of Rabobank's standardized account
agreement entitled "Agreement and Disclosures".
Continued overdraft fees are charges that certain banks impose on
customers when a checking/savings account remains overdrawn for a
period of time after the initial overdraft transaction.
Specifically, Rabobank charges its customers what it calls on its
bank statements a $5.00 "Continued Overdraft Fee" each day, for
up to ten days, after a Rabobank checking account remains
overdrawn. This charge is levied in addition to the $35.00 fee
that is levied on the customer for each charge made against an
overdrawn account, but Rabobank's account disclosures never
inform consumers that they will be charged both fees for an
overdraft. Indeed, Rabobank never informs its account holders
that it will charge a Continued OD Fee in its Deposit Agreement--
making no reference to such a fee (or the circumstances of its
application) whatsoever. The only supposed disclosure of the
Continued OD Fee is in the Bank's separate fee schedule, but that
disclosure nowhere states that both a $35 OD Fee and a $5 per day
Continued Fee will be charged for the same overdraft.
Rabobank, N.A. is a unit of the Rabobank Group, a leading
financial services provider for millions of customers
worldwide.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jesse Hindman, Esq.
HINDMAN APC
402 West Broadway Suite 2700
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: 619.255-4078
E-mail: jesse@hindmanapc.com
- and -
Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
Sophia Gold, Esq.
KALIEL PLLC
1875 Connecticut Avenue NW
Washington. DC 20009
Telephone: (202) 350 4783
E-mail: jkalief@kalielpllc.com
sgold@kalielpllc.com
RAYONIER ADVANCED: Warren Employees Suit Moved M.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled CITY OF WARREN GENERAL EMPLOYEES'
RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. RAYONIER ADVANCED MATERIALS
INC., PAUL G. BOYNTON and FRANK A. RUPERTO, the Defendants, Case
No. 3:17-cv-01167, was transferred from the
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, to
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
(Jacksonville) on June 14, 2018. The Florida Middle District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-00771-MMH-JRK to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Marcia Morales
Howard.
This is a securities class action on behalf of purchasers of the
common stock of Rayonier Advanced Materials between October 29,
2014 and August 19, 2015, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Rayonier Advanced is an American chemical company specializing in
cellulose-based products.[BN]
Attorneys for City of Warren General Employees' Retirement
System, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated:
Christopher M. Wood, Esq.
Mario Alba, Jr., Esq.
Samuel H. Rudman., Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD, LLP, Suite 900
414 Union Street
Nashville, TN 37219
Telephone: (615) 244 2203
Facsimile: (615) 252 3798
E-mail: cwood@rgrdlaw.com
malba@rgrdlaw.com
srudman@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Thomas C. Michaud, Esq.
VANOVERBEKE, MICHAUD & TIMMONY, PC
79 Alfred St
Detroit, MI 48201
Telephone: (313) 578 1200
Facsimile: (313) 578 1201
E-mail: tmichaud@vmtlaw.com
Attorneys for Rayonier Advanced Materials, Inc., Paul G Boynton,
Frank A. Ruperto, and Benson K. Woo:
Stephen P. Warren, Esq.
Tracy A. Nichols, Esq.
Allison Kernisky, Esq.
HOLLAND & KNIGHT, LLP
P.O. Box 15441
701 Brickell Ave., Suite 3300
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 349 2256
Facsimile: (305) 789 7799
E-mail: stephen.warren@hklaw.com
tracy.nichols@hklaw.com
allison.kernisky@hklaw.com
Attorneys for Michigan Carpenters' Pension Fund and Local 295 IBT
Employer Group Pension Trust Fund:
Derek L. Watkins, Esq.
SACHS WALDMAN, P.C.
1423 East Twelve Mile Road
Madison Heights, MI 48071
Telephone: (248) 658 0800
Facsimile: (248) 658 0801
- and -
Stephen Richard Astley, Esq.
Elizabeth A. Shonson, Esq.
Jack Reise, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD, LLP
120 E Palmetto Pk Rd., Suite 500
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Telephone: (561) 750 3000
Facsimile: (561) 750-3364
E-mail: sastley@rgrdlaw.com
eshonson@rgrdlaw.com
jreise@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Jerry E. Martin, Esq.
BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC
Bank of America Plaza
414 Union Street, Suite 900
Nashville, TN 37219
Telephone: (615) 244 2202
Facsimile: (615) 252 3798
E-mail: jmartin@barrettjohnston.com
REPUBLIC SERVICES: "Seay" Suit Moved to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Mary Seay, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Republic Services, Inc. and Consolidated Disposal Service, LLC,
the Defendants, Case No. BC705963, was removed from the Los
Angeles Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California (Western Division - Los Angeles)
on June 13, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:18-cv-05246-PSG-AS to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Philip S. Gutierrez.
Republic Services is the second largest provider of non-hazardous
solid waste collection, transfer, disposal, recycling, and energy
services in the United States, as measured by revenue.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manfred Patrick Muecke, Esq.
Patricia N Syverson, Esq.
BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN AND BALINT PC
600 West Broadway Suite 900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 798 4593
E-mail: mmuecke@bffb.com
psyverson@bffb.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Sarah Beth Burwick, Esq.
BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP
120 Broadway Suite 300
Santa Monica, CA 90401-2386
Telephone: (310) 576 2100
Facsimile: (310) 576 2200
E-mail: sarah.burwick@bclplaw.com
RH IMAGE: "Britt" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage and OT under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
WILLIE BRITT AND ALFONSO GALLARDO, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. RH IMAGE
MANAGEMENT CO., AND RICK HENRY, Individually, the Defendants,
Case No. DC-18-07936 (D. Tex., June 18, 2018), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum wage and overtime compensation at the rates
required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs work for Defendants
performing building monitoring. The Defendants failed to pay
Plaintiffs for all hours worked. The Defendants also failed to
pay Plaintiffs one and one half their regular rate of pay for all
hours worked over forty in a week. Defendants also misclassified
Plaintiffs as independent contractors, when they were not.
Despite this misclassification, Defendants withheld Social
Security and Medicare taxes from Plaintiffs' pay, prima facie
evidence that Plaintiffs were not independent contractors.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew R. Scott, Esq.
Javier Perez, Esq.
Carson D. Bridges, Esq.
SCOTT | PEREZ LLP
Founders Square
900 Jackson Street, Suite 550
Dallas, TX 75202
Telephone: 214 965 9675
Facsimile: 214 965 9680
E-mail: matt.scott@scottperezlaw.com
javier.perez@scottperezlaw.com
carson.bridges@scottperezlaw.com
RICH PRODUCTS: Eleventh Circuit Appeal Filed in "Ehrlich" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Scott Ehrlich, Gary Prusinski and Salvatore Reale
filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit titled Scott
Ehrlich, et al. v. Rich Products Corporation, Case No. 8:16-cv-
03532-SCB-TGW, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Florida.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs asked the Court for an Order permitting and
supervising notice to the Defendant's current and former Route
Sales Representatives, who worked in Florida one or more weeks
during the three years from the filing of the Complaint to the
present and who are similarly situated of their "opt-in" rights.
The action alleges overtime violations under the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938.
The appellate case is captioned as Scott Ehrlich, et al. v. Rich
Products Corporation, Case No. 18-12195, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Appellant's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or
before June 8, 2018, as to Appellant Scott Ehrlich; and
-- Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or
before June 22, 2018, as to Appellee Rich Products
Corporation.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants SCOTT EHRLICH, o/b/o themselves and others
similarly situated in the state of Florida; SALVATORE REALE,
o/b/o themselves and others similarly situated in the state of
Florida; and GARY PRUSINSKI, o/b/o themselves and others
similarly situated in the state of Florida, are represented by:
Jay Paul Lechner, Esq.
William J. Sheslow, Esq.
WHITTEL & MELTON, LLC
200 Central Avenue, Suite 400
St. Petersburg, FL 33701
Telephone: (727) 823-0000
E-mail: lechnerj@theFLlawfirm.com
will@thefllawfirm.com
Defendant-Appellee RICH PRODUCTS CORPORATION, a foreign profit
corporation, is represented by:
Linda H. Joseph, Esq.
SCHRODER JOSEPH & ASSOCIATES, LLP
392 Pearl St., Suite 301
Buffalo, NY 14202
Telephone: (716) 881-4902
E-mail: ljoseph@sjalegal.com
- and -
Brian M. McPherson, Esq.
GUNSTER YOAKLEY & STEWART, PA
777 S Flagler Dr., Suite 500E
West Palm Beach, FL 33401-6194
Telephone: (561) 655-1980
E-mail: bmcpherson@gunster.com
ROBERT HALF: Must Produce Docs for Class List in "Magallon"
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BONNIE MAGALLON, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT HALF INTERNATIONAL,
INC., a foreign corporation, Defendant, Case No. 6:13-cv-01478-AA
(D. Or.), Judge Ann Aiken of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Oregon, Eugene Division, granted the Plaintiff's
motion to compel discovery for the purposes of compiling a
complete and accurate class membership list.
In this certified class action, the Plaintiff, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, asserts that the
Defendant violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"). The
Defendant operates a professional staffing service that matches
individuals seeking employment with employers. It matches each
qualified applicant with a potential employer seeking someone
with the applicant's qualifications to fill a short-term or long-
term position. The Defendant requires a background check of
applicants once they have matched and interviewed with an
employer.
In 2011, the Plaintiff applied for a job with RHI. After she
matched and interviewed with a potential employer, RHI ordered a
background report from General Information Services, Inc.
("GIS"). RHI deemed her "not placeable" based on information
(criminal history) in that background report. RHI did not give
the Plaintiff a copy of her background report until after it made
the "not placeable" decision and after she requested a copy of
the report.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated 15 U.S.C.
Section 1681b(b)(3) when it rejected her application for
employment because of her criminal history without giving her
notice that it was using a background report to make an adverse
employment decision, providing her a copy of the report, or
offering her a meaningful opportunity to dispute the information
in the report. She seeks statutory damages for willful
violations of the FCRA.
The case was filed on Aug. 22, 2013 and the parties engaged in
extensive class certification discovery for two years. On July
20, 2015, the parties filed simultaneous motions regarding class
certification.
In an order dated Nov. 10, 2015, Judge Aiken certified the class
of all natural persons residing in the United States (including
territories and other political subdivisions) who: (i) applied
for temporary employment placement through RHI; (ii) about whom
RHI obtained a consumer report for employment purposes from the
General Information Services, Inc., from Aug. 22, 2008, until the
present;1 (iii) the consumer report contained either a red flag
or a yellow flag; and (iv) RHI determined the applicant was not
placeable.
After the class was certified, the Plaintiff began her attempts
to compile a class list. The Judge granted requests to extend
discovery several times: once at the Plaintiff's (unopposed)
request, and twice in response to a joint request. That initial
phase of class list discovery lasted 10 months.
On Sept. 15, 2016, the Plaintiff filed her first motion to compel
class list discovery. The Defendant produced a spreadsheet of
4,600 individuals in response. A majority of those individuals
listed class member status as "To Be Determined." The 4,600
number stood in stark contrast to the 60,000 individuals for whom
defendant had previously reported obtaining red- or yellow-flag
background check reports from GIS in the relevant time period.
Following a telephonic conference on Nov. 16, 2016, the Judge
granted the motion in part and denied the motion in part. She
holds that it is the Defendant's responsibility to identify the
class members and produce a complete and accurate class list.
The Judge acknowledges the Defendant's statements regarding
logistical difficulties identifying class members. In view of
those difficulties, the Defendant is ordered to produce the class
list by May 15, 2017. If it does not produce the class list
within that time period, the Judge will order it to produce the
information and records described on page 8 of the Plaintiff's
Motion to Compel Class List Discovery so that the Plaintiff can
independently compile the class list. The Defendant's request
that the Plaintiff be ordered to pay part of the costs of
production is denied.
The second phase of class list discovery lasted 13 months, during
which time Judge Aiken granted three more joint requests to
extend discovery deadlines. On June 17, 2017, the Defendant
produced an amended class list of 1,382 individuals. On Nov. 3,
2017, the Plaintiff deposed Michael Hoffman, the Defendant's
employee responsible for compiling the class list.
The Plaintiff filed the instant second motion to compel class
list discovery on Dec. 20, 2017. She argues that, at this point,
she is entitled to direct access to the Defendant's files in
order to compile an accurate class list because it has not made
diligent efforts to apply the objective criteria provided in the
class definition in compiling the class list. The Plaintiff
contends that the Defendant's process likely has omitted
thousands of class members from the class list. She now seeks
access to the Defendant's files in order to independently come up
with a class list.
The Plaintiff wants the Judge to order the Defendant to produce a
list of individuals who (1) were the subject of GIS background
reports ordered in during the relevant time period, (2) had red
or yellow flag notations on their GIS background reports, and (3)
were not placed with an employer within 30 days of the date of
their background check.
With respect to those individuals, the Plaintiff seeks access to
the following: (i) MicroJ+, PeopleSoft, and DocuSign files/notes;
(ii) inquiries to or communications from the legal department
concerning placeability and background check; (iii) pre-adverse
action letters; and (iv) signed arbitration acknowledgment forms
or arbitration agreement notes the Defendant believes that it has
made sufficient efforts to compile the class list and argues the
size of the class list merely reflects the objective criteria of
the class definition.
The Defendant makes three major arguments against further
production: (1) further discovery will be duplicative, (2)
largely confidential and/or privileged, and (3) unnecessarily
burdensome on it. It asserts that the Plaintiff has already been
given all of the data the Defendant relied on in making the "non-
placeability" determination, that it has provided her with a
reasonably good class list, and that at some point the burden of
additional discovery outweighs getting the perfect list.
Judge Aiken ordered the Defendant to produce signed arbitration
acknowledgment forms, any DocuSign files indicating consent to
arbitration or opting out of arbitration, and/or notes concerning
arbitration for those on the Narrowed List. Any individual who
did not opt out of arbitration and for whom defendant can produce
a signed arbitration agreement acknowledgement form can be
excluded from the list of individuals to whom the remainder of
the Order applies.
With respect to those individuals on the Narrowed List for whom
Defendant cannot produce a signed arbitration agreement
acknowledgment form, the Defendant is ordered to produce (or
otherwise grant the Plaintiff access to) MicroJ, PeopleSoft, and
DocuSign records for individuals on the Narrowed List who cannot
be excluded from membership based on arbitration documentation.
In view of the information in the Plaintiff's employment record,
the Judge finds it reasonably likely that there are other
potential class members that were missed during that partial data
pull. She understands the burden of producing these records when
the databases, as the Defendant noted, do not share common data
points. However, she notes that the Plaintiff's current request
is narrowed compared to the documents she sought in her first
motion to compel and finds that the risk of excluding significant
numbers of potential class members outweighs the burden on the
Defendants to produce these records.
The Judge also ordered the Defendants to produce all
communications sent or received by the legal department any paper
files of "branch inquiries" received by the legal department
concerning applicants on the Narrowed List who cannot be excluded
from class membership due to arbitration documentation. It is
likely that some of the legal department communication notes are
scattered in various places, such as handwritten notes of
communications, notes entered into databases, or email
communications. She understands that such communications may
take time to compile, but they are nonetheless pertinent to
determining an individual's placeability. Once again, she finds
that the relevance of the records outweighs the burden on the
Defendant.
Finally, the Judge ordered the Defendants to produce pre-adverse
action letters in its possession for individuals on the Narrowed
List who cannot be excluded from class membership due to
arbitration documentation. She explains that in the class
certification order, the heart of the parties' dispute is whether
RHI reaches a final placeability decision before or after
informing the applicant about the background report; the absence
or existence of a letter is not dispositive proof on that dispute
because some evidence in the record suggests that the meaningful
period within which to dispute the contents of an adverse GIS
report is during the internal review process, and that after the
'not placeable' decision is made, any opportunity given to an
applicant to dispute or explain the contents of the report is
illusory. She finds that the likely relevance of the requested
documents outweighs the burden on the Defendants to produce those
documents.
Accordingly, Judge Aiken granted the Plaintiff's Second Motion to
Compel Class List Discovery. She ordered the Defendant to
produce or otherwise give the Plaintiff access to the documents,
databases, and files described in more detail in the Opinion.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 1, 2018 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/ugotMI from Leagle.com.
Bonnie Magallon, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by James A. Francis --
info@consumerlawfirm.com -- Francis & Mailman, PC, pro hac vice,
John Soumilas, Francis & Mailman, PC, pro hac vice, Lauren K.W.
Brennan, Francis & Mailman, P.C., pro hac vice & Robert S. Sola,
Robert S. Sola, P.C.
Robert Half International, Inc., a foreign corporation,
Defendant, represented by Adam P. KohSweeney --
akohsweeney@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP, pro hac vice,
Susannah K. Howard -- showard@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP,
pro hac vice, Calvin L. Keith -- CKeith@perkinscoie.com --
Perkins Coie, LLP & Sarah J. Crooks -- SCrooks@perkinscoie.com --
Perkins Coie, LLP.
ROCKET EXPRESS: Osborn Sues over Wage & Hour Laws Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
TYLER OSBORN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. ROCKET EXPRESS, LLC, PELHAM COMMUNITY
PHARMACY, INC., WILLIAM GARDYNSKI, CAROL A. SANTORO and BHUREN PA
TEL, the Defendants, Case No. 18-1785 (Mass. Super. Ct., June 21,
2018), seeks to recover overtime pay in violations of the
Commonwealth's wage and hour laws.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the class he seeks
to represent are drivers for the Defendants who are misclassified
as independent contractors. Class Members are, in fact, employees
of the defendants under the Massachusetts Wage Act because they
are subject to the direction and control of the defendants, the
work Class Members perform is within the usual course of the
defendants' business, and none of the Class Members maintain
their own independent trades or businesses outside of the
Defendants' business.
As a result of this misclassification, Class Members suffered
great financial harm. The Defendants pass on a significant amount
of expenses to Class Members, which may not be lawfully imposed
on employees. These expenses include, but are not limited to:
expenses for work travel, maintenance costs, insurance, and
equipment fees. Moreover, while Class Members routinely work in
excess of 40 hours each workweek, the Defendants fail to pay them
overtime wages. The Defendants' actions are blatant violations of
the Commonwealth's wage and hour laws and caused Class Members
substantial harm.
Rocket Express is a licensed and bonded freight shipping and
trucking company running freight hauling business from Saint
Charles, Missouri.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephanie C. Ozahowski, Esq.
Raven Moeslinger, Esq.
Nicholas F. Ortiz, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF NICHOLAS F. ORTIZ, P.C.
99 High Street, Suite 304
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 338 9400
E-mail rm@mass-legal.com
RURAL METRO: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Calleros" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants American Medical Response Inc., Envision Healthcare
Corporation, Rural Metro Corporation and Rural Metro of San
Diego, Inc., filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit
titled Reuben Calleros, et al. v. Rural Metro of San Diego, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-00686-CAB-BLM, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California, San Diego.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, 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.
The appellate case is captioned as Reuben Calleros, et al. v.
Rural Metro of San Diego, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-80063, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Respondents REUBEN CALLEROS and RALPH RUBIO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated in
the State of California, are represented by:
A. Mark Pope, Esq.
POPE, BERGER & WILLIAMS, LLP
3555 Fifth Avenue
San Diego, CA 92103
Telephone: (619) 595-1366
E-mail: pope@popeberger.com
Defendants-Petitioners RURAL METRO OF SAN DIEGO, INC., RURAL
METRO CORPORATION, AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE INC. and ENVISION
HEALTHCARE CORPORATION are represented by:
Michael Stuart Kun, Esq.
Kevin Dennis Sullivan, Esq.
EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN, PC
1925 Century Park East
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 556-8861
E-mail: mkun@ebglaw.com
ksullivan@ebglaw.com
SAJAHTERA INC: Violates Wage and Hour Laws, Martinez Says
---------------------------------------------------------
MARIA MARTINEZ, Individually, and on Behalf of All Other
Similarly Situated Members of the General Public, the Plaintiff,
v. SAJAHTERA, INC., a Delaware Corporation Doing Business as The
Beverly Hills Hotel; DORCHESTER GROUP LTD., a Business Entity
Form Unknown; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
BC709887 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 13, 2018), alleges that
Defendants violated the California Labor Code Private Attorneys
General Act of 2004.
According to the complaint, for nearly 19 years the Plaintiff has
been employed by Defendants as a non-exempt housekeeper at The
Beverly Hills Hotel in Beverly Hills, California. Throughout the
course of her employment, Plaintiff determinedly toiled for
Defendants by cleaning bathrooms, vacuuming, replacing linens and
towels, making beds, wiping down furnishings, and taking on any
and all other housekeeping duties assigned to her in an effort to
ensure that the guests' stay at the hotel lives up to the
luxurious experience which is uniquely found the Beverly Hills
Hotel. Defendants proclaims that for over a century, The Beverly
Hills Hotel has been the "ultimate beacon of glamour" that
provides its guests the opportunity to "Live like Hollywood
Royalty." However, this opportunity comes at the expense of
Plaintiff and other dedicated non-exempt employees as a result of
Defendants systematic and continuous violations of California's
wage and hour laws despite their employees' undivided and ongoing
loyalty to Defendants.
Sajahtera, Inc. operates as a hotel. The Company offers spa,
salon, restaurants, wedding banquet halls, and fitness
center.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raymond P. Boucher, Esq.
Maria L. Weitz, Esq.
Neil M. Larsen, Esq.
Alexander Gamez, Esq.
BOUCHER LLP
21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600
Woodland Hills, CA 91367-4903
Telephone: (818) 340 5400
Facsimile: (818) 340 5401
E-mail: ray@boucher.la
weitz@boucher.la
larsen@boucher.la
gamez@boucher.la
- and -
Shawna S. Nazari, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF SHAWNA S. NAZARI
15303 Ventura Blvd., 9th Floor
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403-3199
Telephone: (818) 380 3015
Facsimile: (818) 380 3016
E-mail: snazari@ssnlegal.com
- and -
David Torres-Siegrist, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF TORRES SIEGRIST
225 s Lake Ave., Suite 300
Pasadena, CA 91101-3009
Telephone: (626) 432 5460
Facsimile: (626) 466 9234
E-mail: dgts@icloud.com
SAMUEL I WHITE: Davis Appeals E.D. Virginia Ruling to 4th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Ronnie Davis filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit titled Ronnie Davis v. Samuel I. White, P.C., Case No.
4:16-cv-00018-LRL, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia at Newport News.
The appellate case is captioned as Ronnie Davis v. Samuel I.
White, P.C., Case No. 18-1467, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Magistrate
Judge Lawrence R. Leonard granted the Defendant's Renewed Motion
to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment.
The matter concerns real property formerly owned by the
Plaintiff, located at 5614 Fairfield Lane, in Hayes, Gloucester
County, Virginia. On Nov. 25, 1998, the Plaintiff as honorably
discharged from the United States Army. His military service
allowed him to obtain refinancing for his residential mortgage on
the Property through the Veterans Administration.
On April 18, 2015, the Plaintiff filed suit against the Defendant
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. The
Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim
on May 12, 2015. In response, the Plaintiff filed an Amended
Complaint on June 5, 2015.
The Defendant filed a Second Motion to Dismiss for Failure to
State a Claim or to Strike First Amended Complaint on June 18,
2015. Ultimately, the Maryland Action was disposed of by the
Hon. Richard D. Bennett's March 24, 2016 Memorandum Order and
Opinion.
On March 24, 2016, the case was officially transferred to the
Newport News division of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, pursuant to Judge Bennett's Memorandum
Order and Opinion. The parties consented to Magistrate Judge
jurisdiction.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant RONNIE DAVIS, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Harlan S. Miller, III
MILLER LEGAL, P.C.
646 Vineville Avenue
Macon, GA 31204
Telephone: (404) 931-6490
E-mail: hmiller@millerlegalpc.com
- and -
Stephen B. Pershing, Esq.
1416 E Street, NE
Washington, DC 20002
Telephone: (202) 642-1431
E-mail: steve@pershinglaw.us
Defendant-Appellee SAMUEL I. WHITE, P.C., is represented by:
Lisa Hudson Kim, Esq.
SAMUEL I. WHITE, PC
5040 Corporate Woods Drive
Virginia Beach, VA 23462
Telephone: (757) 457-4234
- and -
John Curtis Lynch, Esq.
Andrew Brian Pittman, Esq.
TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP
222 Central Park Avenue
Virginia Beach, VA 23462-0000
Telephone: (757) 687-7765
E-mail: john.lynch@troutmansanders.com
andrew.pittman@troutmansanders.com
SAN DIEGO, CA: Court Approves $307K Settlement in HRMs' Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California granted granting the Joint Motion to Approve
Settlement Agreement in the case captioned BARRY LINKS, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF SAN DIEGO, Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-
00996-H-KSC (S.D. Cal.).
Plaintiffs Barry Links, Christopher Sovay, Steve Vandewalle,
Andrea Dominguez, Timothy Olson, and Brian Sanford, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, allege that Defendant
City of San Diego violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by
failing to pay overtime wages. Each Plaintiff is employed by the
City's Fire-Rescue Department as a Helicopter Rescue Medic (HRM),
providing support services for helicopters designated as air
ambulances.
Bona Fide Dispute
Whether Plaintiffs were employees engaged in fire protection and
thus exempt from the FLSA's standard 40-hour workweek overtime
pay provision, constitutes a bona fide dispute over FLSA
provisions. The Plaintiffs contend that, as HRMs, they did not
have responsibility to engage in fire suppression for purposes of
Section 203(y)(1) and, therefore, were not exempt employees. But
the Defendants maintain that the opposite is true, because four
of the six remaining Plaintiffs worked only on a relief basis as
HRMs and were employed on a full-time basis as firefighters.
The Court finds that the disputed issues of FLSA coverage and
potential liability here constitute a bona fide dispute.
Fair and Reasonable Resolution
First, the Court finds that the proposed settlement amount bears
a reasonable relationship to the Plaintiffs' range of possible
recovery. The parties performed extensive analysis of payroll and
time records that the City produced to the Plaintiffs. The Court
concludes this factor weighs in favor of FLSA settlement
approval.
Second, the Court evaluates the stage of proceedings and amount
of discovery completed in order to ensure the parties have an
adequate appreciation of the merits of the case before reaching a
settlement. The parties crafted their settlement agreement
through an in-person early neutral evaluation conference and
three subsequent telephone settlement conferences before the
Magistrate Judge.
The Court similarly finds that the serious risks of ongoing
litigation, as well as the views of counsel and participating
plaintiffs, favor approval of the Settlement Agreement. The
parties dispute key issues in this case and have weighed the
likelihood of prevailing on the merits of their respective claims
and defenses. The settlement terms, the parties conclude, signify
a fair compromise of the Plaintiffs' claims.
In conclusion, having carefully considered the totality of the
circumstances, the Court finds that the Settlement Agreement is a
fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute regarding
FLSA liability.
A full-text copy of the District Court's April 30, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ybfwvecg from Leagle.com.
Barry Links, Christopher Sovay & Steve Vandewalle, Plaintiffs,
represented by Fern M. Steiner -- fsteiner@ssvwlaw.com -- Smith,
Steiner, Vanderpool & Wax, APC, Theodore R. Coploff, Woodley &
McGillivary LLP, pro hac vice & William Wei Ming Li, Woodley &
McGillivary LLP, pro hac vice.
City of San Diego, Defendant, represented by Alison Priske Adema,
San Diego City Attorney.
SANDBOX TRANSPORTATION: Barnes Suit Moved to District of Colorado
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled MATTHEW BARNES, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
SANDBOX TRANSPORTATION, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 7:18-cv-
00050, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for Western
District of Texas, to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado (Denver) on June 19, 2018. The Colorado District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-01535-STV to the proceeding. The
case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Scott T. Varholak.
Sandbox Transportation required and/or permitted Plaintiff, opt-
in Plaintiff, and all other similarly situated employees to work
in excess of 40 hours per week but refused to compensate them
properly for such hours. The Defendant's conduct is in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act, which requires employers to
compensate non-exempt employees for their overtime work. The
Plaintiffs are FLSA non-exempt workers who have been denied
overtime pay required by law, for which they now seek
recovery.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James M. Loren, Esq.
George Z. Goldberg, Esq.
Rachael Rustmann, Esq.
GOLDBERG & LOREN, PA
TX Bar No. 24073653
3102 Maple Ave, Suite 450
Dallas, Texas 75201
Telephone: (800) 719 1617
Facsimile: (954) 585 4886
E-mail: jloren@lorenlaw.com
rrustmann@goldbergloren.com
ggoldberg@goldbergdohan.com
SCHOOLSFIRST FEDERAL: Harris Balks at Non-Sufficient Funds Fee
--------------------------------------------------------------
HOLLIE HARRIS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. SCHOOLSFIRST FEDERAL CREDIT
UNION, the Defendant, Case No. 37-2018-00028935-CU-CG-CTL (Cal.
Super. Ct., June 12, 2018), complains that SchoolsFirst charges
account holders a S22 non-sufficient funds ("NSF") fee when there
are insufficient funds to pay a transaction. Through the
imposition of NSF fees, SchoolsFirst makes millions of dollars a
year. These fees are, by definition, often assessed on consumers
struggling to make ends meet with minimal funds in their
accounts. In particular, an FDIC study has reported that OD and
NSF fees often fall disproportionately on racial and ethnic
minorities, the elderly, and the young. Every additional OD or
NSF Fee SchoolsFirst assesses can be devastating to those living
at the economic margins of our society. OD/NSF Fees must be
assessed sparingly (and consistently with SchoolsFirst's
contracts), if they are not to destroy the very accountholders on
whom they are assessed. Unfortunately, SchoolsFirst undertakes to
maximize NSF Fees with a deceptive practice which also violates
its contracts.
SchoolsFirst Federal Credit Union is a federally chartered Credit
Union that serves the educational community in Southern
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd D. Caqienter, Esq.
Brittany C. Casola, Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH SWEET
KILPELA & CARPENTER. LLP
1350 Columbia St., Ste. 603
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: 619 762 1900
Facsimile: 619 756 6991
E-mail: tearpenter@carlsonlynch.com
bcasola@carlsonlynch.com
- and -
Jeffrey Kaliel, Esq.
Sophia Goren Gold, Esq.
KALIEL PLLC
1875 Connecticut Ave NW, 10th Floor
Washington, DC 20009
Telephone: (202) 350 4783
E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
sgold@kalielpllc.com
SCOTTRADE INC: Hine Appeals Order and Judgment to Eighth Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Stephen Hine filed an appeal from the District Court's
Order and Judgment both dated April 17, 2018, in his lawsuit
titled Stephen Hine v. Scottrade, Inc., Case No. 4:17-cv-02803-
RWS, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri - St. Louis.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, in his
complaint, the Plaintiff alleged that he and a putative class of
"[a]ll California residents whose personal or financial
information was compromised as a result of the data breach first
disclosed by Scottrade on or about October 2, 2015" are entitled
to monetary and other damages from Scottrade due to Scottrade's
alleged failure to maintain adequate cybersecurity measures,
which he alleges resulted in the cybersecurity incident at issue.
The appellate case is captioned as Stephen Hine v. Scottrade,
Inc., Case No. 18-2114, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Eighth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Transcript was due on or before July 2, 2018;
-- Appendix is due on July 12, 2018;
-- Brief of Appellant Stephen Hine is due on July 12, 2018;
-- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court
issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of
appellant; and
-- Appellant reply brief is due 14 days from the date the
court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the
appellee brief.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant Stephen Hine, on Behalf of HImself and All
Others Similarly Situated, is represented by:
Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
Paula R. Brown, Esq.
Thomas Joseph O'Reardon, II, Esq.
BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON LLP
501 W. Broadway
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 338-1100
Facsimile: (619) 338-1101
E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com
pbrown@bholaw.com
toreardon@bholaw.com
Defendant-Appellee Scottrade, Inc., a Missouri Corporation, is
represented by:
Brandi L. Burke, Esq.
Thomas Edward Douglass, Esq.
Christopher Martin Hohn, Esq.
David Michael Mangian, Esq.
THOMPSON COBURN LLP
One US Bank Plaza
505 N. Seventh Street
Saint Louis, MO 63101-1693
Telephone: (314) 552-6000
E-mail: bburke@thompsoncoburn.com
tdouglass@thompsoncoburn.com
chohn@thompsoncoburn.com
dmangian@thompsoncoburn.com
- and -
Helen Byungsun Kim, Esq.
THOMPSON COBURN LLP
2029 Century Park East
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 282-2500
E-mail: hkim@thompsoncoburn.com
SECOND GENERATION: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime, Cruz Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
DAGOBERTO GARCIA CRUZ, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SECOND GENERATION, INC., a
California corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the
Defendant, Case No. BC709631 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 12, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid minimum and straight time wages and
overtime compensation under the California Labor Code
The Defendants allegedly failed to pay Plaintiff for all hours
worked (including minimum wages, straight time wages, and
overtime wages), failed to provide Plaintiff with uninterrupted
meal periods, failed to authorize and permit Plaintiff to take
uninterrupted rest periods, failed to timely pay all final wages
to Plaintiff when Defendants terminated Plaintiff's employment,
and failed to furnish accurate wage statements to Plaintiff.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kane Moon, Esq.
Justin F. Marquez, Esq.
Allen Feghali, Esq.
MOON & YANG, APC
1055 W. Seventh St., Suite 1880
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 232 3128
Facsimile: (213) 232 3125
E-mail: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com
justin.marquez@moonyanglaw.com
allen.feghali@moonyanglaw.com
SEVIER COUNTY, TN: Whitlock Seek Overtime Pay under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------
LARRY WHITLOCK, Individually, and on behalf of himself and other
similarly situated current and former employees, the Plaintiffs,
v. SEVIER COUNTY, TENNESSEE, the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-
00233 (E.D. Tenn., June 12, 2018), alleges that Defendant
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay Plaintiff
and putative class members for all hours of work at the rates
required by the FLSA.
The Plaintiff and putative class members routinely worked in
excess of 40 hours per week but were not paid overtime for doing
this excessive work. Instead, Defendant either misclassified
Plaintiffs as exempt from the protections of the FLSA or ignored
the FLSA altogether by failing to pay proper regard to the number
of hours Plaintiff and putative class members actually worked or
guarantee proper payment of the overtime wage.
Sevier County is a county of the U.S. state of Tennessee.[BN]
Attorneys for Named Plaintiff and the Putative Class:
Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
James L. Holt, Jr., Esq.
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
Paula R. Jackson, Esq.
JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Telephone: (901) 754 8001
Facsimile: (901) 754 8524
E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
jholt@jsyc.com
rbryant@jsyc.com
pjackson@jsyc.com
- and -
Robert P. Williams, Esq.
R.P. WILLIAMS LAW FIRM, PLLC
265 North Lamar Blvd, Suite W-South
Oxford, Mississippi 38655
Telephone: (662) 234 3838
Facsimile: (662) 769 9992
E-mail: robert@williamslawms.com
SHERWIN-WILLIAMS: "Arguello" Suit Moved to S.D. of California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Noe Arguello, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. The
Sherwin-Williams Company, an Ohio corporation and Does 1 Through
100, the Defendants, Case No. 37-02018-00022985-CU-OE-CTL, was
removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San
Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California (San Diego) on June 14, 2018. The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-01279-CAB-RBB to the proceeding. The
case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo.
The Sherwin-Williams Company is an American Fortune 500 company
in the general building materials industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Farzad Rastegar, Esq.
RASTEGAR LAW GROUP, APC
22760 Hawthorne Boulevard, Suite 200
Torrance, CA 90505
Telephone: (310) 961 9600
Facsimile: (310) 961 9094
E-mail: farzad@rastegarlawgroup.com
Attorneys for Sherwin-Williams Company:
Shareef Farag, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTELER, LLP
11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Telephone: (310) 820 8800
Facsimile: (310) 820 8859
E-mail: sfarag@bakerlaw.com
SOUTH BAY: Court OKs Minor's Interest in Class Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Robert N. Block of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California issued a Report and
Recommendation granting Plaintiffs' Petition for Approval of
Minor's Interest in Settlement of Action in the case captioned
AG, a minor, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
SOUTH BAY DREAMS COOPERATIVE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-
02598-L (RNB) (S.D. Cal.).
The Plaintiff alleges Defendant South Bay Dreams Cooperative,
Inc., negligently and/or willfully texted the Plaintiff on two
separate occasions without his prior express written consent, in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C.
(TCPA).
District courts have a special duty, derived from Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 17(c), to safeguard the interests of litigants
who are minors. In the context of proposed settlements in suits
involving minor plaintiffs, this special duty requires a district
court to conduct its own inquiry to determine whether the
settlement serves the best interests of the minor.
The Plaintiff and the Defendant have reached a settlement that
will pay the sum of $8,000 to the Plaintiff's attorney, Joshua
Swigart.
The Plaintiff's natural parent and proposed guardian ad litem,
Alexis Gutierrez, finds the proposed settlement fair and
reasonable. A guardian ad litem may repudiate a settlement
agreement prior to court approval. That is not the case here.
Rather, Mr. Gutierrez received the proposed Settlement Agreement
from the Plaintiff's counsel on March 30, 2018, and thereafter
reviewed and discussed it with the Plaintiff's counsel. Based on
his review and discussion, the Plaintiff's parent believes the
Settlement Agreement, and the division of the monetary
settlement, to be equitable, fair, reasonable, and in the best
interests of his child.
In consideration of this, including the facts of the case, the
minor's specifics claims, and recovery in similar cases, the
Court finds the settlement to be fair and reasonable.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff's Application for Approval of Minor's
Interest in Settlement of Action is granted with the following
conditions:
a. The Plaintiff's counsel will be paid $1,301.73 from the
settlement amount.
b. The Plaintiff's settlement amount of $6,698.27 will be
disbursed to his natural parent for the benefit of the Plaintiff,
and placed in a blocked interest-bearing FDIC or NCUA insured
account held in the name of the Plaintiff from which no
withdrawals will be made without a court order until the
Plaintiff reaches the age of majority.
A full-text copy of the District Court's April 30, 2018 Report
and Recommendation is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8rkd3uu
from Leagle.com.
AG, a minor, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
represented by Joshua B. Swigart -- josh@westcoastlitigation.com
-- Hyde & Swigart.
SOUTHLAKE, TX: Second Court Appeal Filed in "Watson" Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff James H. Watson filed an appeal from a court ruling in
his lawsuit titled James H. Watson and Others Similarly Situated
v. City of Southlake.
The appellate case is captioned as James H. Watson and Others
Similarly Situated v. City of Southlake, Case No. 02-18-00143-CV,
in the Texas Court of Appeals, Second Court of Appeals.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant James H. Watson is represented by:
Scott A. Stewart, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF SCOTT A. STEWART
800 W. Airport Freeway, Suite 860
Irving, TX 75062
Telephone: (214) 350-5551
- and -
Russell J. Bowman, Esq.
BOWMAN & STELLA, P.C.
800 West Airport Frwy., Suite 860
Irving, TX 75062
Telephone: (214) 922-0220
Defendant-Appellee City of Southlake is represented by:
George A. Staples, Jr., Esq.
TAYLOR OLSON ADKINS SRALLA & ELAM LLP
6000 Western Pl., Suite 200
Fort Worth, TX 76107-4684
Telephone: (817) 332-2580
E-mail: gstaples@toase.com
SOUTHWEST CREDIT: Faces "Miller" Suit in N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Southwest Credit
Systems, L.P. The lawsuit is captioned as Carolyn Miller, nee
Webber, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Southwest Credit Systems, L.P., Case No. 1:18-cv-
04088 (N.D. Ill., June 12, 2018). The case is assigned to the
Hon. Rebecca R. Pallmeyer.
Southwest Credit was founded in 2003. The Company's line of
business includes collection and adjustment services on claims
and other insurance related issues.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Celetha Chatman, Esq.
Michael Jacob Wood, Esq.
COMMUNITY LAWYERS GROUP, LTD.
73 W. Monroe Street, Suite 502
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 757 1880
E-mail: cchatman@communitylawyersgroup.com
mwood@communitylawyersgroup.com
SPECTRANETICS CORP: Tenth Cir. Appeal Filed in "Wiesenfeld" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Allen J. Wiesenfeld filed an appeal from a court ruling
in the lawsuit entitled Wiesenfeld, et al. v. The Spectranetics
Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:15-CV-01857-KLM, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado - Denver.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements,
as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects.
The Spectranetics Corporation develops, manufactures, markets,
and distributes medical devices used in minimally invasive
procedures within the cardiovascular system.
The appellate case is captioned as Wiesenfeld, et al. v. The
Spectranetics Corporation, et al., Case No. 18-1204, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Docketing statement was due on May 25, 2018, for Allen J.
Wiesenfeld;
-- Transcript order form was due on May 25, 2018, for Allen J.
Wiesenfeld; and
-- Notice of appearance was due on May 25, 2018, for Guy A.
Childs, Scott Drake, The Spectranetics Corporation, and
Allen J. Wiesenfeld.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant ALLEN J. WIESENFELD, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Joshua M. Rubin, Esq.
WEISSLAW
1500 Broadway
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 682-3025
Facsimile: (212) 682-3010
E-mail: jrubin@weisslawllp.com
Plaintiff-Appellant ALLEN J. WIESENFELD, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, and Plaintiff MICHAEL
ELLIS, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Similarly
Situated, are represented by:
Kip Brian Shuman, Esq.
SHUMAN LAW FIRM
885 Arapahoe Avenue
Boulder, CO 80302
Telephone: (303) 861-3003
Facsimile: (303) 484-4886
E-mail: kip@shumanlawfirm.com
Plaintiff-Appellant ALLEN J. WIESENFELD, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated; and Plaintiffs MICHAEL
ELLIS, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Similarly
Situated, and PETER TUCKER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, are represented by:
Kara Wolke, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
E-mail: kwolke@glancylaw.com
Plaintiff MICHAEL ELLIS, Individually and on Behalf of All Other
Similarly Situated, is represented by:
Rusty Glenn, Esq.
SHUMAN LAW FIRM
885 Arapahoe Avenue
Boulder, CO 80302
Telephone: (303) 861-3003
Facsimile: (303) 484-4886
E-mail: rusty@shumanlawfirm.com
Plaintiffs MICHAEL ELLIS, Individually and on Behalf of All Other
Similarly Situated, and PETER TUCKER, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Robert Vincent Prongay, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
E-mail: rprongay@glancylaw.com
Defendants-Appellees THE SPECTRANETICS CORPORATION, SCOTT DRAKE
and GUY A. CHILDS are represented by:
Frederick James Baumann, Esq.
Alex C. Myers, Esq.
LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER CHRISTIE
1200 17th Street, Suite 3000
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: (303) 623-9000
E-mail: fbaumann@lrrc.com
amyers@lrrc.com
- and -
Richard H. Zelichov, Esq.
KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN
2029 Century Park East, Suite 2600
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3012
Telephone: (310) 788-4520
E-mail: richard.zelichov@kattenlaw.com
STAPLES INC: First Circuit Appeal Filed in "Kersey" Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff George E. Kersey filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit titled Kersey v. Staples, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:17-cv-11267-NMG, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, Boston.
The nature of suit is stated as other personal injury.
The appellate case is captioned as Kersey v. Staples, Inc., et
al., Case No. 18-1433, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the First Circuit.
Plaintiff-Appellant GEORGE E. KERSEY, Individually and on behalf
of all others, similarly situated, of Framingham, Massachusetts,
appear pro se.
The Defendants-Appellees are STAPLES, INC., VERBATIM, RADIO
SHACK, OFFICE MAX, INC., MEMOREX-CE and DPI, INC.[BN]
STATE FARM: Seeks Eighth Circuit Review of Ruling in "Vogt" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant State Farm Life Insurance Company filed an appeal from
a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Michael G. Vogt v. State
Farm Life Insurance Company, Case No. 2:16-cv-04170-NKL, in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri -
Jefferson City.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Mr. Vogt
moved for an order certifying a class of policy owners:
"all persons who own or owned a universal life insurance
policy issued by State Farm on Form 94030 in the State of
Missouri."
Mr. Vogt contends that the case presents overarching common
questions, the answers to which will resolve tens of thousands of
claims without the need for individualized testimony: whether
State Farm deducted cost of insurance and expense charges from
each policy owner's Account Value in amounts greater than those
authorized by the Policy. He asserts that the Policy is a
"universal life" insurance policy. Universal life insurance is a
type of "permanent" life insurance that, unlike standard "term"
insurance, is intended to provide lifetime.
The appellate case is captioned as State Farm Life Insurance Co.
v. Michael Vogt, Case No. 18-8004, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Respondent Michael G. Vogt, on behalf of himself, all
others similarly situated, and the proposed Rule 23 class, is
represented by:
Joseph M. Feierabend, Esq.
Matthew W. Lytle, Esq.
John J. Schirger, Esq.
MILLER & SCHIRGER
4520 Main Street, Suite 1570
Kansas City, MO 64111
Telephone: (816) 561-6500
E-mail: jfeierabend@millerschirger.com
mlytle@millerschirger.com
jschirger@millerschirger.com
- and -
Ethan M. Lange, Esq.
Lindsay Todd Perkins, Esq.
Norman Siegel, Esq.
Patrick Joseph Stueve, Esq.
STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 714-7100
Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
E-mail: lange@stueveseigel.com
perkins@stueveseigel.com
siegel@stuevesiegel.com
stueve@stuevesiegel.com
Defendant-Petitioner State Farm Life Insurance Company is
represented by:
David M. Cooper, Esq.
Douglas W. Dunham, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP
51 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10010
Telephone: (212) 849-7000
E-mail: davidcooper@quinnemanuel.com
douglasdunham@quinnemanuel.com
- and -
William L. Greene, Esq.
Todd Noteboom, Esq.
STINSON LEONARD STREET LLP
150 S. Fifth Street, Suite 2300
Minneapolis, MN 55402-0000
Telephone: (612) 335-1500
Facsimile: (612) 335-1657
E-mail: william.greene@stinson.com
todd.noteboom@stinsonleonard.com
- and -
Jeremy Root, Esq.
STINSON LEONARD STREET LLP
230 W. McCarty Street
Jefferson City, MO 65101
Telephone: (573) 636-6263
E-mail: jeremy.root@stinson.com
SUMMIT HEALTHCARE: "Blackburn" Suit Moved to District of Arizona
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit with Case No. CV2018-090593, was removed
from the Maricopa County Superior Court, to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Arizona (Phoenix Division) on June 21,
2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-01956-
GMS to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge G.
Murray Snow.
The lawsuit is captioned as Justin Blackburn, Jessica Ballandby,
Carson Miller, and Michelle Stoddart, on behalf of themselves and
all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Summit
Healthcare Association, doing business as: Summit Healthcare
Regional Medical Center, doing business as: Summit Healthcare
Snowflake Medical Center, an Arizona non-profit entity; Mariposa
Surgical Services LLC, an Arizona limited liability company;
Mariposa Surgical Services International LLP, an Arizona limited
liability partnership; S3 Investors Incorporated, an Arizona
corporation; Fill Centers USA, an Arizona partnership; Herber
Women's Clinic, an Arizona sole proprietorship; Snowflake Women's
Clinic, an Arizona sole proprietorship; Twigs Link Corporation,
doing business as: Weight Is Gone Surgically, doing business as:
T.W.I.G.S., an Arizona corporation; GSLE Consulting LLC, an
Arizona limited liability company; Iris Stratton, a married
couple; Daniel Stratton, a married couple; Sandra Brimhall, a
married couple; Unknown Brimhall, named as John Doe Brimhall, a
married couple; S Ross Fox, M.D., a married couple; Kathy Fox
a married couple; Kristie Blackman, a married couple; Unknown
Blackman, named as John Doe Blackman, a married couple; Katie
Holmes, a married couple; Unknown Holmes, named as John Doe
Holmes, a married couple; Gwendolyn Hall, a single woman; Tammy
Hall-Kubitza, a married couple; Unknown Kubitza, named as John
Doe Kubitza, a married couple; Jason Stratton, a married couple;
Unknown Stratton, named as Jane Doe Stratton, a married couple;
Ariel Ortiz, a married couple; Unknown Ortiz, named as Jane Doe
Ortiz, a married couple; Pedro Kuri, a married couple; Unknown
Kuri, named as Jane Doe Kuri, a married couple; Mario Almanza, a
married couple; Unknown Almanza, named as Jane Doe Almanza, a
married couple; Lee Grossbard, M.D., a married couple; Unknown
Grossbard, named as Jane Doe Grossbard, a married couple;
Robert Berger, M.D., a married couple; Unknown Berger, named as
Jane Doe Berger, a married couple; William Lawson, M.D., a
married couple; Unknown Lawson, named as Jane Doe Lawson, a
married couple; Unknown Parties, named as John Does I-V; Jane
Does I-V; ABC Partnerships I-X; and XYZ Corporations I-X, the
Defendants.[BN]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs:
Robert Miles Gregory, Esq.
Johnson & Gregory PLLC
4445 E Holmes Ave., Ste. 107
Mesa, AZ 85206
Telephone: (480) 218 4000
Facsimile: (480) 452 1753
E-mail: robert.gregory@azbar.org
Attorneys for Robert Berger, M.D., and Unknown Berger, named as
Jane Doe Berger, a married couple:
Jeffrey Dale Gardner, Esq.
Ryan Bayles Johnson, Esq.
JENNINGS STROUSS & SALMON PLC
PHOENIX - WASHINGTON ST
1 E Washington St., Ste. 1900
Phoenix, AZ 85004-2554
Telephone: (602) 262 5911
E-mail: jgardner@jsslaw.com
rjohnson@jsslaw.com
- and -
Patrick David White, Esq.
KENT & WITTEKIND PC
111 W Monroe St., Ste. 1000
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Telephone: (602) 261 7770
Facsimile: (602) 761 7821
E-mail: pwhite@kwlaw-az.com
SUNFLOWER AMSTERDAM: Faces "Perez" Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sunflower Amsterdam
LLC doing business as: Sunflower Cafe. The case is styled as Juan
Manuel Roman Perez and Ramiro Rojas Roman, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Sunflower
Amsterdam LLC doing business as: Sunflower Cafe, Meushar Gilad,
EranShapira and Meir Moshe, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-05875
(S.D. N.Y., June 28, 2018).
Sunflower Amsterdam LLC (trade name Sunflower Cafe Manhattan) is
in the restaurant business.[BN]
The Plaintiffs appear PRO SE.
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in IUPAT Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs IUPAT District Council 82, et al., filed an appeal
from a court ruling in their lawsuit styled PAINTERS AND ALLIED
TRADES DISTRICT COUNCIL 82 HEALTH CARE FUND, third-party
healthcare payor fund; ANNIE M. SNYDER, a California consumer;
RICKEY D. ROSE, a Missouri consumer; JOHN CARDARELLI, a New
Jersey consumer; MARLYON K. BUCKNER, a Florida consumer; SYLVIE
BIGORD, a Massachusetts consumer, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS COMPANY
LIMITED, a Japanese Corporation; TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS U.S.A, an
Illinois corporation, FKA Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America,
Inc.; ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, an Indiana corporation, Case No.
2:17-cv-07223-SVW-AS, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Los Angeles.
The appellate case is captioned as IUPAT District Council 82, et
al. v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals Company, et al., Case No. 18-55588,
in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- May 31, 2018 -- Transcript shall be ordered;
-- July 2, 2018 -- Transcript shall be filed by court
reporter;
-- August 9, 2018 -- Appellant's opening brief and excerpts of
record shall be served and filed pursuant to FRAP 32 and
9th Cir. R. 32-1;
-- September 10, 2018 -- Appellees' answering brief and
excerpts of record shall be served and filed pursuant to
FRAP 32 and 9th Cir. R. 32-1; and
-- The optional appellant's reply brief shall be filed and
served within 21 days of service of the appellees' brief,
pursuant to FRAP 32 and 9th Cir. R. 32-1.[BN]
TARGET CORP: Court Denies Certification in "Faraji"
---------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in
the case captioned NEDA FARAJI, Plaintiff, v. TARGET CORPORATION;
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 5:17-CV-00155-
ODW-SP (C.D. Cal.).
The Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint, alleging causes
of action for: (1) Failure to pay for all hours worked at the
correct rates of pay, Cal. Lab. Code Sections 510, 1194, and
1198; (2) Failure to provide meal and rest periods, Cal. Lab.
Code Sections 226.7, 512, and 1198; (3) Failure to provide
accurate written wage statements, Cal. Lab. Code Section 226(a);
(4) Failure to timely pay all final wages, Cal. Lab. Code
Sections 201-203; (5) Unfair Competition, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code
Sections 17200 et seq.; and (6) Civil Penalties, Cal. Lab. Code
Sections 2698 et seq.
The Plaintiff seeks to certify the following class:
All persons Target employed in California as salaried ETL-
APs and/or other positions with similar job titles, descriptions,
duties, and/or compensation arrangements, at any time during the
time period beginning November 28, 2012 and ending when final
judgment is entered.
Numerosity
The Plaintiff contends the proposed class numbers more than 800
members and satisfies any standard for numerosity. The
Defendants do not contest this argument or even address this
factor. The Plaintiff meets the numerosity requirement.
Commonality & Predominance
Even if Plaintiff meets the commonality requirement with her
assertion of common questions, the Plaintiff fails to meet the
predominance requirement. Predominance requires that questions of
law or fact common to class members predominate over any
questions affecting only individual members. Meeting the
commonality requirement is insufficient to fulfill the
predominance requirement.
The Plaintiff has not shown that any Target policy requires each
ETL-AP to spend the majority of their time on non-exempt duties.
Instead, submitted are declarations from Plaintiff and a number
of putative class members explaining that they spent the majority
of their time on non-managerial tasks. In response, Target
submitted declarations from other ETL-APs testifying that they
spend the majority of their time on exempt tasks. The Plaintiff
has not met her burden to establish that the question of whether
Target misclassified the ETL-APs as exempt is subject to common
proof. Therefore, the Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that common
questions predominate over individual questions to support the
predominance requirement and fails to meet the requirements for
class certification.
Because the Plaintiff fails to meet the predominance requirement,
it will not address the remaining requirements for class
certification
A full-text copy of the District Court's April 30, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y9xtsyjd from Leagle.com.
Neda Faraji, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, and as an aggrieved employee on behalf of other
aggrieved employees under the Labor Code Private Attorneys
General Act of 2004,, Plaintiff, represented by David G. Spivak -
- David@FightWrongTermination.com -- The Spivak Law Firm, Sehyung
Park -- lpark@lhlaw.com -- The Spivak Law Firm & Walter L.
Haines, United Employees Law Group PC.
Target Corporation, a Minnesota corporation, Defendant,
represented by Andrea Ballar Dicolen --
andreadicolen@paulhastings.com -- Paul Hasting LLP, Jeffrey D.
Wohl -- jeffwohl@paulhastings.com -- Paul Hastings LLP & Jullie
Z. Lal -- jullielal@paulhastings.com -- Paul Hastings LLP.
TELECHECK SERVICES: Sixth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Huff" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff James Huff filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit titled James Huff, et al. v. Telecheck Services, Inc., et
al., Case No. 3:14-cv-01832, in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon.
Judge Samuel H. Mays, Jr. entered on order on March 30, 2018:
1. granting the Defendants' motion for summary judgment; and
2. denying as moot the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification.
The Court said, "Plaintiff does not face a substantial risk of
harm, nor has he incurred any mitigation costs. Plaintiff admits
that he has not "suffer[ed] any psychological harm" or "emotional
distress" as a result of the missing information in his report.
(ECF No. 78-2 at 1329.) Plaintiff also did not "lose money
because of the contents of this report." (Id.) Indeed, the
missing information had "[no] effect on [Plaintiff] whatsoever."
(Id.) Plaintiffs' personal information in Galaria had "already
been stolen and [was] now in the hands of ill-intentioned
criminals." Galaria, 663 F. App'x at 388. The missing information
in Plaintiff's TFR has not been stolen and has "never affected,
altered, or influenced a single consumer report on Plaintiff."
(ECF No. 81 at 1569.) Because the two missing transactions in
Plaintiff's TFR were accurate, their communication to third
parties would have conferred no harm on Plaintiff. Having failed
to identify a concrete harm or risk of harm that Congress sought
to prevent by requiring disclosure, Plaintiff "is left with a
statutory violation divorced from any real world effect." Dreher,
856 F.3d at 347. Defendants' failure to include two transactions
in Plaintiff's TFR had no practical effect on Plaintiff. A
statutory violation, by itself, is insufficient to confer
standing. Because Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that he has
suffered a concrete injury sufficient to confer Article III
standing, "the court cannot proceed at all." "[T]he only function
remaining to the court is that of announcing the fact and
dismissing the cause."
The appellate case is captioned as James Huff, et al. v.
Telecheck Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-5438, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant JAMES HUFF, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Martin D. Holmes, Esq.
DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
424 Church Street, Suite 800
Nashville, TN 37219
Telephone: (615) 244-6538
E-mail: mdholmes@dickinsonwright.com
Defendants-Appellees TELECHECK SERVICES, INC., TELECHECK
INTERNATIONAL, INC., and FIRST DATA CORPORATION are represented
by:
David Ruben Esquivel, Esq.
BASS, BERRY & SIMS PLC
150 Third Avenue, S., Suite 2800
Nashville, TN 37201
Telephone: (615) 742-6200
Facsimile: (615) 742-0405
E-mail: desquivel@bassberry.com
TELENAV INC: Class Settlement in "Gergetz" Has Prelim Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, granted Preliminary Approval of
Class Action Settlement in the case captioned NATHAN GERGETZ,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. TELENAV, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant,
Case No. 5:16-cv-4261-BLF (N.D. Cal.).
The Parties have entered into a Settlement Agreement, which sets
forth the terms and conditions for a proposed settlement and
dismissal of the Action with prejudice as to Telenav for the
claims of the Settlement Class upon the terms and conditions as
set forth in the Settlement Agreement.
The Plaintiff, through Settlement Class Counsel, has moved the
Court for an order approving the settlement of the Action in
accordance with the Settlement Agreement.
Based on its preliminary evaluation, the Court finds that it has
jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action and over all
Parties to the Action, including all members of the Settlement
Class (Settlement Class Members), which is certified solely for
the purposes of settlement, as defined as any person belonging to
either Subclass below:
The No Consent Subclass: All persons in the United States
who during the Class Period received at least one Download the
Scout App Text Message; and/or
The Stop Subclass: All persons in the United States who
during the Class Period received at least one additional message
other than a message confirming an opt out request, after
replying STOP, QUIT, END, CANCEL or UNSUBSCRIBE to any text
message received from any Telenav Number.
A full-text copy of the District Court's April 30, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y94v4ln7 from Leagle.com.
Nathan Gergetz, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Patrick Harry
Peluso -- ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com -- Woodrow & Peluso, LLC,
Richard Toshiyuki Drury, Lozeau Drury LLP,Stefan Louis Coleman,
Law Offices of Stefan Coleman, LLC, pro hac vice, Steven Lezell
Woodrow -- swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com -- Woodrow & Peluso, LLC &
Rebecca Leah Davis -- rebecca@lozeaudrury.com -- Lozeau Drury
LLP.
TeleNav, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by
Tonia Ouellette Klausner -- tklausner@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini
Goodrich Rosati, pro hac vice & Peter Cornelius Holm --
pholm@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati.
TITLEMAX OF NEW MEXICO: Seeks 10th Cir. Review of "Romero" Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant TitleMax of New Mexico, Inc., filed an appeal from a
court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Romero v. TitleMax of New
Mexico, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:17-CV-00775-KG-SCY, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Mexico - Albuquerque.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was filed on June 20, 2017, in the First Judicial District Court
of New Mexico, and assigned Case No. D-101-CV-2017-01694. The
lawsuit was later removed to the District Court.
Titlemax is a financial management consulting service located in
Albuquerque, New Mexico.
The appellate case is captioned as Romero v. TitleMax of New
Mexico, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-2077, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Docketing statement and transcript order form was due on
June 6, 2018, for TitleMax of New Mexico, Inc.; and
-- Notice of appearance was due on June 6, 2018, for Jesse
Romero and TitleMax of New Mexico, Inc.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee JESSE ROMERO, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Stephen Barnes, Esq.
Benjamin Landgraf, Esq.
Jack E. McGehee, Esq.
MCGEHEE CHANG BARNES LANDGRAF
10370 Richmond Ave., Suite 1300
Houston, TX 77042
Telephone: (713) 864-4000
E-mail: sbarnes@lawtx.com
blandgraf@lawtx.com
jmcgehee@lawtx.com
- and -
Scott Fuqua, Esq.
FUQUA LAW & POLICY, P.C.
P.O. Box 32015
Santa Fe, NM 87594
Telephone: (505) 982-0961
E-mail: scott@fuqualawpolicy.com
Defendant-Appellant TITLEMAX OF NEW MEXICO, INC.; and Defendants
TMX FINANCE, LLC, and TRACY YOUNG are represented by:
Douglas Arthur Baker, Esq.
Justin D. Rodriguez, Esq.
ATKINSON, BAKER & RODRIGUEZ, P.C.
201 Third Street, N.W., Suite 1850
Albuquerque, NM 87102-0000
Telephone: (505) 764-8111
Facsimile: (505) 764-8374
E-mail: dbaker@abrfirm.com
JRodriguez@abrfirm.com
TOAST INC: Martin Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------
DION MARTIN, an individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. TOAST, INC., a
Delaware Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-05248 (C.D.
Cal., June 13, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
all allowable damages, interest, and attorney's fees and costs
under the Fair Labor Standards Act for Plaintiff and all current
or former salary paid Field Implementation Engineers who worked
more than 40 hours in any workweek, for which they were
internally classified and paid by Defendant as "exempt" from the
overtime laws within the period beginning three years preceding
the filing date of this Complaint and ending on the date
Defendant internally reclassified the FIE position to non-exempt
and began paying overtime compensation beginning approximately
December 2016.
Toast, Inc. is a cloud-based restaurant software company based in
Boston, MA. The company provides a restaurant management and
point of sale system built on the Android operating system.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C. Andrew Head, Esq.
Bethany A. Hilbert, Esq.
HEAD LAW FIRM, LLC
4422 N Ravenswood Ave
Chicago, IL 60640
Telephone: (404) 924 4151
Facsimile: (404) 796 7338
E-mail: ahead@headlawfirm.com
bhilbert@headlawfirm.com
- and -
Jason C. Marsili, Esq.
Brianna Primozic Rapp, Esq.
ROSEN MARSILI RAPP LLP
3600 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1800
Los Angeles, CA 90010-1800
Telephone: (213) 389 6050
Facsimile: (213) 389 0663
E-mail: jmarsili@rmrllp.com
bprimozic@rmrllp.com
TOWN SPORTS: Faces "Bishop" Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Town Sports
International, LLC. The case is styled as Cedric Bishop, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Town Sports International, LLC doing business as: New York Sports
Clubs, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05855 (S.D. N.Y., June 28,
2018).
Town Sports International, LLC, a health club company, owns and
operates fitness clubs. The company offers racquet sports, pools,
basketball courts, and various recreational activities. Its
services include personal training, massage, steam room and
sauna, sports clubs for kids, and fitness assessments. Town
Sports International, LLC was formerly known as TSI Club, LLC and
changed its name in June 2006. The company was founded in 1973
and is based in New York, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Tel: (917) 299-6612
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
TPPJ S. PASADENA: Magrdchian Sues over Unpaid Wages & Meal Breaks
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICK MAGRDCHIAN, individually and on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. TPPJ S. PASADENA,
LLC, a California limited liability company; and DOES 1 through
20, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC700657 (Cal. Super.
Ct., June 13, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages under the
California Labor Code.
According to the complaint, the Defendants required the Plaintiff
and aggrieved employees to work regular wages but did not pay
lawful wages, in violation of the various above applicable Wage
Orders, regulations, statutes, and ordinances. The Defendants
were obligated to pay Plaintiff and the aggrieved employees one
hour compensation for each meal and rest period interrupted or
not provided to them. By failing to pay employees based on the
improper minimum wage, Defendants failed to pay all missed meal
and rest period compensation due. The Defendants, and each of
them, consistently violated Labor Code by failing to provide
Plaintiff and members of the aggrieved employees accurate,
itemized wage statements. The Defendants, and each of them,
failed to pay all wages owed to terminated or resigned members of
the aggrieved employees.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ramin R. Younessi, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF RAMIN R. YOUNESSI
A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
3435 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2200
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 480 6200
Facsimile: (213) 480 6201
ULTA SALON: Velotta Seeks Overtime Pay under Labor Law
------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINA VELOTTA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. ULTA SALON, COSMETICS FRAGRANCE INC.,
the Defendant, Case No. 512226/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., June 13,
2018), alleges that Defendant has engaged and continues to engage
in illegal and improper wage practices including: (a) requiring
hourly employees to perform work without compensation after the
end of their scheduled shift; (b) failing to pay hourly employees
at their straight or agreed upon rate for all hours worked under
40 hours in a week; (c) failing to pay hourly employees overtime
of time and one-half their regular rate of pay for all hours
worked over 40 in a week; and (d) failing to provide accurate
wage statements, pursuant to the New York Labor Law.
Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. sells cosmetics,
fragrances, skin and hair care products, appliances, and
accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
THE LAW FIRM OF LOUIS GINSBERG, P.C.
1613 Northern Boulevard
Roslyn, NY 11576
Telephone: (516) 625 0105
UNITED NATURAL FOODS: Fails to Pay Wages, Cortez Says
-----------------------------------------------------
RICHARD B. CORTEZ on behalf of himself, and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. UNITED NATURAL FOODS, INC., UNITED
NATURAL FOODS WEST, INC. and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. 18CV329895 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 18, 2018),
alleges that Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff and
similarly situated delivery drivers for the cost and use of their
personal cell phones for work as required by California Labor
Code section 2802.
The Defendants also allegedly failed to provide rest and meal
breaks, and compensation for missed rest and meal breaks; failed
to timely pay Plaintiff for all hours worked and overtime
compensation; and failed to properly calculate regular rate of
pay; and failed to provide accurate wage statements.
UNFI is a distributor of natural and organic foods, specialty
foods, and related products in the United States and Canada.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robin G. Workman, Esq.
Rachel E. Davey, Esq.
WORKMAN LAW FIRM, PC
177 Post Street, Suite 800
San Francisco CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 782 3660
Facsimile: (415) 788 1028
E-mail: robin@workmanlawpc.com
rachel@workmanawpc.com
UNITED STATES: "Parton" Suit Moved to District of Columbia
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled LAHOMA SUE PARTON, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR, THE UNITED STATES OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, and
THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00409, was removed/transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Washington, DC)
on June 14, 2018. The Columbia District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:18-cv-01416-ABJ to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Amy Berman Jackson.
The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of a class of all those
similarly situated, brought this complaint under 28 U.S.C.
section 1346 for injunctive relief and for damages inflicted upon
them because of the negligent and wrongful acts and omissions of
federal employees while acting in the scope of their office or
employment, and under and 5 U.S.C. 552a for willful and ongoing
failure to comply with the statutory duties to protect
Plaintiff's private information. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason J Lewis, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JASON J. LEWIS, LLC
201 Twelfth St. NW
Albuquerque, NM 87102
Telephone: (505) 244 0950
UNITED STATES: Seeks 2nd Cir. Review of Decision in "Vidal" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Jefferson B. Sessions III and
Donald J. Trump filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit titled Vidal, et al. v. Nielsen, et al., Case No. 16-cv-
4756, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York (Brooklyn).
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, several
appeals have already been filed by parties of the lawsuit.
The Plaintiffs challenge the rescission of the Deferred Action
for Childhood Arrivals program, as well as other actions that the
Defendants are alleged to have taken in connection with the
rescission of that program. The Plaintiffs challenge the
rescission on substantive and procedural grounds under the
Administrative Procedure Act. The Plaintiffs also alleged that
the rescission violated equal protection and that the
implementation of the rescission violated due process.
The appellate case is captioned as Nielsen, et al. v. Vidal, et
al., Case No. 18-1313, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Respondents Martin Jonathan Batalla Vidal; Make the
Road New York, on behalf of itself, its members, its clients, and
all similarly situated individuals; Antonio Alarcon; Eliana
Fernandez; Carlos Vargas; Mariano Mondragon; and Carolina Fung
Feng, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated
individuals, are represented by:
Karen Cassandra Tumlin, Esq.
NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER
3450 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 639-3900
Facsimile: (213) 639-3911
E-mail: tumlin@nilc.org
Defendants-Petitioners Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Secretary of Homeland
Security; Jefferson B. Sessions III, United States Attorney
General; and Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, are
represented by:
Abby Christine Wright, Esq.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Telephone: (202) 514-5089
E-mail: Abby.Wright@usdoj.gov
UNITED STATES: Appeals Memo & Order in "Vidal" Suit to 2nd Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Donald J. Trump, Kirstjen M. Nielsen, and Jefferson B. Sessions
III, Defendants in the matters styled MARTIN JONATHAN BATALLA
VIDAL, et al. v. KIRSTJEN M. NIELSEN, et al., Case No. 16-cv-4756
(NGG) (JO), and STATE OF NEW YORK, et al. v. DONALD TRUMP, et
al., Case No. 17-cv-5228 (NGG) (JO), in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York, appeal to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from the March 29, 2018
Memorandum & Order of the Honorable Nicholas G. Garaufis.
The Defendants appeal pursuant to the District Court's April 30,
2018 order granting certification under 28 U.S.C. Section
1292(b).
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, several
appeals have already been filed by parties of the lawsuit.
The Plaintiffs challenge the rescission of the Deferred Action
for Childhood Arrivals program, as well as other actions that the
Defendants are alleged to have taken in connection with the
rescission of that program. The Plaintiffs challenge the
rescission on substantive and procedural grounds under the
Administrative Procedure Act. The Plaintiffs also alleged that
the rescission violated equal protection and that the
implementation of the rescission violated due process.
The appellate case is captioned as Vidal, et al. v. Nielsen, et
al., Case No. Case No. 18-1521, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees Martin Jonathan Batalla Vidal, Make the Road
New York, on behalf of itself, its members, its clients, and all
similarly situated individuals, Carlos Vargas, Mariano Mondragon
and Carolina Fung Feng are represented by:
Amy S. Taylor, Esq.
MAKE THE ROAD NY
301 Grove Street
Brooklyn, NY 11237
Telephone: (718) 418-7690
Facsimile: (718) 418-9635
E-mail: amy.taylor@maketheroadny.org
- and -
Clement Lee, Esq.
Scott Allen Foletta, Esq.
MAKE THE ROAD NEW YORK
92-10 Roosevelt Ave
Jackson Heights, NY 11373
Telephone: (718) 565-8500
Facsimile: (718) 565-0646
E-mail: clement.lee@maketheroadny.org
scott.foletta@maketheroadny.org
- and -
Justin B. Cox, Esq.
NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER
POB 170208
Atlanta, GA 30317
Telephone: (678) 279-5441
E-mail: cox@nilc.org
- and -
Jessica Hanson, Esq.
Karen C. Tumlin, Esq.
Mayra B. Joachin, Esq.
NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER
3450 Wilshire Boulevard #108-62
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 639-3900
Facsimile: (213) 639-3911
E-mail: hanson@nilc.org
tumlin@nilc.org
joachin@nilc.org
- and -
Joshua Rosenthal, Esq.
NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER
POB 345732
Washington, DC 20043
Telephone: (202) 216-0261
Facsimile: (202) 216-0266
E-mail: rosenthal@nilc.org
- and -
Trudy Sumiko Rebert, Esq.
NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER
P.O. Box 721361
Jackson Heights, NY 11372
Telephone: (646) 867-8793
E-mail: rebert@nilc.org
- and -
Marisol Orihuela, Esq.
Michael J. Wishnie, Esq.
Muneer Ahmad, Esq.
JEROME N. FRANK LEGAL SERVICES ORGANIZATION, INC.
YALE LAW SCHOOL
P.O. Box 209090
127 Wall Street
New Haven, CT 06520
Telephone: (203) 432-4800
Facsimile: (203) 432-1426
E-mail: marisol.orihuela@yale.edu
michael.wishnie@yale.edu
muneer.ahmad@yale.edu
Plaintiff-Appellee Make the Road New York, on behalf of itself,
its members, its clients, and all similarly situated individuals,
is represented by:
Alexia R Schapira, Esq.
MAKE THE ROAD NY
92-10 Roosevelt Ave.
New York, NY 11372
Telephone: (917) 734-0783
Facsimile: (718) 565-0644
E-mail: alexia.schapira@maketheroadny.org
Defendants-Appellants Donald J. Trump, President of the United
States; Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Secretary, Department of Homeland
Security; and Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, Attorney General of
the United States, are represented by:
Rachael Westmoreland, Esq.
Kate Bailey, Esq.
Stephen M. Pezzi, Esq.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
20 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20530
Telephone: (202) 514-1280
Facsimile: (202) 616-8470
E-mail: rachael.westmoreland@usdoj.gov
kate.bailey@usdoj.gov
stephen.pezzi@usdoj.gov
- and -
Joseph Anthony Marutollo, Esq.
U. S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
271 Cadman Plaza East
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Telephone: (718) 254-6288
Facsimile: (718) 254-7489
E-mail: joseph.marutollo@usdoj.gov
UNITED STATES: Appeals Decision in "Chhoeun" Suit to 9th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Thomas Homan, David W. Jennings, David Marin, Kirstjen
Nielsen and Jefferson B. Sessions, III, filed an appeal from a
court ruling in the lawsuit styled Nak Chhoeun, et al. v. David
Marin, et al., Case No. 8:17-cv-01898-CJC-GJS, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Santa Ana.
The appellate case is captioned as Nak Chhoeun, et al. v. David
Marin, et al., Case No. 18-55673, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 4, 2018, David
Marin, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling. That
appellate case is styled as Nak Kim Chhoeun, et al. v. David
Marin, et al., Case No. 18-55389.
The lawsuit seeks to prevent and challenge arbitrary and
indefinite detentions that violate statutory and regulatory law
as well as the U.S. Constitution.
Plaintiffs Nak Kim Chhoeun and Mony Neth allege that beginning in
October 2017, they have been arbitrarily and unlawfully detained
by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE"). The
Petitioners' and class members' families fled Cambodia in the
1970s to escape the Khmer Rouge's campaign of mass murder and
torture. They arrived in the United States as small children
after their families secured refugee status. The Plaintiffs and
class members have lived in the United States ever since.
The Plaintiffs assert that almost all of them are lawful
permanent residents and many have never set foot in Cambodia. In
every possible sense, the United States is their only home. The
Plaintiffs and class members were ordered removed based on
criminal convictions -- in many cases, decades-old convictions
for offenses they committed as teenagers.
The Plaintiffs say they were released from ICE custody because
Cambodia would not accept their repatriation. They returned to
their communities under orders of supervision, reporting
regularly to ICE and complying with the conditions of their
release. Many have U.S. citizen spouses, children, siblings, and
relatives who rely on them for support.
The Petitioners-Appellees are NAK KIM CHHOEUN, individually and
on behalf of a class of similarly-situated individuals, MONY
NETH, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly-situated
individuals, SALOEUN CHEA, TOL PECH, THY CHANN, PECH KHA, DALA
LOAV, BUNCHOEURN HY, KHEANG LOR, SOKA DOS, NORIT CHIN, ANG
THOEUN, SOKHAN KHIM, TITH TANG, KHUN SUM, LOK LIM, NHOUETH NHIM,
THELH KETH, SAMANANG YIN and THY VANN.
The Respondents-Appellants are DAVID MARIN, Field Office
Director, Los Angeles Field Office, United States Immigration and
Customs Enforcement; DAVID W. JENNINGS, Field Office Director,
San Francisco Field Office, United States Immigration and Customs
Enforcement; THOMAS D. HOMAN, Acting Director, United States
Immigration and Customs Enforcement; KIRSTJEN NIELSEN, Secretary,
United States Department of Homeland Security; and JEFFERSON B.
SESSIONS III, Attorney General.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Mediation Questionnaire was due on June 1, 2018;
-- Transcript must be ordered by June 25, 2018;
-- Transcript is due on July 23, 2018;
-- Appellants Thomas Homan, David W. Jennings, David Marin,
Kirstjen Nielsen and Jefferson B. Sessions III, Attorney
General's opening brief is due on September 4, 2018;
-- Appellees Thy Chann, Saloeun Chea, Nak Kim Chhoeun, Norit
Chin, Soka Dos, Bunchoeurn Hy, Thelh Keth, Pech Kha, Sokhan
Khim, Lok Lim, Dala Loav, Kheang Lor, Mony Neth, Nhoueth
Nhim, Tol Pech, Khun Sum, Tith Tang, Ang Thoeun, Thy Vann
and Samanang Yin's answering brief is due on October 1,
2018; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
service of the answering brief.[BN]
The Petitioners-Appellees are represented by:
Darlene Mi-Hyung Cho, Esq.
Katelyn Nicole Rowe, Esq.
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
1999 Avenue of the Stars, 17th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 595-9500
Facsimile: (310) 595-9501
E-mail: dcho@sidley.com
krowe@sidley.com
- and -
Sean Ashley Commons, Esq.
Michael Lawrence Mallow, Esq.
Naomi A. Igra, Esq.
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
555 West 5th Street
Los Angeles, CA 90013
Telephone: (213) 896-6010
Facsimile: (213) 896-6600
E-mail: scommons@sidley.com
mmallow@sidley.com
naomi.igra@sidley.com
- and -
Lee P. Gelernt, Esq.
ACLU-AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
125 Broad Street
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 549-2616
Facsimile: (212) 549-2654
E-mail: lgelernt@aclu.org
- and -
Laboni Amena Hoq, Esq.
ASIAN AMERICANS ADVANCING JUSTICE- LOS ANGELES
1145 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 977-7500
E-mail: lhoq@advancingjustice-la.org
- and -
Winifred V. Kao, Esq.
Anoop Prasad, Esq.
Jingni Zhao, Esq.
ASIAN LAW CAUCUS
55 Columbus Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 896-1701
Facsimile: (415) 896-1702
E-mail: winifredk@advancingjustice-alc.org
anoopp@advancingjustice-alc.org
jennyz@advancingjustice-alc.org
The Respondents-Appellants are represented by:
Joseph Carilli, Jr., Esq.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
P.O. Box 868
Ben Franklin Station
Washington, DC 20044
Telephone: (202) 616-4848
E-mail: joseph.f.carilli2@usdoj.gov
- and -
Troy David Liggett, Esq.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
450 5th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20530
Telephone: (202) 532-4765
Facsimile: (202) 305-7000
E-mail: troy.liggett@usdoj.gov
UNITED STATES: Asher Appeals Ruling in "Banos" Suit to 9th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Nathalie Asher, Lowell Clark, Thomas D. Homan and
James McHenry filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit
entitled Arturo Martinez Banos, et al. v. Nathalie Asher, et al.,
Case No. 2:16-cv-01454-JLR, in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, Seattle.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case
challenges the Defendants' authority to detain the Plaintiffs and
putative class members while their withholding-only proceedings
are pending. On July 6, 2017, the Ninth Circuit issued an order
resolving some of the legal issues raised by the Defendants. On
July 11, 2017, Judge James L. Robart dismissed Plaintiff Arturo
Martinez-Banos from this action and struck without prejudice the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the remaining Plaintiffs, Edwin
Flores Tejada and German Ventura Hernandez. Judge Robart also
re-referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Tsuchida for further
proceedings.
The appellate case is captioned as Arturo Martinez Banos, et al.
v. Nathalie Asher, et al., Case No. 18-35460, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Appellants Nathalie Asher, Lowell Clark, Thomas D. Homan
and James McHenry's opening brief is due on July 30, 2018;
-- Appellees Edwin Omar Flores Tejada, Jefferson B. Sessions
III, Attorney General and German Ventura Hernandez's
answering brief is due on August 28, 2018; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
service of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees EDWIN OMAR FLORES TEJADA and GERMAN VENTURA
HERNANDEZ, on behalf of themselves as individuals and on behalf
of others similarly situated, are represented by:
Matt Adams, Esq.
Leila Kang, Esq.
NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT
615 Second Avenue
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 957-8611
Facsimile: (206) 587-4025
E-mail: matt@nwirp.org
leila@nwirp.org
Plaintiff-Appellee EDWIN OMAR FLORES TEJADA is represented by:
Glenda Melinda Aldana Madrid, Esq.
NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT
615 Second Avenue
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 957-8611
Facsimile: (206) 587-4025
E-mail: glenda@nwirp.org
Defendants-Appellants NATHALIE ASHER, Field Office Director;
THOMAS D. HOMAN, Acting Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement; LOWELL CLARK, Warden; and JAMES MCHENRY, Director of
Executive Office for Immigration Review; and Defendant-Appellee
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Acting Attorney
General of the United States, are represented by:
Sairah Saeed, Esq.
Gladys Marta Steffens Guzman, Esq.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
P.O. Box 868
Ben Franklin Station
Washington, DC 20044
Telephone: (202) 532-4067
E-mail: sairah.g.saeed@usdoj.gov
Gladys.Steffens-Guzman@usdoj.gov
UNIVERSAL TAX: Seventh Circuit Appeal Filed in D&B II Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff D&B II Enterprises LLC filed an appeal from a court
ruling in its lawsuit styled D&B II Enterprises LLC v. Universal
Tax Systems, Incorporated, Case No. 1:13-cv-05702, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 7, 2018, the Hon.
Rebecca R. Pallmeyer granted the Defendant's motion for summary
judgment in the lawsuit.
The Plaintiff's motion to reconsider the dismissal of the fraud
claims is denied, and Plaintiff's motion for class certification
is stricken as moot.
D&B II Enterprises, LLC bought computer software from Universal
Tax Systems, Inc., for the purpose of preparing and filing
customers' tax returns. The software suffered from numerous
performance problems, and the Plaintiff sued the Defendant for
fraud.
After Judge James Block Zagel, to whom this case was assigned,
dismissed the fraud counts, the Plaintiff added several contract
and quasi-contract claims and moved to certify a class of
persons, who purchased the relevant software for the 2012 tax
year, according to the Court's memorandum opinion and order. The
Defendant, then, moved for summary judgment.
The appellate case is captioned as D&B II Enterprises LLC v.
Universal Tax Systems, Incorporated, Case No. 18-1966, in the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that the
Appellant's brief was due on or before June 11, 2018, for D&B II
Enterprises LLC.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant D&B II ENTERPRISES LLC, doing business as
BAIN ACCOUNTING/TAX on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, is represented by:
Elizabeth Anne Fegan, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO, LLP
455 N. Cityfront Plaza Drive
Chicago, IL 60611
Telephone: (708) 628-4949
Facsimile: (708) 628-4950
Email: beth@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Jason D. Sapp, Esq.
GRAY, RITTER & GRAHAM PC
701 Market Street
St. Louis, MO 63101-1826
Telephone: (314) 241-5620
Facsimile: (314) 241-4140
E-mail: jsapp@grgpc.com
Defendant-Appellee UNIVERSAL TAX SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED, a
Virginia corporation doing business as CCH SMALL FIRM SERVICES,
is represented by:
Craig C. Martin, Esq.
JENNER & BLOCK LLP
353 N. Clark Street
Chicago, IL 60654-3456
Telephone: (312) 923-2776
E-mail: cmartin@jenner.com
UNIVERSAL TOWING: Faces "Macdonald" Suit in Florida Circuit Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Universal Towing
Inc. The case is styled as Kenneth G Macdonald, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Universal Towing Inc. and GGA Office Tower I LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 2018-31090-CICI (Fla. Cir. Ct., June 28, 2018).
Universal Towing Inc. offers towing services in Holly Hill,
Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher Wickersham Jr., Esq.
Christopher Wickersham Jr, P.A.
2720 Park Street, Suite 205
Jacksonville, FL, 32204
Tel: (904) 389-6202
Fax: (904) 389-6204
Email: email@chriswickersham.com
U GYM: Faces "Bishop" Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against U Gym, LLC. The
case is styled as Cedric Bishop, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. U Gym, LLC doing business
as: Ufc Gym, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05856 (S.D. N.Y., June
28, 2018).
U Gym, LLC, doing business as UFC Gym, operates and franchises
fitness centers that offer boxing, kickboxing, group fitness, and
mixed martial arts (MMA) training for men, women, and kids. The
company offers a range of group fitness classes, private MMA
training, personal and group training, and MMA-style youth
programming.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Tel: (917) 299-6612
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
UDREN LAW OFFICES: Faces "Glover" Suit in Sup. Ct. of Penn.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Mary E. Glover, individually and on behalf of
other similarly situated former and current homeowners in
Pennsylvania, Plaintiff v. Udren Law Offices, P.C., Defendants,
Case No. 262-WAL-2018 was brought before the Supreme Court of
Pennsylvania on June 28, 201).
Udren Law Offices, P.C., a New Jersey debt collector.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael P. Malakoff, Esq.
3214 Ladoga Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15204
Tel: (412) 281-4217
- and -
Jonathan Robert Burns, Esq.
3214 Ladoga Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15204
Tel: (412) 281-4217
UNUM GROUP: Pittman Sues over Share Price Drop
----------------------------------------------
CYNTHIA PITTMAN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. UNUM GROUP, RICHARD P.
MCKENNEY, JOHN F. MCGARRY, and DANIEL J. WAXENBERG, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00128 (E.D. Tenn., June 13, 2018),
seeks to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.
According to the complaint, Unum claims to provide financial
protection benefits in the United States and the United Kingdom.
The Company's products purportedly include disability, life,
accident, critical illness, dental and vision, and other related
services.
On May 1, 2018, after the market closed, Unum issued a press
release entitled "Unum Group Reports First Quarter 2018 Results."
Therein, the Company, reported that its first quarter 2018 loss
ratio for its long-term care business was a disappointing 96.6%,
compared to only 88.6% for the first quarter of 2017. The first
quarter 2018 loss ratio also far exceeded the Company's earlier-
stated expectation of 85-90%.
On May 2, 2018, the Company held a conference call to discuss its
first quarter 2018 financial results. On the call, Defendant John
F. McGarry, the Company's Chief Financial Officer elaborated on
the Company's disclosures in the May 1 press release, stating
"[b]enefits experience this quarter was driven by new claim
incidence that ran much higher than expected" and "the higher
loss ratio this quarter was negatively impacted by a lower level
of policy terminations."
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $8.12 per share, or
nearly 17%, to close at $39.78 per share on May 2, 2018, on
unusually heavy trading volume. Throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose: (1) that the Company was
experiencing a higher claims incidence for its long-term care
business; (2) that the Company was experiencing less favorable
policy terminations in connection with its long-term care
business; (3) that, as such, the Company's long-term care
business loss ratio would reach the upper 90% range; and (4)
that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about
Unum's business, operations, and prospects, including statements
related to the Company's long-term care reserves and capital
management plans, were materially false and/or misleading and/or
lacked a reasonable basis. As a result of Defendants' wrongful
acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market
value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class
members have suffered significant losses and damages.
Unum Group is a Chattanooga, Tennessee-based Fortune 500
insurance company formerly known as UnumProvident.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
Tricia Herzfeld, Esq.
BRANSTETTER STRANCH & JENNINGS PLLC
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Ste. 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254 8801
Facsimile: (615) 250 3937
E-mail: gerards@bsjfirm.com
triciah@bsjfirm.com
- and -
Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201 9150
Facsimile: (310) 201 9160
- and -
Howard G. Smith, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH
3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
Bensalem, PA 19020
Telephone: (215) 638 4847
Facsimile: (215) 638 4867
US BANK: Bakal Appeals S.D.N.Y. Judgment and Order to 2nd Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Alexander Bakal, ESM Fund I, LP, David Visher and
Sandra Visher filed an appeal from the District Court's Judgment
dated April 3, 2018, and memorandum and order dated April 2,
2018, entered in their lawsuit titled Bakal, et al. v. U.S. Bank
National Association, Case No. 15-cv-6976, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City).
The nature of suit is stated as interstate commerce.
The appellate case is captioned as Bakal, et al. v. U.S. Bank
National Association, Case No. 18-1320, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants Alexander Bakal, On behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated; David Visher, On behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated; Sandra Visher; and
ESM Fund I, LP, On behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, are represented by:
Deborah R. Gross, Esq.
LAW OFFICES BERNARD M. GROSS, P.C.
100 Penn Square East
Wanamaker Building
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Telephone: (215) 561-3600
Facsimile: (215) 561-3000
E-mail: debbie@bernardmgross.com
Defendant-Appellee U.S. Bank National Association is represented
by:
Michael S. Kraut, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
101 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10178
Telephone: (212) 309-6927
E-mail: michael.kraut@morganlewis.com
USCB AMERICA: Faces "Maharam" Suit in N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against USCB America. The
case is styled as Princeton Maharam, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. USCB America,
Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-03880-MEJ (N.D. Cal., June 28,
2018).
USCB provides business process outsourcing and accounts
receivable solutions to Healthcare, Retail, Banking creditors,
and government Municipalities.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan A Stieglitz, Esq.
11845 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 750
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Tel: (323) 979-2063
Fax: (323) 488-6748
Email: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com
VISION SERVICE: Faces "Wright" Suit in California Superior Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vision Service
Plan. The lawsuit is captioned as Kimberly Wright, On behalf of
other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Does 1-25;
Eyefinity Inc., a Delaware corporation; Marchon Eyeware Inc, a
Delaware corporation; Vision Service Plan; VSP Global Inc, a
Delaware corporation; VSP Optical Group Inc., a Delaware
corporation; and VSP Vision Care, the Defendants, Case No.
34-2018-00234605-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super, Ct., June 12, 2018).
VSP is a vision care health insurance company operating in
Australia, Canada, Ireland, the US, and the UK. It has about 80
million people worldwide and is the largest vision insurance
company in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Drew E Pomerance, Esq.
ROXBOROUGH, POMERANCE, NYE & ADREANI, LLP
820 Canoga Avenue, Suite 250
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Telephone: (818) 992-9999
VITAJUWEL USA: Ashkinazi Sues over Effect of "Gem Water" Product
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANNA ASHKINAZI, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. VITAJUWEL USA,
INC., a California corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2018-CH-
0777 (Ill. Cir. Ct., June 21, 2018), seeks damages, restitution,
and injunctive relief against Defendant for false and deceptive
representations regarding the effects of the "Gem Water" product
on regular water.
The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant falsely advertises and
claims that stones encased in the hermetically sealed glass
capsule increase somehow the pH and the amount of dissolved
oxygen in any water that is poured into a "Gem Water" bottle. All
this without drinking water ever coming on contact with
hermetically sealed stones.
According to the complaint, in fact, "Gem Water" bottles do not
and could not increase the pH or the amount of dissolved oxygen
in water poured into "Gem Water" bottles.[BN]
Attorney for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class:
Yevgeniy "Eugene" I. Turin, Sr., Esq.
102 N. Milwaukee,
312 Deerfield, IL 60015
Telephone: 847 656 3323
E-Mail: attorney@eugeneturinlaw.com
VITA-MIX CORP: Bennett Appeals Ruling in "Linneman" to 6th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Interested Party Kamala Bennett filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit entitled Vicki Linneman, et al. v. Vita-Mix
Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00748, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, a settlement
has been reached in the class action lawsuit, which alleges that
the top seal of blade assemblies in certain Vitamix containers
may fleck, causing black flecks to enter food or drink during
blending. These flecks are of a non-stick material
(polytetrafluoroethylene or "PTFE") that is common in cookware
and many other products in the food industry.
The Plaintiffs' Complaint does not allege any medical harm
resulted from any consumption of PTFE. Vitamix produced
information from an independent third-party lab reporting that
the flecks are harmless when consumed and do not present a human
health or safety risk. However, the Plaintiffs allege that, as a
result of the black flecks Vitamix blenders are worth less than
what consumers and businesses paid to purchase them.
The appellate case is captioned as Vicki Linneman, et al. v.
Vita-Mix Corporation, et al., Case No. 18-3486, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.[BN]
Interested Party-Appellant KAMALA BENNETT is represented by:
Simina Vourlis, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF SIMINA VOURLIS
1689 W. Third Avenue
Columbus, OH 43212-6710
Telephone: (614) 487-5900
E-mail: svourlis@vourlislaw.com
Plaintiffs-Appellees VICKI A. LINNEMAN and OBADIAH N. RITCHEY, On
behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, are
represented by:
Andrew Biller, Esq.
Wilbert Benjamin Markovits, Esq.
Christopher David Stock, Esq.
MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO
119 E. Court Street, Suite 530
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (614) 604-8759
E-mail: abiller@msdlegal.com
bmarkovits@msdlegal.com
Cstock@msdlegal.com
- and -
Terence Richard Coates, Esq.
Paul Michael De Marco, Esq.
MARKOVITS, STOCK, & DE MARCO
3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650
Cincinnati, OH 45209
Telephone: (513) 665-0219
E-mail: tcoates@msdlegal.com
pdemarco@msdlegal.com
- and -
Christopher P. Finney, Esq.
Justin Charles Walker, Esq.
FINNEY LAW FIRM
4270 Ivy Pointe Boulevard, Suite 225
Cincinnati, OH 45245
Telephone: (513) 943-6650
E-mail: Chris@FinneyLawFirm.com
justin@finneylawfirm.com
- and -
Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA
1 W. Fourth Street, 18th Floor
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513) 345-8291
E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com
- and -
Jennifer J. Morales, Esq.
FROST BROWN TODD
301 E. Fourth Street, Suite 3300
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513) 651-6800
E-mail: jmorales@fbtlaw.com
Defendants-Appellees VITA-MIX CORPORATION, VITA-MIX MANAGEMENT
CORPORATION and VITA-MIX MANUFACTURING CORPORATION are
represented by:
J. Philip Calabrese, Esq.
Tracey L. Turnbull, Esq.
PORTER WRIGHT MORRIS & ARTHUR LLP
950 Main Avenue, Suite 500
Cleveland, OH 44113
Telephone: (216) 443-9000
E-mail: pcalabrese@porterwright.com
tturnbull@porterwright.com
- and -
Ana Elise Perez Crawford, Esq.
Caroline H. Gentry, Esq.
PORTER WRIGHT MORRIS & ARTHUR LLP
1 S. Main Street, Suite 1600
Dayton, OH 45402
Telephone: (937) 449-6810
E-mail: acrawford@porterwright.com
cgentry@porterwright.com
- and -
Carolyn A. Taggart, Esq.
PORTER WRIGHT MORRIS & ARTHUR LLP
250 E. Fifth Street, Suite 2200
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513) 381-4700
E-mail: ctaggart@porterwright.com
WALGREENS OF MASSACHSUETTS: Fails to Pay OT, Robbins Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
JUSTINE ROBBINS; on behalf of herself and all others similarly
Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. WALGREENS OF MASSACHSUETTS, LLC;
WALGREEN CO.; and WALGREEN EASTERN CO. INC., the Defendants, Case
No. 1:18-cv-11234 (D. Mass., June 13, 2018), seeks to recover all
unpaid overtime wages under Fair labor Standards Act.
According to the complaint, during any week in which Plaintiff or
other class members worked in excess of 40 hours, it was
Walgreens' uniform practice and policy to pay overtime wages to
them at an hourly rate equal to one and one-half times the
regular hourly rate that the company paid them for non-overtime
hours, regardless of whether they had earned or were paid any
additional compensation, such as a shift differential. Walgreens
did not include additional compensation, such as shift
differentials, in the regular hourly rate that it used to
calculate the overtime wages that it paid Plaintiff and other
class members.
This practice and policy resulted in Plaintiff and the other
class members not receiving all of the overtime wages that they
earned.
Walgreens is drugstore chain with health and beauty items, plus
first-aid supplies and household products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brook S. Lane, Esq.
Hillary Schwab, Esq.
FAIR WORK, P.C.
192 South Street, Suite 450
Boston, MA 02111
Telephone: (617) 607 3260
E-mail: brook@fairworklaw.com
hillary@fairworklaw.com
WALKERHEALTHCAREIT LLC: Claims in "Bey" FLSA/OMFWSA Suit Narrowed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DEBRA BEY, Plaintiff, v. WALKERHEALTHCAREIT, LLC, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-1167 (S.D. Ohio), Judge George
C. Smith of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio, Eastern Division, (i) granted in part and denied in part
the Walker Defendants' Motion to Dismiss; (ii) denied Encore
Health Resources, LLC's Motion to Dismiss; and (iii) denied the
Walker Defendants' Motion to Strike the Plaintiffs' consent forms
seeking to opt in to Bey's proposed collective action under the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").
Bey was employed by the Walker Defendants and Encore as an ATE
Go-Live Support Consultant ("ATE"), stationed at OhioHealth in
the state of Ohio, for some period of time during the applicable
statute of limitations period. Although Bey's employment
contract references WalkerHealthCareIT as her employer and refers
to Encore as a "client," Bey alleges that all the Defendants, in
a joint business effort, recruited, placed and managed ATEs at
various healthcare entities across the country, including
OhioHealth, for limited periods of time, to assist with the
implementation and administration of integrated health computer
systems. Projects varied in length but, on average, lasted a few
weeks at a time. Bey's primary duty as an ATE was to provide
first line troubleshooting relating to the implementation of the
Defendants' software system, and other duties were to reinforce
training for software programs and provide "at-the-elbow" IT
support.
Although Bey alleges she was jointly employed by all the
Defendants, she describes the WalkerHealthCareIT as being
responsible for recruiting and hiring ATEs, arranging their
travel and expense reimbursement, and issuing their paychecks;
and Encore would manage the day-today duties of ATEs, such as
conducting orientation and training sessions, setting ATE work
schedules, approving and maintaining ATEs' time and expense
reports, and evaluating the ATE's performance. Each ATE was
assigned to a specific Encore Team Manager or Project Manager who
served as the first point of management contact for the ATE.
Bey alleges that ATEs were assigned a schedule of at least 45
hours per week. However, ATEs were allegedly not paid in
compliance with state and federal labor laws in two ways: (1)
ATEs were paid only for hours worked that were also billed to the
Defendants' clients. ATEs were not compensated for hours worked
that were not billed to clients; and (2) for all hours for which
ATEs were paid, they were compensated at the standard "straight
time" hourly rate of pay, including all hours over 40 per
workweek, which should have been compensated at the 1.5 overtime
premium rate.
Bey also alleges that the Defendants did not keep accurate
records of the hours ATEs actually worked; rather, ATEs were
required to record only the hours they had been scheduled to
work. All of these actions are alleged by Bey to violate both
the FLSA, and the Ohio Fair Minimum Wage Standards Act
("OMFWSA").
Anticipating that the Defendants may argue that ATEs qualify for
one or more exemptions from the FLSA and OMFWSA, Bey also alleges
that ATEs do not so qualify inasmuch as they did not have
management as their primary duty; did not have a primary duty
that required use of discretion or independent judgment; did not
perform work requiring advanced knowledge in a field of science
or learning; did not perform work requiring invention,
imagination, originality, or talent in a recognized field of
artistic or creative endeavor; and were not employed as computer
systems analysts, computer programmers, software engineers, or
similarly skilled computer employees.
Bey commenced th4 action on Dec. 13, 2016, asserting individual
claims on her own behalf, and also seeking to act as the
representative Plaintiff for a collective action under the FLSA
and a Rule 23 class action under the OFMWSA. The Walker
Defendants and Encore filed motions to dismiss, but in opposing
those motions, Bey also sought leave to amend the Complaint. To
further the Court's preference to allow cases to reach the merits
rather than through early dismissal, the Court granted leave for
Bey to amend her Complaint to cure whatever deficiencies
Plaintiff believed existed. Bey filed her Amended Complaint on
Sept. 9, 2017, which mooted the previous motions to dismiss. The
Walker Defendants and Encore now move again to dismiss Bey's
Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Shortly after Bey filed her Amended Complaint, she also began
periodically filing consent forms executed by other ATEs who
wished to join Bey's proposed FLSA collective action. Bey has
not at this time filed a motion under 29 U.S.C. Section 216
seeking conditional certification of the proposed collective
action. The Walker Defendants have moved to strike the consent
forms as premature prior to the Court's conditional certification
of the collective action, and to enjoin Bey from filing any
further consent forms until the Court grants conditional
certification.
Judge Smith granted in part and denied in part the Walker
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. To the extent Bey's Amended
Complaint asserts claims for injunctive relief under the FLSA or
liquidated damages under the OMFWSA, those claims are dismissed.
All other claims against the Walker Defendants remain pending.
The Judge finds that it is true, as pointed out by the Walker
Defendants, that Bey did not explicitly allege the second prong
of the enterprise coverage definition: that WalkerHealthCareIT
has an annual gross volume of sales made or business done of at
least $500,000 as required by 29 U.S.C. Section 203(s)(1)(A)(ii).
However, Bey did allege that the Defendants are engaged in
commerce within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. Section 203(s)(1)(A).
And at least one district court in this Circuit has held that
incorporating 29 U.S.C. Section 203(s)(1)(A) into a complaint is
sufficient to allege the annual gross sales criterion. These
allegations are not elaborate, but they do suffice for a
plausible enterprise coverage claim under the FLSA.
The Judge also finds that Bey's Amended Complaint expressly
references liquidated damages as a remedy for violations of the
OMFWSA, and to the extent Bey asserts a claim for liquidated
damages under the Ohio statute, that claim is dismissed.
However, she also includes a request for liquidated damages under
her general prayer for relief that is not expressly brought under
either the OMFWSA or FLSA. Because the FLSA does provide for
liquidated damages, Bey may pursue those damages as part of her
FLSA claim.
Further, the Judge denied Encore's Motion to Dismiss. There
being no dispute that WalkerHealthCareIT was Bey's employer, Bey
may sufficiently allege liability against Encore in either of two
ways. First, Bey may allege that she had a direct employment
relationship with Encore, as determined by the "economic reality"
test as set forth in Donovan v. Brandel; or, alternatively, she
may allege that Encore and WalkerHealthCareIT are sufficiently
interrelated in their business operations such that Encore was a
"joint employer" along with WalkerHealthCareIT, as determined by
the test set forth in Int'l Longshoremen's Ass'n, AFL-CIO, Local
Union No.1937 v. Norfolk S. Corp.
Finally, Judge Smith denied the Walker Defendants' Motion to
Strike. He holds that the relevant case law implies that Bey
need not make a showing that the other ATEs are similarly
situated, or are proper parties under Rule 20, before filing the
consent forms. Accordingly, there is no reason to strike the
existing consent forms or enjoin Bey from filing additional
consent forms.
The Clerk will remove Documents 51, 52, and 64 from the Court's
pending motions list.
A full-text copy of the Court's May 1, 2018 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/1SKnVm from Leagle.com.
Debra Bey, Plaintiff, represented by James Papakirk --
jpapakirk@fp-legal.com -- Flagel & Papakirk LLC, Andrew Ficzko --
aficzko@stephanzouras.com -- pro hac vice, Gregory E Hull --
ghull@fp-legal.com -- Flagel & Papakirk LLC, James B. Zouras ,
Stephan Zouras, LLP, pro hac vice & Ryan F. Stephan, STEPHAN
ZOURAS, LLP, pro hac vice.
WalkerHealthCareIT, LLC, WalkerSearchGroup, LLC, Tiffany Walker &
Gregory Walker, Defendants, represented by Colin D. Dougherty --
cdougherty@foxrothschild.com -- Fox Rothschild LLP & Jonathan D.
Christman -- jchristman@foxrothschild.com -- Fox Rothschild LLP,
pro hac vice.
Encore Health Resources LLC, Defendant, represented by Katharine
C. Weber -- katharine.weber@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis LLP
& Matthew Richard Byrne -- Matthew.Byrne@jacksonlewis.com --
Jackson Lewis, LLP.
WASHINGTON, DC: Pendergrass Appeals Decision in "Little" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Galen Pendergrass filed an appeal from a court ruling
in the lawsuit styled Erick Little, et al. v. WMATA, et al., Case
No. 1:14-cv-01289-RMC, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, nine
plaintiffs, together with the Washington Lawyers' Committee for
Civil Rights, NAACP Legal Defense Fund and Arnold & Porter LLP
filed a class action lawsuit against Washington Metropolitan Area
Transit Authority and three contractors on July 30, 2014.
Together, they're arguing that WMATA has violated federal and
local anti-discrimination laws with its criminal background
screening policy.
"While criminal background information can be a legitimate tool
for employers when screening job applicants, WMATA's policy is
unduly harsh, out of step with other jurisdictions, and limits
opportunities for qualified African American employees," ReNika
Moore, Director of the Economic Justice Group at the NAACP Legal
Defense Fund, said in a press release.
The plaintiffs are asserting that WMATA's policy violates Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act and goes against guidelines from the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, resulting in firings and
the disqualification of applicants, a disproportionate number of
whom have been African Americans.
The appellate case is captioned as Erick Little, et al. v. WMATA,
et al., Case No. 18-7071, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Plaintiff-Appellant Galen Pendergrass, 15cv98; and Plaintiff-
Appellee Bernard S. Levi appear pro se.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees Erick Little; D. W., a minor child, as
successors to the claims of Lawrence Whitted; and Joyce Short,
next friend to her son D.W., as successors to the claims of
Lawrence Whitted, are represented by:
John A. Freedman, Esq.
Peter Thomas Grossi, Jr., Esq.
ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
601 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001-3743
Telephone: (202) 942-5000
Facsimile: (202) 942-5999
E-mail: john.freedman@aporter.com
peter.grossi@aporter.com
Plaintiff-Appellee Erick Little is represented by:
Rachel Kleinman, Esq.
NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.
40 Rector Street, 5th Floor
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (212) 219-1900
E-mail: rkleinman@naacpldf.org
- and -
Coty Rae Montag, Esq.
NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.
1444 I Street, NW, 10th Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 682-1300
E-mail: cmontag@naacpldf.org
Plaintiffs-Appellees Erick Little, Timothy Mcclough, Gerald
Tucker, Leroy Quarles, Fitzgerald Stoney, Marcello Virgil, Leon
McKenzie, Sidney Davis and Louia McKenzie, On behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Ajmel Ahsen Quereshi, Esq.
HOWARD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW
2900 Van Ness Street, NW
Washington, DC 20008
Telephone: (202) 806-8000
Defendant-Appellee Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
is represented by:
Michael K. Guss, Esq.
WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY
600 5th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: (202) 962-1013
- and -
Kathleen E. Kraft, Esq.
THOMPSON COBURN LLP
1909 K Street, NW, Suite 600
Washington, DC 20006-1167
Telephone: (202) 585-6900
E-mail: kkraft@thompsoncoburn.com
Defendant-Appellee Diamond Transportation Services, Inc., is
represented by:
Michael N. Petkovich, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS PC
10701 Parkridge Boulevard, Suite 300
Reston, VA 20191
Telephone: (703) 483-8300
Defendant-Appellee Executive Personnel Services, Inc., is
represented by:
Matthew David Berkowitz, Esq.
CARR MALONEY PC
2020 K Street, NW, Suite 850
Washington, DC 20006-1806
Telephone: (202) 310-5500
E-mail: mb@carrmaloney.com
Defendant-Appellee First Transit is represented by:
Richard William Black, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON PC
815 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 400
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 842-3400
Facsimile: (202) 478-2623
E-mail: rblack@littler.com
WAYNE, MI: Woodall, et al. Seek to Certify Classes
--------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned KATRINA WOODALL, et al., on behalf of
herself and all similarly situated female inmates of the Wayne
County Jail, the Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF WAYNE; BENNY N.
NAPOLEAN, In his Official Capacity as WAYNE COUNTY SHERIFF; and
OFFICER GRAHAM, in her Individual Capacity; jointly and
severally, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-13707-AJT-EAS (E.D.
Mich.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order to certify
these classes:
Class No. 1
"all females who were housed, detained, and/or incarcerated by
the Wayne County Sheriff at any of the three Wayne County Jail
Divisions from the period of August 13, 2009 until the date of
judgment or settlement of this case, who, without a legitimate
penological interest, were forcibly exposed in the nude to
members of the opposite sex while subject to strip and/or
visual body cavity searches pursuant to the Wayne County
Sheriff's policies, practices, and/or customs, and who allege
they have suffered a compensable injury as a result of the
search";
Class No. 2
"all females who were housed, detained, and/or incarcerated by
the Wayne County Sheriff at any of the three Wayne County Jail
Divisions from the period of August 13, 2009 until the date of
judgment or settlement of this case, who, without a legitimate
penological interest, were subject to strip and/or visual body
cavity searches in a group with other inmates also being strip
and/or visual body cavity searched, and which searches did not
afford privacy from others, pursuant to the Wayne County
Sheriff's policies, practices, and/or customs, and who allege
they have suffered a compensable injury as a result of the
search";
Class No. 3
"all females who were housed, detained, and/or incarcerated by
the Wayne County Sheriff at any of the three Wayne County Jail
Divisions from the period of August 13, 2009 until the date of
judgment or settlement of this case, who, without a legitimate
penological interest, were subject to strip and/or visual body
cavity searches under unsanitary and/or unhygienic conditions,
including being exposed to the bodily fluids of other inmates
who were being strip searched, pursuant to the Wayne County
Sheriff's policies, practices, and/or customs, and who allege
they have suffered a compensable injury as a result of the
search"; and
Class No. 4
"all females who were housed, detained, and/or incarcerated by
the Wayne County Sheriff at any of the three Wayne County Jail
Divisions from the period of August 13, 2009 until the date of
judgment or settlement of case, who, without a legitimate
penological interest, were subject to gender-based comments by
Defendant Graham during strip and/or visual body cavity
searches, and who allege they have suffered a compensable
injury as a result of the search".
A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Y9IQlZd2
Attorneys for Plaintiff:
Dennis A. Dettmer, Esq.
Michael R. Dezsi, Esq.
DETTMER & DEZSI, PLLC
615 Griswold St, Suite 1410
Detroit, MI 48226
Telephone: (313) 281 8090
E-mail: ddettmeresq@yahoo.com
mdezsi@dezsilaw.com
Attorneys for Defendants:
Zenna Elhasan, Esq.
Davidde Stella, Esq.
WAYNE COUNTY CORPORATION COUNSEL
500 Griswold St., Fl. 30
Detroit, MI 48226
Telephone: (313) 224 0696
E-mail: dstella@waynecounty.com
WEBLOYALTY.COM INC: Court Narrows Discovery Scope in "Park"
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District
California granted in part and denied in part Parties' Joint
Motion for Determination of Discovery Disputes in the case
captioned KEVIN PARK, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WEBLOYALTY.COM, INC., a
Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 12CV1380-LAB(JMA) (S.D.
Cal.).
In their Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery Dispute, the
parties raised three categories of disputes arising from Park's
responses to Webloyalty's first set of document requests.
Park brought this putative class action alleging Webloyalty
operates an online marketing scam that preys on unsuspecting
consumers through partnerships with established online retailers.
Park contends Webloyalty tricks consumers into enrolling in its
fee-based membership reward programs as they complete purchase
transactions from these established online retailers.
The parties' dispute involves Park's Responses to Request Nos. 9,
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 18 and concerns three categories of
information.
Document Request No. 9
Request No. 9 seeks documents concerning the terms of Park's
engagement of class counsel, including documents related to any
benefits he expects to receive in his role as class
representative beyond his pro-rata share of the class recovery.
Park objected to this Request on the ground it seeks information
that is not relevant to the action. Webloyalty argues Park's
objection is not well-based, and that his retainer agreement with
counsel is relevant to whether conflicts exist between him and
the purported classes, and whether he can adequately represent
the purported classes.
Here, the Court finds that there is no evidence of any suspect
relationship or conflict between Park and class counsel.
Webloyalty has not articulated any reason to believe Park's
retainer agreement contains the type of incentive agreement nor
does it offer any other reason to suspect a conflict exists
between Park and the putative class members. Furthermore, Park's
counsel has represented that no such incentive agreement exists
and that Webloyalty's counsel will be permitted to question Park
about his retention agreement and explore whether there is any
incentive agreement between him and his counsel during his
deposition. Accordingly, under these circumstances, there is no
reason to believe Park's retention agreement is relevant and,
therefore, Webloyalty's motion to compel is denied with respect
to Request No. 9.
Document Request No. 15
Request No. 15 seeks statements for the debit card used in
connection with the Plaintiff's enrollment in any Webloyalty
program or any other good or service purchased through data pass.
Park generally argues the information sought is private, but does
not explain how its disclosure would be harmful to him, or why
any such harm would not be mitigated by producing this
information subject to a protective order. In weighing his
privacy interests against Webloyalty's right to obtain documents
that are relevant to the claims and defenses at issue, the
balance tips in favor of disclosing information about his
shopping habits.
Park's wife, however, shares the account with him. She is not a
party to this case, and her shopping habits are not at issue.
Information about transactions she initiated, therefore, is only
relevant to the extent that Park contends he did not detect the
Webloyalty charges because they were too small in the context of
all other charges that appear on his statements. Given the lesser
relevance of information about transactions authorized by Park's
wife, as opposed to Park, and the fact that these transactions
implicate the privacy rights of a third-party, the balance tips
in favor of not disclosing this information.
Based on this, the Court grants in part and denies in part
Webloyalty's motion to compel with respect to Request No. 15.
Park is directed to produce these documents without redaction,
except for information about transactions solely initiated or
authorized by his wife. The Court previously entered a protective
order, pursuant to which Park may designate these documents as
confidential and limit their use and disclosure.
Document Request Nos. 11-14, 18
Requests No. 11-14 and 18 seek documents relating to the
Plaintiff's relationship with GameStop, the retailer he believed
that he was providing his email address to" when he enrolled in
Webloyalty's program.
The Court finds these Requests are vastly overbroad, in that they
seek documents pertaining to any and all of Park's interactions
and/or purchases with GameStop without any restriction as to time
or similar types of transactions as the one that was the genesis
of this case. Park has not put his relationship with GameStop at
issue so as to warrant a wholesale exploration into each and
every interaction he has had with GameStop over the course of his
life. The information sought is irrelevant and is certainly not
proportional to the needs of the case. Webloyalty's motion to
compel further Responses to these Requests is, therefore, denied.
A full-text copy of the District Court's April 30, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ycxl9zof from Leagle.com.
Kevin Park, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Allison H. Goddard --
ali@pattersonlawgroup.com -- Patterson Law Group, APC, James
Richard Patterson -- jim@pattersonlawgroup.com -- Patterson Law
Group, APC & Alisa A. Martin -- alisa@amartinlaw.com -- Amartin
Law, PC.
Webloyalty.com, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant,
represented by Aaron Shawn Thompson --
aaron.thompson@wilmerhale.com -- Wilmer Hale, Jessica R. Lisak --
jessica.lisak@wilmerhale.com -- Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale &
Dorr LLP, pro hac vice, John J. Butts --
john.butts@wilmerhale.com -- Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and
Dorr LLP, pro hac vice, John J. Regan --
john.regan@wilmerhale.com -- Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and
Dorr LLP, pro hac vice, Michael Jules Brown --
reginald.brown@wilmerhale.com -- Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale &
Dorr LLP, pro hac vice, Seth B. Orkand, Wilmer Cutler Pickering
Hale & Dorr LLP, pro hac vice, Stephen N. Provazza --
stephen.provazza@wilmerhale.com -- Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale
and Dorr LLP, pro hac vice, Timothy J. Perla --
timothy.perla@wilmerhale.com -- Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale &
Dorr LLP, pro hac vice & Christopher T. Casamassima --
chris.casamassima@wilmerhale.com -- WilmerHale.
WEINERT ENTERPRISES: Underpays Employees, Anderson Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Richard J. Anderson On behalf of Himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Weinert Enterprises Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00901-WCG (E.D. Wisc., June 14,
2018), seeks redress for Weinert's failure to correctly
compensate the Plaintiffs for their hours worked on both
prevailing wage and non-prevailing wage projects.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs would not receive
weekly overtime pay unless and until they worked 40 hours plus
their paid travel hours during a workweek. Additionally,
Plaintiffs sometimes were paid, for their overtime hours worked,
at a rate lower than 1.5 times the cash wage that they received
for performing the same work, so that they did not receive weekly
overtime pay equal to 1.5 times the straight time rate for the
same work for each and every one of their hours worked over 40
per week.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yingtao Ho, Esq.
THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM S.C.
1555 North RiverCenter Drive, Suite 202
P. O. Box 12993
Milwaukee, WI 53212
Telephone: 414 271 4500
Facsimile: 414 271 6308
E-mail: yh@previant.com
WELCH FOODS: "Hall" Suit Transferred to District of New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------------
LAUREN HALL, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. Welch Foods, Inc., a Cooperative, and THE
PROMOTION IN MOTION COMPANIES, INC., the Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-05828, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey (Trenton) on June 13, 2018. The New
Jersey District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-10500 to
the proceeding.
Welch Foods Inc. is an American company, headquartered in
Concord, Massachusetts. It has been owned by the National Grape
Cooperative Association, a co-op of grape growers, since
1956.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael H. Ansell, Esq.
ANSELL GRIMM & AARON PC
365 Rifle Camp Road
Woodland Park, NJ 07424
Telephone: (973) 247 9000
Facsimile: (973) 247 9199
E-mail: mha@ansellgrimm.com
- and -
Kim Richman, Esq.
REESE RICHMAN LLP
875 Sixth Avenue, Suite 1808
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (212) 687 8291
Facsimile: (212) 687 8292
The Defendants are represented by:
David R. King, Esq.
Leah Kelman, Esq.
Ronald Jay Levine, Esq.
HERRICK, FEINSTEIN LLP
One Gateway Center
Newark, NJ 07102
Telephone: (973) 274 2000
E-mail: dking@herrick.com
lkelman@herrick.com
WELLS FARGO: Royal Park Wants to Appeal Denial of Class Cert.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Royal Park Investments SA/NV files with the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit a petition for
permission to appeal, pursuant to Rule 23(f) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, relating to rulings entered in its lawsuit
entitled ROYAL PARK INVESTMENTS SA/NV, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., as
Trustee, Case No. 1:14-cv-09764-KPF-SN, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.
The Petition seeks interlocutory review of the latest in a series
of decisions by judges in the Southern District of New York
denying certification in putative class actions against
residential mortgage-backed securities ("RMBS") trustees based on
erroneous application of this Court's decisions in Brecher v.
Republic of Arg., 806 F.3d 22 (2d Cir. 2015), and In re Petrobras
Sec. Litig., 862 F.3d 250 (2d Cir. 2017), petition for cert.
filed, Nov. 1, 2017, but stayed pending settlement, Royal Park
contends. Royal Park asserts that these decisions threaten to
extinguish investors' ability to pursue claims related to
hundreds of billions of dollars in losses against faithless
fiduciaries, including Wells, who put their own interests in
maintaining lucrative relationships with their clients above the
interests of the certificateholders they were obligated to
protect.
Royal Park presents these questions to the Second Circuit:
1. Is Rule 23(f) review warranted when a district court fails
to engage in a rigorous comparative inquiry to determine
whether common questions predominate over individual
questions?
2. Is Rule 23(f) review warranted when a district court finds
that speculative individual questions predominate over the
common question of a defendant's contractual and common-law
violations? and
3. Is there a compelling need for immediate resolution when
recent district court opinions manifestly misinterpret
evolving Second Circuit precedent in a manner that impacts
claims for hundreds of billions of dollars in losses?
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 17, 2018, the
Hon. Katherine Polk Failla of Manhattan refused to certify a
class led by Royal Park, which sued Wells Fargo for failing in
its duties as the trustee of two mortgage-backed securities
trusts. Judge Failla adopted the recommendation of the
magistrate in the Wells Fargo case, U.S. Magistrate Judge Sarah
Netburn, who found individual issues -- including constitutional
standing to sue, timeliness of claims and potential damages --
predominated over common issues for investors in the trusts
overseen by Wells Fargo.
As Judge Failla noted, she is actually the fourth Manhattan
federal judge to deny class certification in an MBS trustee suit
by Royal Park -- and the third since the beginning of 2018. U.S.
District Judge Alison Nathan issued her denial of Royal Park's
renewed class certification motion in an MBS trustee case against
Deutsche Bank. U.S. District Judge Lorna Schofield denied class
certification in January in Royal Park's suit against HSBC. Last
August, U.S. District Judge Gregory Woods refused to certify an
investor class against MBS trustee BNY Mellon, though Royal Park
has filed a renewed motion for class certification in that
case.[BN]
The Plaintiff-Petitioner is represented by:
Christopher M. Wood, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
414 Union Street, Suite 900
Nashville, TN 37219
Telephone: (615) 244-2203
Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
E-mail: cwood@rgrdlaw.com
Defendant-Respondent Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., is represented by:
Joseph James Boylan, Esq.
Harold Keith Gordon, Esq.
Kurt Michael Gosselin, Esq.
Jason Jurgens, Esq.
Tracy V. Schaffer, Esq.
Howard Fredrick Sidman, Esq.
Eric Peter Stephens, Esq.
Jayant W. Tambe, Esq.
JONES DAY
250 Vesey Street, 34th Floor
New York, NY 10281
Telephone: (212) 326-3939
Facsimile: (212) 755-7306
E-mail: jboylan@jonesday.com
hkgordon@jonesday.com
kgosselin@jonesday.com
jjurgens@jonesday.com
tschaffer@jonesday.com
hfsidman@jonesday.com
epstephens@jonesday.com
jtambe@jonesday.com
- and -
Paul Bartholomew Green, Esq.
JONES DAY
3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 800
Irvine, CA 92612
Telephone: (949) 851-3939
Facsimile: (949) 553-7539
E-mail: bartgreen@jonesday.com
- and -
Traci Leigh Lovitt, Esq.
JONES DAY
100 High Street, 21st Floor
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 960-3939
Facsimile: (617) 449-6999
E-mail: tlovitt@jonesday.com
- and -
Rebekah B. Kcehowski, Esq.
JONES DAY
500 Grant Street, Suite 4500
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Telephone: (412) 394-7935
Facsimile: (412) 394-7959
E-mail: rbkcehowski@jonesday.com
- and -
Clay J. Pierce, Esq.
DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH, LLP
1177 Avenue of the Americas, 41st Floor
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 248-3186
Facsimile: (212) 248-3141
E-mail: clay.pierce@dbr.com
Amherst Advisory & Management, LLC, is represented by:
Gayle Rosenstein Klein, Esq.
MCKOOL SMITH
One Bryant Park, 47th Floor
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 402-9400
Facsimile: (212) 402-9444
E-mail: gklein@mckoolsmith.com
WELLS FARGO: Seeks Ninth Circuit Review of Order in "Ibarra" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit entitled Jacqueline Ibarra v. Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A., Case No. 2:17-cv-04344-PA-AS, in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles.
The appellate case is captioned as Jacqueline Ibarra v. Wells
Fargo Bank, N.A., Case No. 18-55626, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Mediation Questionnaire was due May 23, 2018;
-- Appellant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.'s opening brief is due on
July 16, 2018;
-- Appellee Jacqueline F. Ibarra's answering brief is due on
August 13, 2018; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
service of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee JACQUELINE F. IBARRA, an individual, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, is represented
by:
Joshua H. Haffner, Esq.
Graham G. Lambert, Esq.
HAFFNER LAW PC
445 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2325
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 514-5681
Facsimile: (213) 514-5682
E-mail: jhh@haffnerlawyers.com
gl@haffnerlawyers.com
Defendant-Appellant WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., is represented by:
Paul Berkowitz, Esq.
Jason Patrick Brown, Esq.
Thomas Roy Kaufman, Esq.
SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
1901 Avenue of the Stars
Los Angeles, CA 90067-6001
Telephone: (310) 228-3700
E-mail: pberkowitz@sheppardmullin.com
jpbrown@sheppardmullin.com
tkaufman@sheppardmullin.com
WISMETTAC ASIAN: Fails to Pay Wages, Orellana Says
--------------------------------------------------
CARLOS A. ORELLANA, RONALD MENA C., MARVIN CASTTLLO, AND ROLANDO
LOPEZ, on behalf of themselves and all persons similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. WISMETTAC ASIAN FOODS, INC., a
California Corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. BC709637 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 14, 2018),
seeks to recover unpaid wages under the California Labor Code.
Wismettac Asian Foods, Inc. is a multi-national corporation that
imports, produces, and distributes food and other products.
Wismettac employs the Plaintiffs.
According to the complaint, the Defendant puts its bottom line
above the health and safety of its drivers. Drivers are supposed
to receive a 30-minute off-duty meal period after five hours of
work with a second 30-minute off-duty meal period if the shift is
ten or more hours long. Instead, Defendant has its drivers clock
out for 30 minutes and guard the truck. During meal periods
drivers can go into restaurants to order food to go, but they
have to keep their trucks in sight at all times. Drivers must eat
in the cabs of their trucks, but Defendant does not permit
turning on the truck to use air conditioning. As a result,
Plaintiffs must often choose between suffering through a
stiflingly hot 30-minute meal period or cutting it short to gain
the relief of air conditioning. The Defendant also requires its
drivers to work off-the-clock if they are in jeopardy of driving
or being on duty for longer than legally allowed in accordance
with California and Federal drive-time regulations. Defendant
failed to pay Plaintiff at all for these off-the-clock hours of
work in violation of California's minimum, regular, and overtime
wage laws.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Dennis J. Hayes, Esq.
Renee Q. Sanchez, Esq.
Tracy J. Jones, Esq.
HAYES, ORTEGA & SANCHEZ, LLP
3625 Ruffin Road, Suite 300
San Diego, CA 92123
Telephone: (619) 297 6900
E-mail: djh@sdlaborlaw.com
rqs@sdlaborlaw.com
tjj@sdlaborlaw.com
*********
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 * * *