/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/180806.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, August 6, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 156 Headlines 201 WATER STREET: Luxury Condo Firm Faces ADA Class Suit 30 PARK PLACE: James Murphy Files Suit Under ADA 95TH AND THIRD: Murphy Files ADA Class Suit A3H FOODS: Underpays Restaurant Workers, "McMiller" Suit Say AEGIS SENIOR: Wins Prelim. Approval of "Conlin" Class Settlement ALLIANT CREDIT: Page Suit Alleges Consumer Fraud Act Violations ALPHA TEAM CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Drummer Says AMERICAN HOMES: Woods FLSA Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages AMERICAN HONDA: Bill Schepler Sues over Seat Belts AVANTE USA: Faces Johnson FDCPA Suit in South Carolina BEAUTIFUL GROUP: Olsen Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York BEST BUY CO: Dornaus Says 0% Interest Promotion Schemes Deceptive BOULDER BRANDS: Cordes Suit Asserts Fraud BTA BUILDING: Faces Corona FLSA Suit in E.D. New York CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Rammer FDCPA Suit Filed in E.D. New York CHARLTON STREET: Murphy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CHARTER FINANCIAL: Rubin Seeks to Block Sale to CenterState Bank CHEETAH MOBILE: Rosso Suit Seeks to Stop Unsolicited Text Messages CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL: Does Not Pay Overtime Wages, Miller Suit Says COLLECTION BUREAU: Faces Mckeown FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York CONN'S INC: October 11 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set COSTCO WHOLESALE: Demurrer in Ensure Tax Reimbursement Suit Upheld DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: Focke Files Product Liability Class Suit E L G PARKING: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Duran Says EAT GREEN: Gomez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site EDUCATIONAL EMPLOYEES: Amanda Hurst Sues over Overdraft Fees ELI LILLY: Bentele et al. RICO Suit Moved to New Jersey FIRST NATIONAL: Guerrero Sues Over Debt Collection Practices GOLD COAST: Perez Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages GOOGLE LLC: ABA Files Amicus Brief in Frank v Gaos GRAB & GO: Deli Faces Juarez Suit Over Unpaid Wages GROUNDLINK HOLDINGS: Olsen Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York HEALTHPLANONE LLC: Quintana Suit Alleges FLSA Violation Henry V Murray: James Murphy Files Suit Under ADA HYUNDAI MOTORS: 4th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of 3 Consumer Suits ILLINOIS CLINICAL: Prebe Seeks Minimum Wages for Phlebotomists INTERNATIONAL COMPUTER: Velez Files FLSA Suit in S.D. Florida LIQUID WEB: Underpays Account Executives, "Enriquez" Suit Says LOW-T CENTERS: Lozano Suit Alleges Discrimination & Harassment MACK PEST: Fails to Pay Technicians Proper OT Wages, Lamar Claims MDL 2551: Court Denies Certification of NHL Hockey Players MDL 2863: Ford and Dubrovsky Seek to Consolidate 3 Cases MERCURY SYSTEMS: Richmond Files Securities Class Action in Mass. METHODIST HEALTH: Rudy Goff Files Suit to Recover Wages Under FLSA MEX LUNA: Salman Suit Seeks to Recoup Overtime Wages Under FLSA MICROSOFT INC: Employees Appeal Gender Bias Class Action Ruling MIDLAND CREDIT: Folson Sues over Debt Collection Practices MONARCH RECOVERY: Faces Olson FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York MONROE NAIL II: Faces Cui FLSA Suit in New York MONTAGUE URGENT: Faces Murphy ADA Suit in S.D. New York MONTE PIZZA: Galindo Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages MOTEL 6: Settles Discrimination Class Action MULLEN & IANNARONE: Lockett Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Faces Ocampo FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York NEW JERSEY: Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment Granted NISSAN NORTH: Wants Transmission Defects Class Action Dismissed NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Faces Dovey FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York OCEAN VIEW: African-American Employees File Discrimination Case OKLAHOMA BLOOD: Court OKs Notice and Consent Forms in "Lenore" OLD MUTUAL: Responds to UCIS Investor Class Action ORNUA CO-OPERATIVE: Sued Over Grass-Fed Butter Labeling P.F. CHANG'S CHINA: Doesn't Pay OT to Servers, Belt et al. Say PATRIOT HOME: Fails to Pay OT Wages to Health Aides, Hauser Says PATRIOT NATIONAL: PBMS Suit Removed to C.D. California PM PEDIATRICS: Faces Murphy ADA Suit in S.D. New York PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Court Affirms Class Action Dismissal REALTY EXECUTIVES: Highline Suit Alleges TCPA Violation RETRIEVAL-MASTERS CREDITORS: Rafferty Seeks Cert. of FDCPA Class RETRIEVAL-MASTERS: Hernandez Sues over Debt Collection Practices ROSEWOOD COLONY: Fenner Moves for Certification of FDCPA Class ROYAL DUTCH: Fights Climate Change Class Action S.K.I. WHOLESALE: Fails to Pay for Overtime, Tavarez et al. Allege SALLY BEAUTY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Nance" Suit Alleges SAM'S EAST INC: Freeman Moves for Class Certification Under FLSA SCORES HOLDING: Santos de Oliveira Files Class Action Under FLSA SERVICE UNION: Janus Case Ruling Boosts Union Dues Class Action SILVER WHEATON: Investors Fight Bid to Avert Tax Class Action SMARTAX SERVICE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Basile" Suit Says SOTHEBY'S: Visual Artists Not Entitled to Calif. Resale Royalties SOUTH CAROLINA: Health Dept. Faces Class Action Suit SPECIALIZED LOAN: Quinn Seeks to Certify Two Classes Under FDCPA STATCARE URGENT: Faces Murphy ADA Suit in S.D. New York STINE SEED: Mid-South Farmers File Suit Over Fake Soybean Seeds TC PAYROLL: Przenkop Suit Alleges FLSA Violation TENNECO INC: Rigged Prices of Exhaust Systems, 2 Distributors Claim THOMASSON THOMASSON: Lolongo Files Civil Rights Suit in Indiana TRANS CONTINENTAL: Loiseau Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York TRIANGLE CAPITAL: Faces Another Shareholder Lawsuit TRIANGLE CAPITAL: Hammer Files Securities Class Action in Maryland UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Chief People Officer Resigns Amid Class Action UNITED CARD: Court Refuses to Certify Class in Fabricant Suit UNITED STATES: Connecticut Court Denies Family Reunification UNITED STATES: Osage County Joins PILT Class Action UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Billing US BANK: Beats Royal Park Investments' RMBS Class Action USA PROFESSIONAL: Fails to Pay Proper OT, "Diaz" Suit Alleges VALLOUREC STAR: Faces Class Action Over Labor Law Violations VENGROFF WILLIAMS: Lopez Sues over Debt Collection Practices WAL-MART STORE: Loses Judgment on Pleadings Bid in Cashiers' Suit WASHINGTON: Home Health Aides File Class Action Over Union Dues WHITESTONE MARBLE: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Rodriguez Suit Claims WORLDWIDE FLIGHT: Doesn't Pay OT to Supervisors, Contreras Claims YOUFIT HEALTH: Sued by Halperin Over Unwanted Telemarketing Texts ZICAM LLC: Nov. 15 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set [*] Class Action Securities Fraud Filings At Near Record Levels [*] Five-Partner Team Joins Akin Gump's Class Actions Practice [*] IADC Calls for Class Action Reform in Ontario [*] Kavanaugh' Class Action Record Few, But Rulings Pro-Business [*] Pioneering Judges Beginning to Track Class Action Settlements ********* 201 WATER STREET: Luxury Condo Firm Faces ADA Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against a full service luxury condominium in New York. The case is James Murphy, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 201 Water Street LLC doing business as: 51 Jay Street, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06775 (S.D. N.Y., July 27, 2018). The lawsuit arises under the Americans with Disabilities Act. 201 Water Street LLC offers Full Service Luxury Condominiums in DUMBO NYC.[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 30 PARK PLACE: James Murphy Files Suit Under ADA ------------------------------------------------ The tallest residential tower to grace the downtown skyline in New York has been slapped with a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as James Murphy, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 30 Park Place Residential LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06772 (S.D. N.Y., July 27, 2018).[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 95TH AND THIRD: Murphy Files ADA Class Suit ------------------------------------------- 95th And Third LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as James Murphy, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 95th And Third LLC doing business as: The Kent, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06778 (S.D. N.Y., July 27, 2018). 95th and Third LLC owns, develops, and operates real estate properties. The Company conducts business in the United States.[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 A3H FOODS: Underpays Restaurant Workers, "McMiller" Suit Say ------------------------------------------------------------ TERAY MCMILLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. A3H FOODS, LP, Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-02370 (S.D. Tex., July 10, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods. The Plaintiff McMiller was employed by the Defendant as a restaurant worker. A3H Foods, LP was founded in 2007. The Company's line of business includes the retail sale of prepared foods and drinks for on-premise consumption. A 3 H Foods operates in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Beatriz-Sosa Morris, Esq. John Neuman, Esq. SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN 5612 Chaucer Drive Houston, TX 77005 Telephone: (281) 885-8844 Facsimile: (281) 885-8813 E-mail: BSosaMorris@smnlawfirm.com JNeuman@smnlawfirm.com AEGIS SENIOR: Wins Prelim. Approval of "Conlin" Class Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Lucy H. Koh grants preliminary approval of the class action settlement in the lawsuit titled JAY CONLIN v. AEGIS SENIOR COMMUNITIES LLC, Case No. 5:17-cv-05534-LHK (N.D. Cal.). The Court preliminarily certifies for settlement purposes the Settlement Class described in the Amended Settlement Agreement, composed of all persons, who worked for the Defendant as a non-exempt employee in California at any time between August 18, 2013, and February 25, 2018. Judge Koh appoints Jay Conlin as representative for the Settlement Class and Gregory N. Karasik, Esq., of Karasik Law Firm and Emil Davtyan, Esq., of Davtyan Professional Law Corporation as counsel for the Settlement Class. The Court appoints Dahl Administration as the Settlement Administrator. The Court sets these deadlines: -- August 8, 2018 -- Defendant's Submission of Class Member Information; -- August 24, 2018 -- Notice Mailed to Class Members; -- August 24, 2018 -- Deadline to File Motion for Attorney's Fees; -- October 8, 2018 -- Deadline to Opt Out and to Object to Settlement and Motion for Attorney's Fees; -- October 25, 2018 -- Deadline to File Motion for Final Approval; and -- November 29, 2018, at 1:30 p.m. -- Final Approval Hearing. ALLIANT CREDIT: Page Suit Alleges Consumer Fraud Act Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- Alicia M. Page, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Alliant Credit Union and Does 1-100, Case No. 2:18-cv-11481 (D. N.J., July 10, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Consumer Fraud Act. The class action seeks monetary damages, restitution, and injunctive relief due to the Defendant's policy and practice of assessing an overdraft or NSF fee on transactions when there was enough money in the account holder's checking account to cover the transactions presented for payment. The Plaintiff is a resident of Hoboken, New Jersey, and was a member of ACU at all times relevant to the class action. The Defendant ACU is an Illinois state-chartered credit union with branch offices located throughout New Jersey. The Defendants Does 1 through 100, include agents, partners, joint ventures, subsidiaries and affiliates of ACU and, upon information and belief, also own and operate ACU branch locations. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin P. Roddy, Esq. WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER, P.A. 90 Woodbridge Center Drive, Ste. 900, Box 10 Woodbridge, NJ 07095 Tel: (732) 636-8000 Fax: (732) 726-6686 E-mail: kroddy@wilentz.com ALPHA TEAM CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Drummer Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- QUINTON DRUMMER; STEFFAN WEBB; and DEMONTRAY STALLWORTH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ALPHA TEAM CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION; BG CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, LLC.; HECTOR BELTRAN; and Does 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-01251 (D. Nev., July 9, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as general laborers. Alpha Team Construction Corporation is a Georgia Professional Corporation, with a registered office address of 2202 Jasmine Parkway, Alpharetta, GA, 30022. The Company is engaged in providing clients with contract labor. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Don Springmeyer, Esq. Bradley S. Schrager, Esq. Daniel Bravo, Esq. WOLF RIFKIN SHAPIRO SCHULMAN & RABKIN, LLP 3556 E. Russell Road, Second Floor Las Vegas, NV 89120 Telephone: (702) 341-5200 Facsimile: (702) 341-5300 E-mail: dspringmeyer@wrslawyers.com bschrager@wrslawyers.com dbravo@wrslawyers.com AMERICAN HOMES: Woods FLSA Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Monique Woods, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. American Homes 4 Rent, LP, and Does 1 through 50 inclusive, Case No. 18-777456 (D. Nev., July 10, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff Monique Woods is a resident of the State of Nevada and was employed by the Defendants as a customer service representative at its Las Vegas call center location from May 18, 2015 until November 18, 2016. The Defendant American Homes 4 Rent, LP is a foreign corporation incorporated in the state of Delaware. The Defendant's corporate headquarters are located at 30601 Agoura Rd., Suite 200, Agoura Hills, CA 91301. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua D. Buck, Esq. Mark R. Thierman, Esq. Joshua D. Buck, Esq. Leah L. Jones, Esq. Thierman Buck LLP 7287 Lakeside Drive Reno, NV 89511 Tel: (775) 284-1500 Fax: (775) 703-5027 E-mail: mark@thiermanlaw.com josh@thiermanlaw.com leah@thiermanlaw.com AMERICAN HONDA: Bill Schepler Sues over Seat Belts -------------------------------------------------- BILL SCHEPLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-6043 (C.D. Cal., July 11, 2018) seeks to stop the Defendant's false and misleading advertising practices relating to the sale of motor vehicle model years 2017 and 2018 CR-Vs, and to obtain redress for those who have purchased CR-Vs across the United States. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that Honda deceptively markets and advertises the CR-V as having a seating capacity of five and having, as one of its passive safety features, 3-point seat belts at all seating positions when, in fact, it does not, because the backseat seat belts are configured in such a way that only two backseat passengers can properly buckle their seat belts at any given time. This causes a safety issue as it prevents customers from safely seating five people in a CR-V at any given time. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. manufactures and sells Honda automobiles. The company was founded in 1959 and is based in Torrance, California. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Honda Motor Co., Ltd. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kolin Tang, Esq. SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP 11755 Wilshire Blvd., 15th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (323) 510-4060 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 E-mail: ktang@sfmslaw.com AVANTE USA: Faces Johnson FDCPA Suit in South Carolina ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Avante USA Ltd. The case is styled as Shawn Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Avante USA Ltd, Cascade Capital LLC and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 9:18-cv-02072-DCN (D. S.C., July 27, 2018). The lawsuit arises under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Avante USA Ltd is one of the most prominent collection agencies based in Houston.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth Edward Norsworthy , Jr, Esq. Norsworthy Law Ltd Co 505 Pettigru Street Greenville, SC 29601 Tel: (864) 804-0581 Fax: (864) 756-1153 Email: kenorsworthy@me.com BEAUTIFUL GROUP: Olsen Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ Beautiful Group Management, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed by Thomas J. Olsen under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Thomas J. Olsen, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Beautiful Group Management, LLC doing business as: MasterCuts, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-04293 (E.D. N.Y., July 29, 2018). MasterCuts is a chain of full-service, affordable, family hair salons in busy shopping malls across Canada and the US.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq. Lipsky Lowe LLP 630 Third Avenue New York, NY 10017 Tel: (212) 392-4772 Fax: (212) 444-1030 Email: chris@lipskylowe.com BEST BUY CO: Dornaus Says 0% Interest Promotion Schemes Deceptive ----------------------------------------------------------------- DEANNA DORNAUS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BEST BUY CO., INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-04085-RMI (N.D. Cal., July 9, 2018) seeks monetary damages, restitution, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief against the Defendant for its misleading, deceptive, and ultimately false representations and omissions made with respect to its so-called "0% interest" or "no interest" promotions. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's purported "0% interest" or "no interest" promotions are in fact a deferred-interest scheme. The Defendant lures consumers, including the Plaintiff, with deceptive promises of "no interest" or "0% interest" for the duration of a promotional period (e.g., 18 months), but there is a debt time bomb at the end. Consumers who don't pay off the entire balance before the promotional period ends will be charged interest retroactively back to the date that they bought the item. By way of illustration, consider a consumer who buys a $2,500 computer from the Defendant on January 2, 2016 in connection with an offer touting "0% interest for 12 months." Assume she pays off all, but leaving a $100 balance of the total purchase price by the end of the promotional period (i.e., January 1, 2017). Despite owing only $100, she will nevertheless be charged interest on much of the $2,500, dating back a full year to January 2, 2016, the date of her initial purchase. Best Buy Co., Inc. operates as a retailer of technology products, services, and solutions in the United States, Canada, and Mexico. The company was formerly known as Sound of Music, Inc. Best Buy Co., Inc. was founded in 1966 and is headquartered in Richfield, Minnesota. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. Sophia Goren Gold, Esq. KALIEL PLLC 1875 Connecticut Ave., NW, 10th Floor Washington, D.C. 20009 Telephone: (202) 350-4783 E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com sgold@kalielpllc.com BOULDER BRANDS: Cordes Suit Asserts Fraud ------------------------------------------ Mark Cordes filed a class action lawsuit against Boulder Brands USA, Inc. The case is styled as Mark Cordes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Boulder Brands USA, Inc., a Delaware corporation and DOES 1 through 10, inclsuive, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-06534 (C.D. Cal., July 29, 2018). The case docket states the nature of suit as fraud. Boulder Brands Inc. provides health and wellness food solutions in the United States and Canada.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J Ferrell, Esq. Pacific Trial Attorneys APC 4100 Newport Place Drive Suite 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Tel: (949) 706-6464 Fax: (949) 706-6469 Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com BTA BUILDING: Faces Corona FLSA Suit in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- Arturo Contreras Corona filed a class action lawsuit against BTA Building & Developing Inc. for denial of overtime compensation. The case is styled as Arturo Contreras Corona, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BTA Building & Developing Inc. doing business as: BTA Building & Developing, Rubin Development and Construction, Inc. doing business as: Rubin Development and Construction, Joseph Rubin and Billie Doe, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-04283 (E.D. N.Y., July 27, 2018). The case was filed pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. BTA Building & Developing Inc. is a general contractor in New York City, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Rammer FDCPA Suit Filed in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- Linda Rammer, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-04254 (E.D. N.Y., July 27, 2018), arises under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.[BN] Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC is a debt collection agency in Hawthorne, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell L. Pashkin, Esq. 775 Park Avenue, Ste. 255 Huntington, NY 11743 Tel: (631) 335-1107 Email: mpash@verizon.net CHARLTON STREET: Murphy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Charlton Street Owner LLC under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as James Murphy, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Charlton Street Owner LLC doing business as: 70 Charlton Street, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06777 (S.D. N.Y., July 27, 2018). Charlton Street Owner, LLC provides real estate services. The Company owns, develops, and operates real estate properties. Charlton Street Owner serves customers in the State of 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 CHARTER FINANCIAL: Rubin Seeks to Block Sale to CenterState Bank ---------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL RUBIN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. CHARTER FINANCIAL CORPORATION, ROBERT L. JOHNSON, DAVID Z. CAUBLE III, JANE W. DARDEN, EDWARD D. SMITH, THOMAS M. LANE, DAVID L. STROBEL, and CURTI M. JOHNSON, Case No. 1:18-cv-02270-TDC (D. Md., July 25, 2018), seeks to enjoin the stockholder vote on a proposed acquisition of the Company by CenterState Bank Corporation, scheduled for August 21, 2018, unless and until certain Exchange Act violations are cured. On April 24, 2018, Charter and CenterState issued a joint press release announcing they had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated April 24, 2018. On July 18, 2018, Charter filed a Definitive Proxy Statement on Form DEFM14A with the SEC in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Proxy Statement, which recommends that Charter stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, omits or misrepresents material information concerning, among other things: (i) the Company's and CenterState's financial projections, relied upon by Charter's financial advisor, Sandler O'Neill & Partners, L.P., in its financial analyses; (ii) the valuation analyses prepared by Sandler in connection with the rendering of its fairness opinion; and (iii) the background process leading up to the Proposed Transaction, Mr. Rubin contends. Charter, a Maryland corporation, is a savings and loan holding company headquartered in West Point, Georgia. Charter is the parent company of CharterBank, a full-service community bank and a federal savings institution that operates branches in Metro Atlanta, the I-85 corridor south to Auburn, Alabama, and the Florida Gulf Coast. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. CenterState, a Florida corporation, operates as one of the largest community bank franchises headquartered in the state of Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Donald J. Enright, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 524-4290 Facsimile: (202) 333-2121 E-mail: denright@zlk.com - and - Richard A. Acocelli, Esq. Michael A. Rogovin, Esq. Kelly C. Keenan, Esq. WEISSLAW LLP 1500 Broadway, 16th Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 682-3025 Facsimile: (212) 682-3010 E-mail: racocelli@weisslawllp.com mrogovin@weisslawllp.com kkeenan@weisslawllp.com CHEETAH MOBILE: Rosso Suit Seeks to Stop Unsolicited Text Messages ------------------------------------------------------------------ Scott Rosso, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cheetah Mobile America, Inc., a California Liability Company, Case No. 1:18-cv-23000 (S.D. Fla., July 25, 2018), seeks injunctive relief to halt the Defendant's alleged illegal conduct of sending unsolicited text messages, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals. Cheetah Mobile Inc. operates as a mobile Internet company worldwide. To promote its services, the Defendant engages in unsolicited marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the process, the Plaintiff alleges.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL: Does Not Pay Overtime Wages, Miller Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ B. MILLER, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF WISCONSIN, INC., Case No. 2:18-cv-01152-WED (E.D. Wisc., July 25, 2018), accuses the Defendant of denying the Plaintiff regular and overtime wages under an illegal pay policy, which violates the Fair Labor Standards Act. Children's Hospital of Wisconsin, Inc., is a non-stock corporation with its principal place of business in Wauwatosa, Wisconsin. The Defendant is engaged in the operation of a hospital.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David C. Zoeller, Esq. Caitlin M. Madden, Esq. HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C. Post Office Box 2155 Madison, WI 53701-2155 Telephone: (608) 257-0040 Facsimile: (608) 256-0236 E-mail: dzoeller@hq-law.com cmadden@hq-law.com COLLECTION BUREAU: Faces Mckeown FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Collection Bureau of the Hudson Valley, Inc. The case is styled as Caroline Mckeown, Johanne Joseph and Karol Espinal, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Collection Bureau of the Hudson Valley, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-04275 (E.D. N.Y., July 27, 2018). The lawsuit arises under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.[BN] Collection Bureau of Hudson Valley, Inc. is a third-party collection agency based in New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. Sanders Law, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Tel: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com CONN'S INC: October 11 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ------------------------------------------------------ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION IN RE CONN'S, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION Civil Action No. 4: 14-cv-00548 (KPE) (Consolidated Action) SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES To: All Persons and Entities Who Purchased or Otherwise Acquired Conn's, Inc.'s ("Conn's") Publicly Traded Common Stock and/or Call Options, or Who Sold/Wrote Conn's Put Options, During the Period from April 3, 2013 through December 9, 2014, Inclusive (the "Class Period"), and Were Damaged Thereby (the "Class"). PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, in accordance with Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, that the above-captioned litigation (the "Action") has been certified as a class action on behalf of the Class, except for certain persons and entities who are excluded from the Class by definition as set forth in the full printed Notice of Pendency of Class Action, Proposed Settlement, and Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses (the "Notice"). YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that the Court-appointed Class Representatives Laborers Pension Trust Fund – Detroit and Vicinity, Connecticut Carpenters Pension Fund and Connecticut Carpenters Annuity Fund, St. Paul Teachers' Retirement Fund Association, and Universal Investment Gesellschaft m.b.H., on behalf of themselves and the Class, and Defendants Conn's, Theodore Wright, and Michael J. Poppe (collectively, "Defendants") have reached a proposed settlement of the Action in the amount of $22,500,000 in cash (the "Settlement Amount") that, if approved by the Court, will resolve all claims in the Action (the "Settlement"). A hearing will be held before the Honorable Keith P. Ellison of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas in the United States Courthouse, 515 Rusk Street, Houston, TX 77002 at 2:00 p.m. on October 11, 2018 (the "Settlement Hearing") to, among other things, determine whether the Court should: (i) approve the proposed Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) dismiss the Action with prejudice as provided in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated as of June 28, 2018; (iii) approve the proposed Plan of Allocation for distribution of the Net Settlement Fund; and (iv) approve Class Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and payment of expenses. The Court may change the date of the Settlement Hearing without providing another notice. You do NOT need to attend the Settlement Hearing to receive a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A MONETARY PAYMENT. If you have not yet received the Notice and a Proof of Claim and Release form ("Claim Form"), you may obtain copies of these documents by visiting the website dedicated to this Action, www.ConnsSecuritiesLitigation.com, or by contacting the Claims Administrator at: In re Conn's, Inc. Securities Litigation Claims Administrator c/o Epiq Global P.O. Box 4087 Portland, OR 97208-4087 (855) 804-8547 Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice/Claim Form or for information about the status of a claim, may also be made to Class Counsel: James M. Hughes, Esq. Christopher F. Moriarty, Esq. MOTLEY RICE LLC 28 Bridgeside Blvd. Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 www.motleyrice.com (800) 768-4026 Deborah Clark-Weintraub, Esq. Beth Kaswan, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 230 Park Ave., 17th Floor New York, NY 10169 www.scott-scott.com (800) 404-7770 If you are a Class Member, to be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked or online no later than November 10, 2018. If you are a Class Member and do not timely submit a valid Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will nevertheless be bound by all judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action, whether favorable or unfavorable. If you are a Class Member and wish to exclude yourself from the Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice such that it is received no later than September 20, 2018. If you properly exclude yourself from the Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action, whether favorable or unfavorable, and you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, and/or Class Counsel's application for attorneys' fees and payment of expenses must be filed with the Court and mailed to counsel for the Parties in accordance with the instructions in the Notice, such that they are filed and received no later than September 20, 2018. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE. All questions about this notice, the Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to the Claims Administrator or Class Counsel. DATED: July 27, 2018 BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS COSTCO WHOLESALE: Demurrer in Ensure Tax Reimbursement Suit Upheld ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Three, affirmed the District Court's judgment granting Defendant's Demurrer to Plaintiffs' Third Amend Complaint in the case captioned LARRY LITTLEJOHN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION et al., Defendants and Respondents, No. A144440 (Cal. App.). Plaintiff Larry Littlejohn appeals from a ruling sustaining a demurrer to his third amended complaint without leave to amend. Littlejohn sought to sue Costco Wholesale Corporation and Costco Wholesale Membership, Inc., the California Board of Equalization (Board) and Abbott Laboratories, Inc. (Abbott) to recover amounts he paid in sales tax reimbursement on purchases of Abbott's product Ensure. Littlejohn alleged that because Ensure is properly categorized as a food product no sales tax was actually due on his purchases. Costco should not have charged him sales tax reimbursement, and was under no obligation to pay and should not have paid sales tax to the state on its sales of Ensure. Littlejohn based his claim on a cause of action identified by our Supreme Court in Javor v. State Board of Equalization (1974) 12 Cal.3d 790 (Javor), that held under "the unique circumstances" of that case, that the customer could sue "to compel defendant retailers to make refund applications to the Board and in turn require the Board to respond to these applications by paying into court all sums, if any, due defendant retailers." Claims Premised on the Unfair Practices Act In Loeffler v. Target Corp. (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1081 (Loeffler), the California Supreme Court reviewed the history and development of California law on the issues raised by Littlejohn's complaint. In a brief overview, the Court summarized: under California's sales tax law, the taxpayer is the retailer, not the consumer. The Court rejected unfair business practice claims against a retailer based on the allegation that the retailer had collected a sales tax reimbursement on take-out sales of coffee allegedly not subject to a sales tax, because resolution of the claims would require the court to determine the taxability of the transactions. For the same reason, the trial court clearly was correct in this case to sustain the demurrers to plaintiff's first and second causes of action. Claim Premised on Javor Article XIII, section 32 of California's state constitution provides in part: After payment of a tax claimed to be illegal, an action may be maintained to recover the tax paid, with interest, in such manner as may be provided by the Legislature. In Javor v. State Board of Equalization (1974) 12 Cal.3d 790, there, the customer was seeking a refund of sales tax paid on a purchase price that included a repealed federal excise tax. The Board promulgated a regulation authorizing retailers who had collected and received refunds of the repealed tax to seek a refund of sales tax on the condition that they pay the refunded taxes to their customers. The process required the retailer to demonstrate to the Board that a refund had been paid in order to receive a like amount from the Board. The court observed that under the procedure set up by the Board the retailer is the only one who can obtain a refund from the Board; yet, since the retailer cannot retain the refund himself, but must pay it over to the customer, the retailer has no particular incentive to request the refund on his own. Despite this lack of incentive, the Board has not required the retailer to refund the total excessive amount collected, but rather has merely allowed retailers to collect a refund when the retailer is compelled to pay a refund to a customer who has demanded it. The Court knows of no published case since Javor that has allowed a cause of action against the Board to proceed for the purpose of directing a retailer to file a claim for a refund of sales tax. In Loeffler,our Supreme Court confirmed that the exact contours of a Javor-type claim remain undefined: The integrity of the tax system and avoidance of unjust enrichment, possibly of the retailer, but more probably of the state, in certain circumstances may support a Javor-type remedy for consumers. Plaintiffs, however, declined to pursue such a remedy, and we need not consider the exact showing required of consumers to demonstrate their entitlement to the Javor remedy. The Court review of the authorities lead the Cal. App. to conclude that a Javor remedy should be limited to the unique circumstances where the plaintiff's allegations show that the state has been unjustly enriched by the overpayment of sales tax, and the Board concurs that the circumstances warrant refunds to consumers. Requiring such allegations ensures that courts will be faithful to our state constitution's delegation of authority to craft a remedy for the overpayment of sales tax to the Legislature, and to the statutory scheme that allows the Board to first take into account the timeliness of any claims for refund, the likely amounts involved and the burdens and costs implicit in its refund procedure. The claims against Abbott The Plaintiff's second amended complaint also contains two causes of action against Abbott, the manufacturer of Ensure. It alleges the existence of an unspecified agreement under which Costco purchases Ensure from Abbott that is in force regardless of who actually sells the product to Costco. The trial court sustained Abbott's demurrer to both causes of action without leave to amend. The court explained, among other things, that the complaint makes it plain that Abbott had nothing to do with the collection or payment of the taxes. There is no suggestion that Abbott was under a duty to notify the retailers of the fact that the tax status of the product had changed, or how plaintiff would in some way be the beneficiary of that duty. The Court agrees with the trial court. From the pleading it is far from clear that there was ever any agreement between Abbott and Costco, much less one that contains either an express or implied provision such as plaintiff describes or with respect to which all Costco customers would be third party beneficiaries. Moreover, no facts are alleged that would give rise to a duty on Abbott's part to advise retailers of the sales taxability of its products in the various jurisdictions in which the products are sold, or that would create a duty to customers paying sales tax reimbursement on their purchases of the product. The Cal. App. finds that the Plaintiff has cited no authority supporting these claims, nor has he suggested any facts he might add to the complaint were leave to amend granted that would establish a right to relief against Abbott. Abbott's demurrer was properly sustained without leave to amend. The judgment is affirmed. A full-text copy of the Cal. App.'s July 13, 2018 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybao2h6d from Leagle.com. Daniel Berko -- Daniel@berkolaw.com -- Carlos Jato for Plaintiff and Appellant. Morrison & Foerster, Miriam A. Vogel -- mvogel@mofo.com -- David F. McDowell -- dmcdowell@mofo.com -- Purvi G. Patel -- ppatel@mofo.com -- for Defendants and Respondents, Costco Wholesale Corporation and Costco Wholesale Membership, Inc. Winston & Strawn, Robb C. Adkins -- radkins@winston.com -- Charles J. Moll III -- cmoll@winston.com -- Krista M. Enns III for Defendants and Respondents, Abbott Laboratories, Inc, and Abbott Laboratories Sales, Marketing & Distribution Co. Kamala D. Harris , Attorney General, Diane Shaw , Acting Senior Assistant Attorney General,Nhan T. Vu , Deputy Attorney General, for Defendant and Respondent, California State Board of Equalization. DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: Focke Files Product Liability Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ TERRY L. FOCKE and ESTHER FOCKE v. DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS, INC.; DEPUY PRODUCTS, INC.; DEPUY INTERNATIONAL, LIMITED; and JOHNSON & JOHNSON SERVICES, INC., Case No. 3:18-cv-01915-K (N.D. Tex., July 25, 2018), alleges that the use of the Defendants' Pinnacle hip implant products results in unsafe release of toxic metal ions into hip implant recipients' tissue and bloodstream. The Defendants manufactured the Pinnacle Acetabular Cup System ("Pinnacle Device"), and launched it in 2001. The Pinnacle Device was designed, developed, and sold for human hip joints damaged or diseased due to fracture, osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, and avascular necrosis. The Pinnacle Device is designed to be fastened to human bone with surgical screws. The Pinnacle Device was designed and sold to provide pain relief and consistent and smooth range of motion. Presently, there is a multidistrict litigation in the District Court relating to this product. The matter is captioned as IN RE: DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS, INC. PINNACLE HIP IMPLANT PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 3:11-MD-2244-K. Depuy Orthopaedics, Inc. is an Indiana Corporation with its principal place of business in Warsaw, Indiana. Depuy International, Limited, is an United Kingdom entity with its principal place of business in West Yorkshire, UK. Depuy Products, Inc., an Indiana Corporation with its principal place of business in Warsaw, Indiana. Johnson & Johnson Services, Inc., is a New Jersey Corporation with its principal place of business in New Brunswick, New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David J. Diamond, Esq. GOLDBERG & OSBORNE 698 E. Wetmore Road, Suite 200 Tucson, AZ 85705 Telephone: (520) 620-3975 Facsimile: (520) 620-3991 E-mail: ddiamond@goldbergandosborne.com E L G PARKING: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Duran Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- GERARDO MIGUEL BAEZ DURAN and WILSON FRANCISCO SANCHEZ CRUZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. E L G PARKING INC. (D/B/A E L G PARKING INC.), STEVEN ROSENBERG, BISHOP JOSEPH ALEXANDER, and RAYMOND DOE, Case No. 1:18-cv-06685 (S.D.N.Y., July 25, 2018), alleges that the Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation for the hours that they worked. E L G Parking Inc. is a domestic corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of New York. The Individual Defendants serve or served as owners, managers, principals, or agents of the Defendant Corporation. The Defendants own, operate or control a parking lot, located at 1240 Edward L Grant Hwy., in Bronx, New York, under the name "E L G Parking Inc." The Defendants' parking lot is located in the Highbridge section of The Bronx in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 E-mail: Michael@Faillacelaw.com EAT GREEN: Gomez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site ------------------------------------------------------ ANDRES GOMEZ, Individually v. EAT GREEN LLC A Limited Liability Company, Case No. 1:18-cv-23008-CMA (S.D. Fla., July 25, 2018), is brought on behalf of similarly situated blind and visually impaired persons for alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Mr. Gomez alleges that the Defendant's Web site -- http://www.eatgreencoffee.com-- is inaccessible by blind people. He asks for injunctive relief and attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the ADA. Eat Green LLC is a limited liability company that operates a health food restaurant known as "Eat Green," located in North Miami Beach, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Duane Crooks, Esq. THOMAS B. BACON, P.A. P.O. Box 450973 Sunrise, FL 33345 Telephone: (305) 761-2146 E-mail: crookslawfirm@gmail.com - and - Thomas B. Bacon, Esq. THOMAS B. BACON, P.A. 644 North Mc Donald St. Mt. Dora, FL 32757 Telephone: (954) 478-7811 E-mail: tbb@thomasbaconlaw.com EDUCATIONAL EMPLOYEES: Amanda Hurst Sues over Overdraft Fees ------------------------------------------------------------ AMANDA HURST, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EDUCATIONAL EMPLOYEES' CREDIT UNION; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 18CECG02541 (Cal. Super., July 11, 2018) seeks monetary damages, restitution and declaratory and injunctive relief arising from the Defendants' unfair and unconscionable assessment and collection of "Overdraft Fees" on checking accounts that were never actually overdrawn. According to the Plaintiff, the Defendants charges her Overdraft Fees even when her transactions have not overdrawn an account. The Plaintiff was repeatedly charged Overdraft Fees on transactions, even though, according to the monthly account statements prepared by the Defendants, her account balance was never negative for the supposed overdraft event. By definition, then, there were always funds to cover those transactions -- yet the Defendants assessed an Overdraft Fees on them anyway. Educational Employees Credit Union, a retail financial institution, provides various financial products and services in San Joaquin Valley. Educational Employees Credit Union was formerly known as Fresno Teachers Credit Union and changed its name to Educational Employees Credit Union in November 1981. The company was founded in 1934 and is based in Fresno, California. It has locations in Clovis, Coalinga, Firebaugh, Fresno, Hanford, Kerman, Kingsburg, Lemoore, Madera, Merced, Reedley, Sanger, Selma, and Visalia, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. Sophia Goren Gold, Esq. KALIEL PLLC 1875 Connecticut Ave., NW, 10th Floor Washington, D.C. 20009 Telephone: (202) 350-4783 E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com sgold@kalielpllc.com - and - Stanley D. Saltzman, Esq. Adam M. Tamburelli, Esq. MARLIN & SALTZMAN LLP 29800 Agoura Road, Suite 210 Agoura Hills, CA 91301 Telephone: (818) 991-8080 Facsimile: (818) 991- 8081 E-mail: ssaltzman@marlinsaltzman.com atamburelli@marlinsaltzman.com ELI LILLY: Bentele et al. RICO Suit Moved to New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit against Eli Lilly alleging violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act was transferred to the District of New Jersey effective July 10, 2018. The case was originally filed in District of Rhode Island and captioned as, ALETHA BENTELE; JAMES BONSER; SCOTT CHRISTENSEN; GAY DEPUTEE; SCOTT DERCKS; DONALD DOUTHIT; F. DONALD FELLOW DIANNA GILMORE; GERALD GIRARD; MICHELLE GWIN; RUTH HART; DAVID HERNANDEZ; EMMA JENSEN; EDWARD JOHNSON; RICHARD KNAUSS; ANGELA KRITSELIS; SUSAN LANDIS; JOHN LOSCHEN; ROBERT LOWMAN; SEAN MAC AN AIRCHINNIGH; JEANNE MACNITT; LAWRENCE MANDEL; ANNE OLINGER; JULIANA PATTON; MARILYN PERSON; BRIAN PHAIR; PATRICIA QUINT; ROBYN RUSHING; MARIE SAFFRAN; MARK SCHLOEMER; HOWARD SCHURR; TREMAYNE SIRMONS; EDWARD STANFORD; MICHAEL STARR; BRET STEWART; MOLLY THOMPSON; JON UGLAND; HECTOR J. VALDES, SR.; and KARYN WOFFORD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-11479-BRM-LHG (D.R.I., March 29, 2018). The New Jersey case is captioned, BENTELE et al v. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, Case No. 3:18-cv-11479 (D.N.J., July 10, 2018). Judge Brian R. Martinotti presides over the case. The matter is referred to Lois H. Goodman. The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that Eli Lilly artificially inflates and manipulates the benchmark price of Humalog, an insulin drug. The Defendant's scheme caused and continues to cause consumers to overpay for the insulin they need. Eli Lilly and Company discovers, develops, manufactures, and markets pharmaceutical products worldwide. The company has collaboration agreements with Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd.; Incyte Corporation; Pfizer Inc.; AstraZeneca; and Nektar Therapeutics, as well as has strategic collaboration with Sigilon Therapeutics. Eli Lilly and Company was founded in 1876 and is headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stephen M. Prignano, Esq. MCINTYRE TATE LLP 321 South Main Street, Suite 400 Providence, RI 02903 Telephone: (401) 351-7700 Facsimile: 401-331-6095 E-mail: smp@mtlesq.com - and - Steve W. Berman, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com - and - Thomas M. Sobol, Esq. Hannah W. Brennan, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301 Cambridge, MA 02142 Telephone: (617) 482-3700 Facsimile: (617) 482-3003 E-mail: tom@hbsslaw.com hannahb@hbsslaw.com - and - James E. Cecchi, Esq. Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 Facsimile: (973) 994-1744 E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com ltaylor@carellabyrne.com - and - Craig L. Briskin, Esq. MEHRI & SKALET, PLLC 1250 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephone: (202) 822-5100 Facsimile: (202) 822-4997 E-mail: cbriskin@findjustice.com - and - Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq. NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C. 1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor New York, NY 10036-8718 Telephone: (917) 438-9102 E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com - and - Michael E. Criden, Esq. Lindsey C. Grossman, Esq. CRIDEN & LOVE, P.A. 7301 S.W. 57th Court, Suite 515 South Miami, FL 33143 Telephone: (305) 357-9000 Facsimile: (305) 357-9050 E-mail: mcriden@Cridenlove.com lgrossman@cridenlove.com - and - Jayne A. Goldstein, Esq. SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP 1625 N. Commerce Parkway, Suite 320 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33326 Telephone: (954) 515-0123 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 E-mail: jgoldstein@sfmslaw.com - and - Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Esq. SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP 35 East State Street Media, PA 19063 Telephone: (610) 891-9880 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 E-mail: nfinkelman@sfmslaw.com - and - Roberta D. Liebenberg, Esq. Adam J. Pessin, Esq. FINE, KAPLAN AND BLACK, R.P.C. One South Broad Street, Suite 2300 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 567-6565 Facsimile: (215) 568-5872 E-mail: rliebenberg@finekaplan.com apessin@finekaplan.com - and - Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq. Derek W. Loeser, Esq. Gretchen S. Obrist, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-1900 Facsimile: (206) 623-3384 E-mail: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com dloeser@kellerrohrback.com gobrist@kellerrohrback.com - and - Michael Critchley, Esq. CRITCHLEY, KINUM & DENOIA, LLC 75 Livingston Avenue, Suite 303 Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 422-9200 Facsimile: (973) 422-9700 E-mail: mcritchley@critchleylaw.com - and - Ellen Relkin, Esq. WEITZ & LUXENBERG 220 Lake Drive East, Suite 210 Cherry Hill, NJ 08002 Telephone: (212) 558-5500 E-mail: ERelkin@weitzlux.com - and - Paul F. Novak, Esq. Diana Gjonaj, Esq. Gregory Stamatopoulos, Esq. WEITZ & LUXENBERG 719 Griswold, Ste. 620 Detroit, MI 48226 Telephone: (313) 800-4170 E-mail: pnovak@weitzlux.com dgjonaj@weitzlux.com gstamatopoulos@weitzlux.com - and - Todd A. Seaver, Esq. Jessica Moy, Esq. BERMAN TABACCO 44 Montgomery St., Ste. 650 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 433-3200 E-mail: tseaver@bermantabacco.com jmoy@bermantabacco.com - and - Nyran Rose Rasche, Esq. CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP 150 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 3000 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 782-4880 E-mail: nrasche@caffertyclobes.com - and - Stephen H. Weil, Esq. WEIL & CHARDON LLC 333 S. Wabash Ave., Suite 2700 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: 312-585-7404 E-mail: steve@weilchardon.com FIRST NATIONAL: Guerrero Sues Over Debt Collection Practices ------------------------------------------------------------ DANIEL GUERRERO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. FIRST NATIONAL COLLECTION BUREAU, INC. AND PINNACLE CREDIT SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 5:18-cv-04072 (D. Kan., July 25, 2018), alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by using false, deceptive, or misleading representations or means in connection with the collection of the Plaintiff's debt. FNCB is an entity, which is engaged, by use of the mails and telephone, in the business of attempting to collect a "debt" from the Plaintiff. Pinnacle is an entity, which acquires debt in default merely for collection purposes, and which is engaged, by use of the mails and telephone, in the business of directly or indirectly attempting to collect a "debt" from the Plaintiff.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony LaCroix, Esq. LACROIX LAW FIRM 406 W. 34th Street, Suite 810 Kansas City, MO 64111 Telephone: (816) 399-4380 Facsimile: (816) 399-4380 E-mail: tony@lacroixlawkc.com GOLD COAST: Perez Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------- Manuel Perez and Macario Perex, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Gold Coast Farms, LLC, Means Nursery, Inc., All AG, Inc., and Does 1 through 10, Case No. 1:18-at-00498 (E.D. Calif., July 9, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages, interest and penalties pursuant to California Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff Manuel Perez is an individual who currently resides in Tulare County and at all times relevant to this action, resided in Tulare County. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from approximately May 2013 through November 21, 2017 and worked for the Defendants at a nursery owned by Gold Coast Farms, LLC in Woodlake, California, located in Tulare County. The Plaintiff Macario Perez is an individual who currently resides in Tulare County and at all times relevant to this action, resided in Tulare County. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from approximately April 2001 through December 4, 2017 and worked for the Defendants at a nursery owned by Gold Coast Farms, LLC in Woodlake, California, located in Tulare County. The Defendant All AG, Inc. provided employees to Defendants Means Nursery, Inc. and Gold Coast Farms, LLC and employed Plaintiffs and others for the operation of cultivating and preparing horticultural orders for retail. Defendant All AG, Inc. operated as a labor contractor. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Anali Cortez, Esq. Estella M. Cisneros, Esq. CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE INC. 3747 E. Shields Ave. Fresno, CA 93726 Tel: (559) 441-8721 Fax: (559) 441-0724 GOOGLE LLC: ABA Files Amicus Brief in Frank v Gaos -------------------------------------------------- Debra Cassens Weiss, writing for ABA Journal, reports that the American Bar Association on July 16 filed an amicus brief that told the U.S. Supreme Court that class-action cy pres awards are often appropriate when paid to legal service groups that help provide access to justice. Cy pres awards -- paid to outside groups rather than class-action plaintiffs -- provide an average of $15.5 million annually to legal services organizations, according to the ABA brief. Twenty-three states and Puerto Rico have enacted laws or rules authorizing cy pres awards from class-action settlements to be distributed to legal services organization that provide services to low-income residents. A broad ruling imposing constitutional restrictions on cy pres awards would "potentially deprive legal services organizations of critical funding and low-income residents of legal representation," the brief said. Cy pres awards are particularly appropriate in class actions aggregating small claims, the brief said. Class members with only small amounts at stake seldom bother to collect their shares of a settlement fund, creating a dilemma about how to distribute the settlement funds. Cy pres awards avoid returning the funds to the defendant or giving a windfall to class members who file claims, the ABA argued. A fundamental purpose of class actions is to offer access to justice for people who could not otherwise realistically obtain justice to the justice system, the brief said. "Legal service organizations that represent poor and indigent litigants serve the same fundamental purpose," the ABA brief adds. "With these closely aligned purposes, legal services organizations should in most cases be appropriate recipients of cy pres awards." At issue in the Supreme Court case is whether a cy pres award in a suit against Google meets the requirements of Rule 23(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires class-action settlements to be "fair, reasonable and adequate." The ABA brief doesn't take a position on the specifics of the case, which challenges a class-action settlement that gave $5.3 million of an $8.5 million settlement fund to groups that protect internet privacy. Another $2.125 million was provided for attorney fees. The class action before the court had alleged web browsers disclosed Google searches to third-party websites. The settlement included an agreement by Google to revise its FAQ page but gave money only to three name plaintiffs. The ABA brief cites ABA policy that urges adoption of court rules authorizing the distribution of residual funds in class actions to groups that help improve access to civil justice for people living in poverty. The resolution says all reasonable efforts should be made to fully compensate class members before residual funds are awarded to charitable or nonprofit groups. Cy pres awards serve an important purpose in class actions, and the Supreme Court should "avoid broad pronouncements about the constitutionality of cy pres remedies in class action settlements," the brief says. The case is Frank v. Gaos. [GN] GRAB & GO: Deli Faces Juarez Suit Over Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------- VICENTE JUAREZ and OCTAVIO JUAREZ CANDIDO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. GRAB & GO GOURMET DELI INC. (D/B/A GRAB & GO GOURMET DELI), DERHEM MOHAMMAD SALEH, ALIBABA DOE, and DAVID DOE, Case No. 1:18-cv-06689 (S.D.N.Y., July 25, 2018), alleges that the Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that they worked, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Grab & Go Gourmet Deli Inc. is a domestic corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of New York. The Company maintains its principal place of business in New York City. The Individual Defendants serve or served as owners, managers, principals, or agents of the Defendant Corporation. The Defendants own, operate, or control an American deli, located at 3920 Broadway, Store 1, in New York City under the name "Grab & Go Gourmet Deli." The deli is located in the Washington Heights section of Manhattan in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 E-mail: Michael@Faillacelaw.com GROUNDLINK HOLDINGS: Olsen Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- Groundlink Holdings LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Thomas J. Olsen, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Groundlink Holdings LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06808 (S.D. N.Y., July 29, 2018). Groundlink Holdings LLC provides point-to-point and airport transfer chauffeured black car service in the United States and internationally. The company offers point to point, airport transfer, corporate limo, and hourly car service for corporate clients and leisure travels through its mobile application, website, and telephone.[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 HEALTHPLANONE LLC: Quintana Suit Alleges FLSA Violation ------------------------------------------------------- Peggy Quintana, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HealthPlanOne, LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-02169 (D. Ariz., July 10, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff Peggy Quintana was employed by the Defendant as an hourly, non-exempt telephone-dedicated sales agent at the call center operated by the Defendant located in Phoenix, Arizona. The Plaintiff worked at the Defendant's Phoenix, Arizona call center from approximately June 2016 to August 2016 The Defendant is a sales and marketing organization that operates call centers through which it sells and markets health insurance plans. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michelle R. Matheson, Esq. MATHESON & MATHESON, PLC 15300 North 90th Street, Suite 550 Scottsdale, AZ 85260 Tel: (480) 889-8951 E-mail: mmatheson@mathesonlegal.com Henry V Murray: James Murphy Files Suit Under ADA ------------------------------------------------- James Murphy has brought a class action lawsuit against Henry V Murray Senior LLC. The case is styled as James Murphy, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Henry V Murray Senior LLC doing business as: 111 Murray Street, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06773 (S.D. N.Y., July 27, 2018). The lawsuit arises under the Americans with Disabilities Act. 111 Murray Street is a residential skyscraper under construction developed by Witkoff Group and Fisher Brothers in Tribeca, Manhattan, New York City.[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 HYUNDAI MOTORS: 4th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of 3 Consumer Suits -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, affirmed the District Court's judgment dismissing three consumer actions based on Virginia state law claims. The actions focus on a series of misrepresentations made by Hyundai Motor America (Hyundai) regarding the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimated fuel economy for the 2011, 2012, and 2013 models of the Hyundai Elantra. A Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) consolidated dozens of similar consumer suits in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (MDL court). But the JPML remanded to the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia the three actions at issue in this appeal: Gentry v. Hyundai Motor Am., Inc., No. 3:13-cv-00030; Adbul-Mumit v. Hyundai Motor Am., Inc., No. 3:14-cv-00005; and Abdurahman v. Alexandria Hyundai, LLC, No. 3:14-cv-00002. The Western District of Virginia dismissed with prejudice the claims in all three actions for failure to satisfy federal pleading standards. The plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider and sought leave to amend their dismissed complaints. At no point throughout the entirety of the litigation, however, did the plaintiffs provide the district court with proposed amended complaints. The district court denied the motion to reconsider, and the plaintiffs in each action filed a timely notice of appeal. The Court consolidated the appeals. The district court dismissed those actions for failure to satisfy the federal pleading standards pursuant to Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 554 (2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009). Yet Appellants make no reference to Twombly or Iqbal in either their opening or reply briefs. Instead, Appellants rely upon their challenges to the district court's alternate grounds for dismissal, which rest on Virginia state law. On this record, the Court declines to invent an argument in support of Appellants' complaints. The district court could not have been more clear that Appellants' failure to satisfy federal pleading standards constituted an independent basis for dismissal. Upon denying Appellants' motion to reconsider, the district court again reiterated the insufficiency of the pleading: "Most obviously, the Court provided independent basis for dismissal by concluding the Abdurahman and Adbul-Mumit Complaints failed to satisfy federal pleading standards: The Complaints do not make a single, specific allegation about even one of hundreds of named plaintiffs, much less about any of the seven, remaining plaintiffs. Other arguments are simply recapitulations of their previously-rejected arguments that are improper on reconsideration." Despite these clear holdings, the Appellants make no citation to Twombly, Iqbal, or even Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, establishing the federal pleading standard, in their 55 page opening brief. And the Virginia state law arguments that the Appellants raise are irrelevant to the concern that the Appellants' complaints failed to satisfy pleading standards in federal court. Thus, the Court holds that the Appellants have waived their challenge to the district court's conclusion that the complaints failed to satisfy federal pleading standards. Accordingly, the Court affirms the district court's dismissal of the Abdurahman and Adbul-Mumit actions and its denial of the plaintiffs' post-dismissal request for leave to amend their complaints in those actions. A full-text copy of the Fourth Circuit's July 13, 2018 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y972pstf from Leagle.com. The appeals cases are JIHAD ADBUL-MUMIT; MATTHEW ABEDI; MONICA ADAIR SARGENT; MARK AGEE; ALIZ AGOSTON; YVONNE ALSTON; DAN AMATRUDA; KRISTY AMBROSE; KIMBERLEY AMICK; WANDA G. AMOS; CHRISTOPHER ARAUZA; CARL ARSENAULT; BROOKE ASHER; MICHELLE ATKINS; RAYMOND O. ATKINS; MATTHEW ATWELL; DAVID AUB; SOHA AYYASH; ASIF AZIZ; SUSAN BAILEY; KAREN BAKER; HAB BAKER, III; TERRY BARNES; JOSEPH BARTELL; HARRY L. BARTON; BENJAMIN BASHAM; MATTHEW BASILONE; JOHN BAXTER; JOHN BEASLEY; TIMM BETCHER; ELIZABETH BELEVAN; BARBARA BELL; JUDY BENDER; AMINE BERBALE; JAMES BERLING; SHARON BISDEE; WILLIAM BONNER; WALTER BORDEAUX; GARY BOYETTE; TODD BRADBURY; KAREN BRADBURY; JOHN BRANCATO; WILLIAM BREWSTER; LORI BRODIE; GLORIA BROOKS; ELSE BROWN; MELANIE BROWN; ANGELA BROWN; GARY BROWN; JEANNE BROWN; SYDNEY BRUMBELOW; JAN BURFORD; SARA BURRUSS; JAMIE BURTON; JOSEPH CALDARELLI; JASON CALL; TODD CARLSON; HOWARD L. CARPENTER; CYNTHIA CARTER; FREDERICK CARTER; JACKLYN CASSELLE-TUPPONCE; JARED CASTRO; REBECCA CATLETT; SUSAN CAVE; KIRT CHAPPELLE; LINDA CHEESEBORO; ROGER CHESLEY, JR.; STEVE CHILDRESS; DAN CHO; SUNG CHO; SUNG CHUN; WILLIAM CLARK; LINDA CLUNE; STUART COCHRAN; CHARLES COCHRANE; ANGEL COLLINS; HENRY SHANE COLVIN; KARRI COLVIN; CARLY CONNELLY; ANGIE CONNER; JEREMY CONRAD; PHILIP CORRAO; KIMBERLY CRAWFORD; MARGARET CRITTENDON; APRIL CROCKER; WILLIAM CROMER; JAY CUNNINGHAM; MARY CURTIS; ROBERT DANIELS; DONNA DAVIS; BOYD DAVIS; LISA DAVIS; ROGER DAVIS; MICHELLE DEBROSSE; MICHAEL DECANIO; ALMA DELIA DELEON; JENNIFER DEMARCO; ANTHONY DEPAUL, JR.; GEORGE D. DESPERT, III; CYNTHIA DEVANE; RUTH DIAZ; RON DICKMAN; SHERI DIXSON; SONYA DODSON; JESENIA DOMINGUEZ; TERRY DONALDSON; LATAVIA DREW; ARLENE DREWRY; CHRISTINA DRUGATZ; KAREN DUNCAN; SANDRA K. DUNTON; JEFF EDDY; DEBORAH EDGE; DEBORAH EDGEFIELD; PAMELA EDWARDS; KASEY EIKE; MIRIAH EISENMAN; FREDERICK EITEL; SHARON EKSTRAND; NICOLE ELSESSER; JOSEPH ELTON; KAREN EVANS; MASE FABAR; FLOYD FALLIN, JR.; JAMES BASHAM; ELIZABETH FARRELL; MARGIE D. FAULS; CAITLIN FEELEY; BARRY FELDMAN; BRIAN FELDMAN; WANDA FERGUSON; JAMES FICKLE; SHIRLEY FICKLE; SCOTT FLORA; THOMAS ROBERT FRANCO; JOHN FRANKLIN; TAMMY FRANKLIN; ANTHONY FREDERICK; TRACY FREDERICK; THOMAS FREEZE; ADAM FURMAN; ALICIA FUSCO; DONNA GADDIS; GUILLERMO GALARZA; IVAN GALLOWAY, JR.; IDA GARNER; WILLIS M. GARY; KURT GERGLE; TARUN GHAI; ELAINE GIBSON; HELEN GILLESPIE; MELODY GILLEY; TANJA GILMORE; BRIAN GLAUB; BARRY GOLDBERG; SCOTT GOODMAN; RICHARD GOULD; TROY L. GRAHAM; GABRIELA GRAJEDA; ELIZABETH GRANT; BRANDI GRAY; CHRISTIE GRAY; JANIE GRAY; VALERIE GRAY; GRAYBERG; AYNDRIA GREEN; DIANA GRIFFIN; PAUL L. GROVER; JESSICA GROVES; DEDRA GUENO; CARL GUSSGARD; ARNOLD GUTMAN; JULIAN GUTTERMAN; TESSIE GUTTERMAN; LISA HAGERTY; LAUREN HAGY; CEDON J. HALEY, JR.; DOROTHY HALPIN; NANCY N. HAMLETT; ERESTINE HARDING; DEBORAH HARE; AQUISI HARRIS; KENDALL HARRIS; MARY HARRIS; PATRICE A. HARRIS; BRIANNA HARRISON; SHARON HARRISON; SHARON HART; LEE ANN HARTMANN; PATRICIA HAUSER; DEANNA HAVERLY; LESLIE HEARN; KATHLEEN HEDRICK; AMANDA HEINLEIN; CHARLES HELMS; ROBERT HENDRICKSON; STEPHEN HERMAN; JAMES HERRINGTON; WILLIAM HESTER, JR.; DEBBIE HETTERLY; NANCY HICKMAN; JEREMY HILLBERRY; GREG E. HINES; ROBERT HITE; BRITTANY HOBAN; PAM HODGES; THURMAN HODGES; CHRISTOPHER HOEHN; CAROLYN HORCHNER; JEFFREY HORCHNER; BETTY HORNICK; JENNIFER HORNING; MAJOR M. HORTON; BITSY HOUSE; ALYSSA HRONOWSKI; TEDDY HUDDLESTON; JERRY HUDSON, SR.; HUBERT HUGHES; SHAY HUNTER; MARK HUSTEAD; CAROL HUTCHINSON; NATHEN ILLIDGE; GEORGE IOANNOU; FRANCES JACOCKS; PATRICIA JACOCKS; JASON JAFFEUX; SALLY JAMES; STACEY JANSEN; JOYCE JANTO; WALTER JEFFRIES; JANICE JENKINS; CHELSEA JOHNSON; MONICA JOHNSON; RASHEEDAH JOHNSON; TODD JOHNSON; DERWOOD JOHNSTON; JOHN JOHNSTONE; CHRISTINA JONES; PAMELA JONES; WILBER B. JONES; RICHARD JORDAN; SANDRA JORDAN; SHERYL JORDAN; JENNIFER JUSTICE; KIM KEATING; CODY KELLY; TERESA KELLY; MELANIE KENYON; JOHN KERR; SHEA KERSEY; HANNAH KIGHT; WILLIAM KIGHT; MIKYUNG KIM; CAROLYN KINES; LARRY KING; SUSAN KING; VERNON KIRBY; DIANA KITE; EDWARD KIZER; PATSY KIZER; JOHN A. KNIGHT; CONNIE KNISELEY; DONNA KNOELL; AMANDA KOZAK; TAMARA KROBERT; FRANK KULOVITZ; CARL KURI; KELLY KUSEK; VICTOR C. KVIETKUS; BRENDA LACKEY; TAMMY LACKEY; MARY LANG; MARKUS LANGE; CATHERINE LANTZ; GLENN LAVINDER; CHRISTOPHER LEGENDRE; BARBARA LEGGETT; DAVID LEHMAN; CALVIN LEWIS; CALVIN LEWIS; REGINA LEWIS; DELORES LINDBLOM; WILLIAM LIPFORD; ASHLEY LIPPOLIS-AVILES; MIKE LITTMAN; BILLY LLEWELLYN; ROBIN LOVETT; DAVID LOVING; CYANE LOWDEN; KEN LU; JOSHUA LUBECK; ROBERT R. LUCAS; PATRICIA LYONS; WILLIAM LYONS; CHRISTINE MACCASLIN; ANITA MADISON; JOHN MALIZIA; SUZANNE MALIZIA; THOMAS MALONE; STANLEY MARCUS; HEATHER MATSEY; JAMES MATSEY; RODNEY MATTHEWS; SHAWNA MATTOCKS; MATTHEW MATTRO; JEFF MAY; HAROLD MAYHEW, JR.; SHAWN MAYNOR; DIANDRA MAYO; ROBERT MCCARRAHER; PENNY MCCENEY; ROBERT MCCLELLAND; MICHAEL MCCLENNING; ROBERT MCCURDY; JOSEPH MCDANIEL; SUSAN MCFADDEN; WILLIAM MCFADDEN; MARK MCGINLEY; RICHARD MCGRUDER; VICTORIA MCGRUDER; DONALD MCINTIRE; KAREN MELLER; KAREN MELLER; CARMEN MERCADO; SCOTT MEYERS; CAROL MIEGGS; CHRISTY MILLER; DAVID MILLER; RON MILLER; MARIA MING LI; MARY MITCHELL; TERRIE MITCHELL; BANKS MITCHUM; BENJAMIN MOHER; DAVID MOLINARI; JUNG MOON; KAREN MOONEY; BONNIE MOORE; MONTE MORGAN; PHILLIP MORGAN; WILLIAM MORGAN; BRYON MOSS; SUZANNE MOWBRAY; DAVID MULLIGAN; MARY MULLIGAN; NANCY MURRAY; ROGER MYERS; PATRICK NANCE; DENNIS NEGRAN; PENNIE NEWELL; GLEN NEWITT; JACQUI NEWITT; EDWARD NEWMAN, JR.; KEVIN NEWSOME; REVEREDY NICHOLSON; PATRICIA NICOSIA; RANDALL NIXON; KAREN NOLAN; RYAN NOLETTE; BRYAN NORDQUIST; SERGEI NOVITSKY; JONATHAN O'BRIEN; WILLIAM O'FLYNN; KAREN O'NEIL; ADRIAN ODYA-WEIS; DENNIS OLEARY; JOHN OLSEN; TANA RAE OROPEZA; BRIAN OSBORNE; CANDACE OWENS; LYNN PAGE; TANYA PALIK; RONA PALMER; ASHLEY PANNELL; HARRY PAULETTE; TANYA PEAKE; DONNA PEARSON; RICHARD PEARSON; JOHN PEDERSEN; CHRIS PENA; ROY MASON PENNINGTON, III; NICHOLAS PEREZ; GREG PERIGARD; KIM PERKINS; MARK PERRY; BRADY PETERS; KAREN PETERS; THOMAS PETIT; REBECCA PETRELLA; SUSAN PETRIE; ADRIAN PHILLIPS, JR.; ANNE PICCIANO; JOHN PICCIANO; CARL PIERCE; SIVATHANU PILLAI; DEBRA PINES; CHARLES PINKARD; LILIA PINSON; ARLOVE PLUNKETT; TIMOTHY POHLIG; DENISE POINDEXTER; RACHEL POLIQUIN; MARGARET POMEROY; DAVID POORE, III; LAURA POTTER; KATHY POWERS; LINDA PRATT; BERNARD PRESGRAVES; JASON PRICE; DENISE PRYOR; JOSHUA PUCCI; VICTORIA PUCKETT; SARA PULLEN; TONY PULLEY; CYNTHIA QUATTLEBAUM; EVA RALSTON; WILLIAM RALSTON; HANNAH RAMEY; JACQUELINE RANDOLPH; THOMAS RANDOLPH; MICHAEL RANGER; BRAD RANSOM; HENRY REQUEJO; DAVID REYNOLDS; ROSE RICKER; DANNY RIDDLE; ROBIN ROBERT; JOSHUA ROBERTS; MARY ROBERTS; ANNIE ROBINSON; ANTONIO ROBINSON; ROCKY ROCKBURN; DREW ROPER; TROY ROSIER; ERIC ROTHMAN; BRIAN ROWE; JULIET ROWLAND; JOHN ROWLEY; NANCY ROWSEY; STEPHEN RUBIS; KYLE RUSSELL; JENNIFER RYAN; THOMAS RYDER; JOSEPH SALAZAR; RANDALL SAMPLES; REBECCA SAMUELSON; THOMAS SANCHEZ; AARON SANDERS; ASOK KUMAR SARKAR; TOM SCARCELLA; EDWARD SCEARCE; SHANE SCHLESMAN; WADE SCHWANKE, JR.; GWEN SEAL; AMY SEAY; BRADLEY SEAY; CHARLES SELTMAN; PATTY SENTER; LYNN SETTLE; TIM SEYMOUR; RONALD SHARP; ERNEST SHARPE; SHIRLEY SHAW; STEPHANIE SHELOR; MICHELLE SHIFFLETT; SANDRA SHIFFLETT; JUNE SHORES; D. SHAWN SHUMAKE; NINA SIBERT; ROBERT SILBER; CHRISTIAN SIMMERS; MARY SINGHAS; RANDALL SINGHAS; AMY SMITH; DAPHNE HOPE SMITH; LISA SMITH; STEPHEN SMITH; SUZANNE SMITH; KRISTINE SMOLENS; HOWARD SNYDER; WESLEY SONGER; EMILY SPARKS; BRIAN SPENCER; SVETLANA SPENCER; PATRICIA SPIER; LORI SPIK; DEREK ST. ONGE; RONALD STAFFORD; JONATHAN STARKS; MARK STEPHENS; TERRY STEPP; SARAH STEVENSON; ERIC STEWART; ROXANNE STITH; TIM STOESSEL; JEAN STOTLER; SARA STRAMEL; LARRY STRAYHORN; FRANKLIN STURKEY; BEN SULLENGER; YOLANDA SULLIVAN; JOHN SUTOR; WANDA SUTPHIN; SHARON SWINBURNE; STELLA TANG; ANDREW TAYLOR; ANN TAYLOR; DONNA TAYLOR; JI JI THEKKEVEEDU; CHRISTOPHER THOME; MICHAEL THOME; DAVID THOMPSON; TOM THOMPSON; ASHLI THURSTON; CHRISTOPHER TOKAR; DION TOMER; CLIFFORD TRIMBLE; SERGIO TROMBA; ADELINE TROTTER; JAMES TURNER; JEFFREY TURNER; OWENS TURNER, JR.; MARILYN TWINE; LONNIE URQUHART; CHERI VALVERDE; MIKE VAMMINO; CARRIE VAN HOOK; KATHERINE VANDENBRIEJE; MILCA VARGAS; MARY VAUGHAN; ROBENA VAUGHAN; JESSYCA VENICE; KIMBERLY VEST; CAROL VIERGUTZ; MARYANN VILLIES; PATRICE VOSSLER; AMADA WAGONER; STACY WALLER; GARY WALTON; GRETCHEN WARD; SHELIA WARD; DANIEL WAXMAN; CHRISTOPHER WEAVER; MARGARET WEBB; LAURA WEISIGER; STEPHANY WHIPPLE; DAVID WHITLEY; SARAH WHITLOCK; DIANE WIEN; ROBERT T. WIENER; CHRISTOPHER WILCHER; MINDY WILLIAMS; VINCENT WILLIAMS; HANNAH WILSON; JUANITA WILSON; RIED WILSON; CHARLES WISER; SHARON WISER; MARK WOEHLER; KENNETH WOMACK; EMILY WONG; GREGORY WOODS; KATHERYN WOOSLEY; CAROL WRIGHT; JONATHAN WRIGHT; MARY WRIGHT; THOMAS WRIGHT; TIMOTHY WRIGHT, JR.; LESLIE YAMNICKY; KENNETH YATES; JAMIE YOUNG; SANDRA YOUNG; ROBERT YOUNIE, II; ATEF ZAYD, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ALEXANDRIA HYUNDAI, LLC; BROWN'S LEESBURG HYUNDAI, LLC; BROWN'S MANASSAS HYUNDAI, LLC; CHECKERED FLAG IMPORTS, INCORPORATED; CHECKERED FLAG STORE #6, LLC; CRAFT AUTOMOTIVE, INCORPORATED; DUNCAN IMPORTS, INCORPORATED; FAIRFAX HYUNDAI, INCORPORATED; FIRST TEAM, INCORPORATED; GATEWAY HYUNDAI, INCORPORATED; HALL AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INCORPORATED; HALL HYUNDAI NEWPORT NEWS, LLC; HALL HYUNDAI, LLC; HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, INCORPORATED; MILLER AUTO SALES, INCORPORATED; CAVALIER HYUNDAI, INCORPORATED; HARRISONBURG AUTO MALL, LLC; JAMES CITY COUNTY ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED; MALLOY HYUNDAI; POHANKA AUTO CENTER, INCORPORATED; PRICE HYUNDAI CORPORATION; PRIORITY GREENBRIER AUTOMOTIVE, INCORPORATED; PRIORITY IMPORTS NEWPORT NEWS, INCORPORATED; ROBERT WOODALL CHEVROLET, INCORPORATED; TYSINGER MOTOR COMPANY, INCORPORATED; WBM, INCORPORATED, d/b/a West Broad Hyundai; WRIGHT WAY AUTOMOTIVE, INCORPORATED, Defendants-Appellees. ALIM ADBURAHMAN; JOHN ABEL; LENA ABEL; TAMARA ADAMS; BRANDON ADAMS; ASHRAS AHMADI; WADHAH AL-HADDAD; CLAUDIA ALLEN; PAUL ALLEN; JAMES ALLER; PEGGY ALLER; JIANPING ALLOCCA; NICOLE ALVARADO; GREGORY AMODEO; ROBERT ANDERSON; SHERRY ANDERSON; DENNIS ANDREW; LINDA G. ANDREWS; TINA ANTLEY; PAULINE APISITPAISAN; MONICA ADAIR ARGENT; GAURAV ARORA; RAMON ARROYO; JAMES E. ASHLEY, JR.; BAKAL ASRAT; ELIZABETH AVALAAN; CHERYL AYCOCK; JOANN K. BACHNER; SHANON BAILESS; CHRISTOPHER BAILEY; ANDY BAKER; BRIAN BAKER; CAROL BAKER; GEORGE BAKER; SUSAN BALLARD; DAVID BALMER; JEFF BARBER; SCOTT BARNITT; LINDA BARR; EMMETT BATTEN; SAMANTHA BEARD CURRY; BRIAN BECKER; ROY BECKER; TONYA BECKER; JOHN BECKNER, JR.; GINA BEEBE; KENNETH BELL; PAMELA BELL; WHITNEY BENSON; RAYMOND J. BERNERO; JOHN BESSERER; COLONEL BILLINGSLY; DANA BISHOP; MICHAEL BIZIK; THOMAS BJERS; PETER BOMBIK; SHARON BONNEAU; VIRGINIA BONNELL; ZESTANN BOOKER; STEPHANIE BORN-NEWTON; JORDAN BOSCH; SHIRLEY BOURNE; CARROL E. BOWEN; JOSEPH BOWE; JANICE BOWLES; JEAN BOWMAN; GRAY BOYCE; RPBERT BRABO, II; CHERYL A. BRADFORD; MARIE BRADLEY; OLIVIA BRADY; PHYLLIS BRANCH; NICOLE BRANDON; JOHNNY W. BRANSON; ELLIOTT ANDREW BRAY; EDMUND P. BREITLING; MARY ANN BRENDEL; MICHELLE BRINDLE; RICHARD BRINDLE; STEVE BRINGHURST; MELANIE BRINK; EDWINA D. BRITT-CRABLE; DANA BROADWAY; BARBARA BROWN; CHRISTINA L. BROWN; DELORES BROWN; JAMES A. BROWN; MATTHEW BROWN; MELANIE BROWN; MELISSA BROWN; NICOLE BROWN; TONY BROWN; PATRICK D. BRYAN; BRIANNE BRYANT; THOMAS J. BULLOCK; BEVERLY W. BURKE; JOYCE BURKE; RICHARD BURKE; MICHAEL BURNAM; JOHN M. BURNETT; DARLENE BURTON; GRACE M. BUTLER; SUZETTE BYRD; JOSEPH CALABRETTA; JAMES CALLIS; CLARE CAMPBELL; DOROTHY CAMPBELL; SETH CAMPBELL; STEVEN CAMPBELL; WHITNEY CAMPBELL; JOYCE CANTRELL; PAUL CAPOZZOLI; PHYLLIS CARIMI; DALE F. CARLEO; DENNIS CARLSON; MARK CARLTON; JAMES CARNEAL; MICHAEL CARPENTER; JOSE CARRASQUILLO; LINDA CARY; LEON CARY; JEFFREY CASH; ILONA CASTRO; ROBERTO CASTRO; JENNY CAVENDER; SHANNON CHAIN; DILIP CHAKRABORTY; BAISHAKHY CHAKRABORTY; ROGER CHELSEA; PETER CHIAMARDAS; MICHAEL CHRISTOPHER; CHERENE CIMBALIST; BENJAMIN CLARK; DANIEL K. CLARK; ELIZABETH CLARK; LARRY CLEMENTS; ROBBIN CLEMENTS; KENDALL S. CLOETER; JEREMY COBB; QUEEN B. COBBS; GARY COCUZZI; JACK VICTOR COHEN; JULIEANNA COLEMAN; CLINTON COLLINS; AMON R. COLLINS, JR.; COLLIN CONNORS; LOLANDA COOPER; SHARON COOPER; EILEEN CORBIN; MICHAEL CORCORAN; KRISTEN CORLEW; GARY COVERSTON; MARINA M. COX; MOSES COX; TAMMY COX; JUSTIN CRONIN; JILL CROWDER; BELINDA CUBBAGE; KELSEY CUBBAGE; BESSIE CUFFEE; DAN CUOMO; BRENDA CURTIS; ELVIS CYPRIANO; STEPHANIE DAENZER; RICHARD L. DAMEWOOD; JON DANCE; WILLIAM DANIEL; BROOKE DAVIES; ANGELA DAVIS; JODY W. DAVIS; MATTHEW DAVIS; JASON DAWSON; LAURIE DAWSON; NELSON DAWSON; PAUL DAWSON; DESIREE DEAN; ANTWAIN DEBERRY; BLAIR DEEM; JENNIFER DEGRAFF; WILLIAM DEJOHN; JOE DELGADO; TOM DELPOZZO; ANTHONY DEPAUL, JR.; MICHAEL DESOUTO; STACY DOBSON; DAVID DOBSON; SONYA DODSON; DAVID DODSWORTH; MASON DOERMANN; YVONNE DOVER; MINNIE DUNFORD; SANDRA K. DUNTON; CHRIS C. DUTTON; DEBORAH EDGEFIELD; KASEY EIKE; MIRIAH EISENMAN; KATHY ELDRETH; TIMOTHY ELLIOTT; THOMAS ENGLISH; KEITH EPPS; CINDY FABER; MASE FABER; LUIS FALCON; JOHN FARMER; BRANDON FARRELL; CHRIS D. FERGUSON; FARANDA FERGUSON; WANDA FERGUSON; JUNE FERRARA; MICHAEL FERTICH; JAMES FICKLE; SHIRLEY FICKLE; JOSELYN FIELDS; JODI FILIPEK; BEVERLY FINTCH; JENNIFER FLEURET; SUSAN FOFI; RANDALL FOFI; LAURI FOUTZ; TIMOTHY FOUTZ; KATHLEEN FOWLER; THOMAS ROBERT FRANCO; GREG FRANK; JOHN FRANKLIN; RONALD FRASIER; CATHLEEN FREIBURGER; SHARON FRITH; MICHAEL FRUITMAN; ALICIA FUSCO; ADLYN FUTRELL; DOUGLAS FUTRELL; GUILLERMO GALARZA; ANTHONY GALLARDY; IVAN GALLOWAY, JR.; PETER GARTNER; CYNTHIA GASTLEY; SHEILA GAY; JESSICA S. GEARHART; PAMELA EDWARDS; JOHN WILLIAM GENTRY; MARK GEORGE; JOHN GILBERT; DANIELLE KAY GILLELAND; ANGELA GIONIS; JACQUELINE GIOVANNELLI; ADAM G. GOLDSMITH; RICHARD GOULD; CARRINE GRAHAM; CHERYL GRAHAM; RAY GRAHAM; TAMMY B. GRAHAM; KAMERON GRAY-HAROLD; ADAM GRAYBERG; AYNDRIA GREEN; LISA D. GREEN; THOMAS GREICO; ROBERT GRIMES; DAVID GROSS; JOE GROSS; JESSICA GROVES; MEGAN GUILLAUME; MICHAEL GUILLAUME; KELLI GUNTER; LAUREN HAGY; RICHARD HALL; DOROTHY HALPIN; PETE HALSETH; DAVID HAMMOND; RICHARD HAMNER; STACY HARDY; JIM HARNEY; TERESA R. HAROLD; AQUISI HARRIS; ASHLEY HARRIS; CHAD HARRIS; ERVIN M. HARRIS; MARY HARRIS; WILLIAM HARRIS; BRIANNA HARRISON; PATRICIA HARRISON; SHARON HARRISON; JESSE HATHAWAY; CLAUDIA HAVEKOST; DAVID HAYNES; LESLIE HEARN; KATHLEEN HEDRICK; ADAM HEIDEL; TINY L. HENLEY; AMBER HERNANDEZ; ZACHACY HERRERA; F. DALE HERRON; TARENNE HERRON; JENNIFER HESTER; DEBBIE HETTERLY; AMANDA HILL; RONALD HILL; CHRIS HILLAND; SHIRLEY B. HINES; VERON HINES; TIMOTHY HINSON; HEATHER HOBACK; BRITTANY HOBAN; DOMINGA HOBBS; MARY HODGES; CHRISTOPHER HOEHN; JERRY HOLLEY; KEISHA HOLLOWAY; BRENDA HOLMES; JAMES HOLMES, III; TIMOTHY HOLROYD; CHAD HOLSTON; CHARLES HOOFNAGLE; CANDI HOOVER; CHARLIE HOPKINS; MARCIA HORSTMAN; RICHARD HOSKINS; CODY HOWARD; JESSICA HOWARD; AUDREY HUBAND; MAX HUBAND; JOHN HUBBARD; SUZANNE HUBBARD; DAVID HUBER; TEDDY HUDDLESTON; AMY HUDSON; HUBERT HUGHES; DENNY HUNCHES; LINNIE HUPE; SHERRY HUTCHINS; DEBORAH G. JACKSON; MITCHELL JACKSON; STANLEY JACKSON, SR.; TRACY JACKSON; JASON JAFFEUX; BRUCE JAMES; SALLY JAMES; SANDY JAMES; WALTER JEFFRIES, SR.; RANDALL JNBAPTISTE; AUSTIN JOHNSON; AUSTIN JOHNSON; EBORAH L. JOHNSON; DAVID W. JOHNSON; BILLY JONES; CHARLIE JONES; CHRISTINA JONES; JOHN K. JONES; PEYTON P. JONES; WILBUR JONES; PHILIP R. JUDSON; KENNETH JUNGERSON; NANCY JUNGERSON; JENIFER JUSTICE; DAVID KADAS; TINA KADAS; GREGORY KASHIN; SRINIVAS KATEPALLI; WILLIAM L. KEE; VICTOR G. KEHLER; SEAN KELLER; TERESA KELLER; CHRISTOPHER KELLY; NONA KELLY; VERONICA KELLY; PATRICK KEOUGH; MEE RAN KIM; CARLTON KINARD; DORIS E. KING; KARL KING; JOHN KIRBY; VERNON KIRBY; DIANA KITE; EDWARD KIZER; PATSY KIZER; JOHN KNIGHT; ANN KORKOLIS; FRED KRAUER, JR.; JEAN KUESTER; KATHRYN KUYKENDOLL; DANIEL KWITCHEN; CHIN KWON; DENNIS LAMB; JEANETTE LAMB; KAREN LAMB; JAMES LAMBERT; STEPHANIE LAMM; KATHY LAMPERT; ANDREW W. LANDER; CODY LAUGHINGHOUSE; DAVID LEATHERMAN; BLAIRE S. LEE; KENNETH LEE; JENNIFER LEEMAN; RONALD LEEMAN; JERRY LERMAN; CALVIN LEWIS; HAYES LEWIS; REGINA A. LEWIS; ROY W. LEWIS; KAREN LILLEY; STEPHEN LILLEY; LYLE LINDBERG; ASHLEY LIPPOLIS-AVILES; BILLY LLEWELLYN; WILLIAM LOHMANN, JR.; ROBIN LOVETT; DAVID W. LOVING; KEN LU; MICHELE J. LUIS; MELINDA LUMPKIN; DIRK LYNCH; GINGER LYNCH; PATRICIA LYONS; WILLIAM LYONS; DINNE MACDONALD; DWAYNE MADDOX; SORAYA MAINS; MELISSA MALONE; THOMAS MALONE; REGINA MANNING; TERRANCE MANNING; KIRAN MANTRALA; ANDREA MARCHESE; STANLEY MARCUS; STEVE MARKOVITS; KENNETH MARTIN; RACHEL MARTIN; REYNALDO MARTINEZ; RALPH MARTINI; CLETIOUS T. MASHBURN; LAUREN MATSKO; SHAWNA MATTOCKS; LEO MAYNES; PENNY MCCENEY; STELLA MCCLAIN; WILLIAM MCCLELLAN; ROBERT MCCLELLAND; SUSAN MCCLELLAND; SUSAN MCFADDEN; RICHARD MCGRUDER; VICTORIA MCGRUDER; DONALD MCINTIRE; ANNE MCKENNA; RACHEL MCKENZIE; KENNETH MCKINNEY; TERESA MCLAWHORN; DAVID MEADOWS; RITA MEDLEY; TOMMY MEDLEY; ROBERT MEEKER; MICHAEL MEISTER; KAREN MELLER; CARMEN C. MERCADO; ROBERT E. MICKLE; EDMEE MIGUEZ-GERSTLE; MICHAEL E. MILLER; LISA MILLFORD; MICHAEL MINTZ; MARY MITCHELL; MICHELLE MONROE; CHRIS MOONEY; GARY MOORE; KAREN MOORE; MELODY MORRIS; SUZANNE MOWBRAY; RAYMOND MUELLER; PATRICK MULHERN; DAVID MULLIGAN; LAURENCE MULLIGAN; MARY MULLIGAN; BILLIE MUTTER; MELISSA MUTTER; KEVIN NEWSOME; REVERDY NICHOLSON; SUSAN NOON; SARAH NOVAK; RACHEL NOVERSA; TODD NUNNALLY; JONATHAN O'BRIEN; DARLENE O'DONNELL; JAMES O'DONNELL; PAUL O'KEEFE; TIMOTHY O'MARA; CAROLYN O'NEILL; PAUL J. O'ROURKE; MALCOLM O'SULLIVAN; BRIAN OSBORNE; SARAH OSINSKI; JESSICA OUTER; HERBERT C. OVERSTREET; CANDACE OWENS; CHRISTOPHER PALAZIO; LYNETTE PALMER-FORD; ASHLEY D. PANNELL; MATTHEW PARK; TERRI PARKER; MICAH PARMAN; BHAGVATI PATEL; MUKESH PATEL; PRADIP PATEL; SHREYA PATIL; JOHN PATTIE; JAMES PEARSALL, JR.; DONNA PEARSON; OREST PELECH; CHRIS PENA; ROY M. PENNINGTON, III; THOMAS PEPE; MARK PERRY; KAREN PETERS; JOHN PETERSON; MARK PETERSON; REBECCA PETRELLA; SUSAN PETRIE; ROBERT PETRUSKA; CLAUDE PETTYJOHN; CARL PIERCE; JANET PIETROVITO; DEBRA PINES; LINDSEY POLI; ANGELA POLINKO; CARLTON POLLARD; DAVID POORE, III; ANTON POPOV; LINDA M. PRATT; JASON PRICE; ROBERT PUAKEA; SARA PULLEN; SARHAN QURAISHI; JAMES RADCLIFFE; MELISSA RADCLIFFE; SCOTT RAMSEY; JACQUELINE RANDOLPH; MICHAEL RANGER; NANCY RANSOME; SHELLIE RENZ; SHERI RESSE; MATTHEW D. REVELLE; STEPHEN RIBBLE; ANITA RICE; LARRY RICE; RICHARD RICHARDSON; CARI RICHARDSON; MICHAEL RICHEY; SARAH RICHEY; MARVIN RIDDICK; DANNY RIDDLE; JENNIFER RIGGER; WAYNE RILEY; TAMRIA RISHER; DANIEL ROBERTS; MARY ROBERTS; SUSAN ROBERTS; GAYE ROBERTSON; SKYLER ROBEY; ANNIE ROBINSON; ANTONIO ROBINSON; KEVIN ROBINSON; PAMELA ROBINSON; ROCKY ROCKBURN; COLETTE ROOTS; DARYL ROOTS; GREGG ROSENBERG; ERIC ROTHMAN; BRIAN ROWE; VIRGINIA A. ROWEN; JULIET ROWLAND; PAUL ROY; RONALD RUCKER; DAVID RUFFNER, JR.; JILL RUFFNER; KRISTYN RUZICKA; JENNIFER RYAN; STEPHEN RYAN; JOSEPH SALAZAR; RACIN SAM; GEORGE SANCHEZ; BONNIE SANDAHL; GARY SARKOZI; JEFF SAUNDERS; JEANNETTE SCHAAR; AILEEN L. SCHMIDT; EDWARD SCHNITTGER; LINDA RUTH SCOTT; GWEN SEAL; AMY SEAY; ANTHONY SELB; DELMAR N. SELDEN; LYNN SETTLE; RICHARD SEYMANN; SHARON SGAVICCHIO; SHA'NESHA SHARPE; ROBERT L. SHELLHOUSE; GARY SHELOR; STEPHANIE SHELOR; BRENDA SHIFFLETT; NINA SIBERT; DAVID SILVERNALE; JESSICA SIMONS; MARY SINGHAS; RANDALL SINGHAS; DONALD SKINNER; RICHARD E. SMITH; SUZANNE SMITH; CYNTHIA L. SNYDER; MANDY SNYDER; HOWARD SNYKER; WESLEY SONGER; JOHN SORESE; RAYMOND M. SOUZA; SHELLIE S. SPADARO; TONY L. SPARKS; LINDA SPRADLIN; SUSAN STANDRIDGE; NANETTE STANLEY; JONATHAN STARKS; EUGENIA STARNES; GARY STECK; REBECCA STECK; ANDREW STEELEY; CAROLYN RENEE STEVENS; SARA STEVENS; SASHA STITT; TIM STOESSEL; CHEVON D. STOKES; EDWARD STOKES; NATHAN STONE; YOLANDA SULLIVAN; DENNIS SUMLIN; JOHNNIE SUMLIN; JOHN SUTOR; WANDA SUTPHIN; STELLA TANG; ANDREW TAYLOR; ANN TAYLOR; KIMBERLY TAYLOR; FREDDY TELLERIA; MATTHEW TENGS; JOHN THACKER; CANDACE TILLAGE; CHRISTOPHER TOKAR; SUSIE TORTOLANI; MARY TRAINOR; ADELINE TROTTER; PEGGY TSACLAS; JAMES TURNER; ROBERT TURNER; RUFUS TUNSTALL; LUCILLE TYLER; TRAVIS TYSINGER; JOHN TYSON; CYNTHIA UTLEY; CARRIE VAN HOOK; DENISE VANGELOS; MILCA VARGAS; ROBERT VARNER; MARY VAUGHAN; ROBENA D. VAUGHAN; KELLY VERHAM; KIMBERLY VEST; CAROL VIERGUTZ; MARY ANN VILLIES; WALLACE VINGELIS; MARVIN WADE; SANDRA WADE; SCOTT WAGGONER; TERESA WAGGONER; MAGI WAGNER; JANE WALLACE; STACY WALLER; SHERYL WALTERS; GARY WALTON; KIMBERLY WARD; CATHERINE WATERS; BERNARD WATTS; MICHAEL WEBB; SCOTT WEBB; MELISSA WEBSTER; SHARON WELLS; STEPHANY WHIPPLE; SARAH WHITLOCK; ROBERT T. WIENER; CHRISTOPHER WILCHER; DAVID WILD; CHRISTINA WILLIAMS; GEORGE WILLIAMS; GINER WILLIAMS; DAGNY WILLS; GARY WILLS; DR. SARAH WILMER; LESLIE WILSON; ROBIN WILSON; THOMAS WINSTON; CHARLES WISER; SARA WOLLMACHER; MIKE WOO; WAYNE H. WOOD; WAYNE WOODHAMS; STACEY T. WOODS; ARTHUR WRIGHT; THOMAS WRIGHT; DAVID WYCKOFF; GINO YANNOTTI; JAMIE YOUNG; JONG YUN; ATEF ZAYD; ANGELA R. ZIMMERMAN; RINGO YUNG, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ALEXANDRIA HYUNDAI, LLC; BROWN'S LEESBURG HYUNDAI, LLC; BROWN'S MANASSAS HYUNDAI, LLC; CHECKERED FLAG IMPORTS, INCORPORATED; CHECKERED FLAG STORE #6, LLC; CRAFT AUTOMOTIVE, INCORPORATED; DUNCAN IMPORTS, INCORPORATED; FAIRFAX HYUNDAI, INCORPORATED; FIRST TEAM, INCORPORATED; GATEWAY HYUNDAI, INCORPORATED; HALL AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INCORPORATED; HALL HYUNDAI NEWPORT NEWS, LLC; HALL HYUNDAI, LLC; HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, INCORPORATED; MILLER AUTO SALES, INCORPORATED; CAVALIER HYUNDAI, INCORPORATED; HARRISONBURG AUTO MALL, LLC; JAMES CITY COUNTY ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED; MALLOY HYUNDAI; POHANKA AUTO CENTER, INCORPORATED; PRICE HYUNDAI CORPORATION; PRIORITY GREENBRIER AUTOMOTIVE, INCORPORATED; PRIORITY IMPORTS NEWPORT NEWS, INCORPORATED; ROBERT WOODALL CHEVROLET, INCORPORATED; TYSINGER MOTOR COMPANY, INCORPORATED; WBM, INCORPORATED, d/b/a West Broad Hyundai; WRIGHT WAY AUTOMOTIVE, INCORPORATED, Defendants-Appellees. LINDA RUTH SCOTT, individually and on behalf of all other Virginia owners similarly situated; DANIELLE KAY GILLELAND; JOSEPH BOWE; MICHAEL DESOUTO, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and JOHN WILLIAM GENTRY, individually and on behalf of all other Virginia owners similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee, Nos. 17-1582, 17-1587, 17-1611 (4th Cir.). ARGUED: James B. Feinman, Esq., JAMES B. FEINMAN & ASSOCIATES, in Lynchburg, Virginia, for Appellants. Shon Morgan -- shonmorgan@quinnemanuel.com -- QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP, Los Angeles, California, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Jakarra J. Jones -- jakarra.jones@gmail.com -- Richmond, Virginia, James F. Neale -- jneale@mcguirewoods.com -- MCGUIREWOODS LLP, Charlottesville, Virginia; David Cooper -- davidcooper@quinnemanuel.com -- QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP, New York, New York, for Appellees. ILLINOIS CLINICAL: Prebe Seeks Minimum Wages for Phlebotomists -------------------------------------------------------------- ERIC PREBE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NORTHERN ILLINOIS CLINICAL LABORATORY LTD. d/b/a NICL LABS, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-4767 (N.D. Ill., July 11, 2018) is an action against the Defendant to recover minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mr. Prebe was employed by the Defendant as a phlebotomist -- people who are trained to draw blood from a patient for clinical or medical testing, transfusions, donations, or research. Northern Illinois Clinical Laboratory LTD. d/b/a NICL Labs is an Illinois entity headquartered at 306 Era Drive, Northbrook, Illinois 60062. The Company owns and operates laboratory facilities through Illinois and provides on-site blood draws for laboratory testing. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David J. Fish, Esq. Kimberly Hilton, Esq. John Kunze , Esq. THE FISH LAW FIRM P.C. 200 E 5 th Ave Suite 123 Naperville, IL 60563 Telephone: (630)355-7590 Facsimile: (630)778-0400 INTERNATIONAL COMPUTER: Velez Files FLSA Suit in S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against International Computer Systems, Inc. The case is styled as Aida Velez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. International Computer Systems, Inc. doing business as: First Collection Services, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-23063-RNS (S.D. Fla., July 27, 2018). The lawsuit arises under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. International Computer Systems Inc. provides debt collection services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B Sanders, Esq. Barshay Sanders, PLLC 100 Garden CIty Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Tel: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com LIQUID WEB: Underpays Account Executives, "Enriquez" Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- JAVIER ENRIQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LIQUID WEB LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-691 (W.D. Tex., July 9, 2018) seeks to recover unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, reasonably attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiff Enriquez was employed by the Defendant as account executive from October 16, 2017 to June 18, 2018. Liquid Web LLC provides managed serves hosting and VPS services. The Company is an affiliate of Liquid Web Inc. which was founded in 1997 and is based in Lansing, Michigan. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa Morales Fletcher, Esq. THE MORALES FIRM, P.C. 6243 IH-1o West, Suite 132 San Antonio, TX 78201 Telephone: (210) 225-0811 Facsimile: (210) 225-0821 E-mail: Melissa@themoralesfirm.com LOW-T CENTERS: Lozano Suit Alleges Discrimination & Harassment -------------------------------------------------------------- ANGELICA M. LOZANO on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated employees v. Low-T Centers, Inc., Low T Center LLC, Low-T Physicians Services P.L.L.C., Low-T Shared Services, L.L.C., and, Low-T Center of Tennessee JV, L.L.C., Case No. 3:18-cv-00689 (M.D. Tenn., July 25, 2018), seeks equitable relief and damages for alleged unlawful discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Ms. Lozano also brings this action as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act because of the Defendants' alleged unlawful deprivation of her rights to overtime compensation and/or the failure to pay overtime compensation at the appropriate rate. LTCI is a corporation that does business as The Low-T Center. LTCLLC is a limited liability company. LTPS is a professional limited liability company. The principal office of LTCI, LTCLLC and LTPS is located in Southlake, Texas. LTCI, LTCLLC and LTPS are not licensed to do business in the state of Tennessee but operate and does business within the State as The Low-T Center or Low-T Centers. LTCT is a limited liability company with its principal office located in Colleyville, Texas. LTCT does business as The Low T Center. LTSS is a Texas limited liability company registered to do business in the state of Tennessee. LTSS does business as The Low-T Center. Low-T Centers provide testosterone replacement therapy.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles P. Yezbak, III, Esq. YEZBAK LAW OFFICES PLLC 2002 Richard Jones Road, Suite B-200 Nashville, TN 37215 Telephone: (615) 250-2000 Facsimile: (615) 250-2020 E-mail: yezbak@yezbaklaw.com MACK PEST: Fails to Pay Technicians Proper OT Wages, Lamar Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- JON LAMAR and WESLEY SIMMONS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. MACK PEST CONTROL, INC., Case No. 3:18-cv-00692 (M.D. Tenn., July 25, 2018), alleges that the Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay the Plaintiffs one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for all hours worked within a workweek in excess of 40 hours. The Plaintiffs are former pest technicians of the Company. The job duties of the Plaintiffs and those similarly situated consisted of providing pest control and termite treatment services to residential and commercial properties as well as planning routes for their services. Mack Pest Control, Inc., provides pest control services to residential and commercial properties in Middle and West Tennessee.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jonathan A. Street, Esq. A. Ryan Simmons, Esq. THE EMPLOYMENT & CONSUMER LAW GROUP 525 4th Avenue South Nashville, TN 37210 Telephone: (615) 850-0632 E-mail: street@eclaw.com rsimmons@eclaw.com MDL 2551: Court Denies Certification of NHL Hockey Players ---------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in the case captioned In re: National Hockey League Players' Concussion Injury Litigation, This Document Relates to All Actions, MDL No. 14-2551 (SRN/BRT)(D. Minn.). This action, brought on behalf of a proposed class of former National Hockey League (NHL) players, arises from what the Plaintiffs describe as the pathological and debilitating effects of brain injuries caused by concussive and sub-concussive impacts sustained by former NHL players during their professional careers. The NHL, according to the Plaintiffs, knew or should have known of the growing body of scientific evidence linking repetitive concussive events to long-term neurological problems, such as dementia, Alzheimer's, and Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE). The NHL did not, however, warn the Plaintiffs or any other member of the proposed class about the dangers of repeated brain trauma. The Plaintiffs' Proposed Classes: Class 1: All Living Retired NHL Hockey Players Plaintiffs Christian and Larson move for Rule 23(b)(2) certification and for appointment as representatives of a class of all living retired NHL hockey players. The Plaintiffs assert that under Minnesota choice-of-law rules, the Court should apply New York law to the issue of liability (duty and breach), and Minnesota law to the issue of the remedy sought (medical monitoring). Alternatively, Plaintiffs Christian, Larson, Nicholls, and LaCouture move for certification under a grouping of state laws. Class 2: All Retired NHL Hockey Players (or representative claimants if they are deceased) who have been clinically diagnosed with a Neurological Disease, Disorder, or Condition (NDDC). Plaintiffs Leeman and the Ziedel Estate move for certification of a class of all retired NHL hockey players (or representative claimants if they are deceased) who have been clinically diagnosed with a NDDC as to the legal issues of duty of care and breach of duty, including the failure to warn, and factual issues relevant to whether the head impacts that class members experienced can cause latently-developed NDDCs. Medical Monitoring Law Varies Widely Across the U.S. and Canada The Plaintiffs argue that Minnesota law governs their request for medical monitoring. Minnesota courts have allowed the recovery of medical monitoring expenses where the elements of a tort claim are proven and evidence of a present injury is established Medical monitoring law in other jurisdictions, however, is greatly varied, resulting in significant outcome-determinative conflicts between Minnesota law and the other forty-nine states, the District of Columbia, and the Canadian provinces. Several states, for example, recognize medical monitoring only if the plaintiff has a manifest physical injury. One state has held that plaintiffs can recover medical monitoring upon a showing that the plaintiff has suffered a subcellular or subclinical injury. In the first category of states, the Michigan Supreme Court has rejected any independent claim for medical monitoring. The plaintiffs in that case did not claim to have suffered any present physical harm because of defendant's allegedly negligent contamination. In Massachusetts, plaintiffs may recover the costs of medical monitoring as a form of future medical expense damages, upon a showing of subcellular injuries. Five other states allow medical monitoring awards as damages without proof of present injury or cellular or subcellular harm, such as California, where the cost of medical monitoring is a compensable item of damages where the proofs demonstrate, through reliable medical expert testimony, that the need for future monitoring is a reasonably certain consequence of a plaintiff's toxic exposure and that the recommended monitoring is reasonable. Some states, such as Florida, recognize medical monitoring as an independent cause of action that does not require proof of present injury or cellular or sub-cellular harm. The Plaintiffs maintain that a number of states can be grouped together based on the way they treat medical monitoring claims. For example, the Plaintiffs identify 28 jurisdictions that permit medical monitoring relief where there is a showing of exposure plus increased probability of developing a future disease. The laws of many of those jurisdictions are varied and complex. The Plaintiffs' grouping theory cannot be used to sidestep the widespread divergence among the states in the requirements for medical monitoring. Thus, there are significant outcome-determinative conflicts between the states' legal requirements for medical monitoring relief. Since, the choice-influencing factors point to several different states, depending upon the playing history and domicile of each class member, the Court would be forced to apply a wide range of legal standards for the recovery of medical monitoring. Someone who played for the New York Rangers or Islanders such as Plaintiff LaCouture could not state a claim for medical monitoring without a showing of present injury. A former player for the St. Louis Blues such as Plaintiff Leeman could receive medical monitoring as an element of damages without proof of present injury. Someone who played for the Florida Panthers or Tampa Bay Lightning or retired to Florida could be entitled to medical monitoring as an independent cause of action without proof of present injury. A former player for the Minnesota North Stars or the Minnesota Wild or someone who currently lives in Minnesota such as Plaintiffs Christian and Larson could receive medical monitoring as a form of damages if he has proof of cellular or sub-cellular injury. For a player who retired to Hawaii, the court would be acting on a blank slate with no clear guidance from any court as to whether, and under what circumstances, medical monitoring is a viable claim or an element of damages. For all of these reasons, individualized legal issues will substantially predominate over common legal issues in this litigation. Accordingly, class certification cannot be granted under Rule 23(b)(3). The Court therefore declines to certify either of the Plaintiffs' proposed classes under Rule 23. A full-text copy of the District Court's July 13, 2018 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yc8rdwtq from Leagle.com. Plaintiffs' Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley C. Buhrow -- brad.buhrow@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed PLLP, pro hac vice, Brian C. Gudmundson -- brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, Charles S. Zimmerman -- charles.zimmerman@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed, LLP, David M. Cialkowski -- david.cialkowski@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, Hart L. Robinovitch -- hart.robinovitch@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, Janine D. Arno -- jarno@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbin Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Kathleen L. Douglas -- kdouglas@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Leonard B. Simon -- lens@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Mark J. Dearman -- mdearman@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP, Stephen G. Grygiel -- sgrygiel@mdattorney.com -- SILVERMAN, THOMPSON, SLUTKIN & WHITE, Steven D. Silverman -- ssilverman@mdattorney.com -- SILVERMAN, THOMPSON, SLUTKIN & WHITE, Stuart A. Davidson -- SDavidson@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP, pro hac vice & William N. Sinclair -- bsinclair@mdattorney.com -- SILVERMAN, THOMPSON, SLUTKIN & WHITE. National Hockey League, Defendant, represented by Aaron D. Van Oort -- aaron.vanoort@FaegreBD.com -- Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Adam M. Lupion -- alupion@proskauer.com -- PROSKAUER ROSE, LLP, Daniel J. Connolly -- daniel.connolly@FaegreBD.com -- Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Geoffrey M. Wyatt -- geoffrey.wyatt@skadden.com -- Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP, Jessica D. Miller -- jessica.miller@skadden.com -- Skadden, Arps, Meagher & Flom LLP, John Herbert Beisner -- john.beisner@skadden.com -- SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM LLP, Joseph Baumgarten -- jbaumgarten@proskauer.com -- PROSKAUER ROSE, LLP, Joseph M. Price -- joseph.price@FaegreBD.com -- Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Linda S. Svitak -- linda.svitak@FaegreBD.com -- Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Matthew Martin -- matthew.martino@skadden.com -- Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Matthew Stein -- matthew.stein@skadden.com -- Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP, Michael H. Menitove -- michael.menitove@skadden.com -- Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP & Shepard Goldfein -- shepard.goldfein@skadden.com -- Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom. MDL 2863: Ford and Dubrovsky Seek to Consolidate 3 Cases -------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the case of Michael Ford and Rudolph Dubrovsky, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. [24]7.AI, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-02770 (N.D. Cal., May 10, 2018), filed a motion before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation for an Order to consolidate three federal actions against [24]7.AI, Inc., Delta Airlines, Inc., and Best Buy Co., Inc., and assign the cases as MDL No. 2863. The Plaintiffs move the Panel to transfer and consolidate pretrial proceedings for these actions: -- Ford, et. al. v. [24]7.AI, Inc., et al., Northern District of California, No. 5:18-cv-2770; -- McGarry v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., Northern District of Georgia, No. 1:18-cv-2794; and -- Naini, et al v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., et al., Central District of California, No. 2:18-cv-2876. In the McGarry suit, [24]7.AI, Inc. filed on August 3, 2018, these motions: -- Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; -- Motion to Stay Case Pending Resolution of Motion For Transfer And Consolidation Filed With The JPML And of Defendants' Motions to Transfer; and -- Motion to Transfer Case to United States District Court for the Central District of California. Delta on August 2 filed its own Motion to Transfer Case to United States District Court for the Central District of California. [24]7.ai is a customer experience software and services company headquartered in San Jose, California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John A. Yanchunis, Esq. Ryan J. McGee, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 Facsimile: (813) 223-5402 E-mail: jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com rmcgee@ForThePeople.com - and - Clayeo C. Arnold, Esq. Joshua H. Watson, Esq. CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION 865 Howe Avenue Sacramento, CA 95825 Telephone: (916) 777-7777 Facsimile: (916) 924-1829 E-mail: carnold@justice4you.com jwatson@justice4you.com MERCURY SYSTEMS: Richmond Files Securities Class Action in Mass. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kent Richmond, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mercury Systems, Inc., Mark Aslett, and Gerald M. Haines II, Case No. 1:18-cv-11434 (D. Mass., July 10, 2018), is a securities class action on behalf of all persons who purchased Mercury common stock between October 24, 2017 and April 24, 2018, inclusive, seeking remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, the Defendants acted with scienter in that they knew that the public documents and statements issued or disseminated in the name of the Company were materially false and misleading; knew that such statements or documents would be issued or disseminated to the investing public; and knowingly and substantially participated or acquiesced in the issuance or dissemination of such statements or documents as primary violations of the federal securities laws. The Plaintiff Kent Richmond purchased Mercury common stock. The Defendant Mercury is a commercial provider of defense and intelligence, secure sensor and safety critical mission processing subsystems for defense prime contractors. Mercury is deployed in more than 300 programs, including: Aegis, Patriot, Surface Electronic Warfare Improvement Program, Gorgon Stare, Predator, F-35, Reaper, F-16 SABR, E2D Hawkeye and Paveway. The Individual Defendant Mark Aslet is the president and chief executive officer of Mercury. The Individual Defendant Gerald M. Haines II was the chief financial officer of Mercury from the beginning of the class period to February 2, 2018. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 733 Summer Street, Suite 304 Stamford, CT 06901 Tel: (203) 992-4523 Fax: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: shopkins@zlk.com METHODIST HEALTH: Rudy Goff Files Suit to Recover Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------------ RUDY GOFF, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. METHODIST HEALTH CENTERS d/b/a HOUSTON METHODIST WILLOWBROOK HOSPITAL, Case No. 4:18-cv-02580 (S.D. Tex., July 25, 2018), seeks to recover alleged unpaid wages, lost wages, liquidated damages and attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Methodist Health Centers, doing business as Houston Methodist Hospital, is a Domestic Nonprofit Corporation that wholly owns and operates Houston Methodist Willowbrook Hospital in Harris County, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alfonso Kennard, Jr., Esq. Yanice Colon-Pol, Esq. KENNARD RICHARD P.C. 2603 Augusta Drive, 14th Floor Houston TX 77057 Telephone: (713) 742-0900 Facsimile: (713) 742-0951 E-mail: alfonso.kennard@kennardlaw.com Yanice.Colon@kennardlaw.com MEX LUNA: Salman Suit Seeks to Recoup Overtime Wages Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- JORGE SALMAN v. MEX LUNA PRODUCE CO. INC.; LUNA WHOLESALE INC.; AND RODOLFO LUNA, INDIVIDUALLY, Case No. 4:18-cv-02590 (S.D. Tex., July 25, 2018), seeks to recover alleged unpaid wages, including overtime wages, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mex Luna Produce Co. Inc. is a domestic corporation. Luna Wholesale Inc. is a domestic corporation. Mex Luna and Luna Wholesale (the "Company") are owned and operated by Rodolfo Luna. The Company is located at the Farmers Market on Airline Drive in Houston, Texas. The Company sells produce to Houston area restaurants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Siurek, Esq. Patricia Haylon, Esq. WARREN & SIUREK, L.L.P. 3334 Richmond, Suite 100 Houston, TX 77098 Telephone: (713) 522-0066 Facsimile: (713) 522-9977 E-mail: msiurek@warrensiurek.com thaylon@warrensiurek.com MICROSOFT INC: Employees Appeal Gender Bias Class Action Ruling --------------------------------------------------------------- Nat Levy and Kaitlyn Wang, writing for GeekWire, report that current and former technical employees at Microsoft are not giving up on a push to expand a three-year-old gender discrimination lawsuit to cover thousands of women who have worked for the tech giant in recent years. The legal team representing former high-ranking cybersecurity employee Katie Moussouris and current Microsoft employee Holly Muenchow has filed a petition to appeal a federal judge's ruling denying class-action status on their lawsuit. This moves the dispute over class action status up to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, while the general claims of the lawsuit have yet to be decided. The plaintiffs sought to expand their lawsuit to cover 8,600 women in technical roles that have worked at the company since 2012. U.S. District Judge James L. Robart denied the request after legal teams representing both sides presented their arguments in U.S. District Court in Seattle last month. The case dates back to 2015, when Ms. Moussouris and Ms. Muenchow brought a gender discrimination lawsuit against the company, alleging "continuing policy, pattern and practice of sex discrimination against female employees in technical and engineering roles, including technical sales and services positions with respect to performance evaluations, pay, promotions, and other terms and conditions of employment." Ms. Moussouris worked at Microsoft from 2007 to 2014. In that time, she claims, she was given worse rankings than her manager told her she deserved, paid less than male peers, and passed over for promotion during her last four years at the company. She also alleged in the lawsuit that she complained about the director of her team, the Trustworthy Computing Group, for sexually harassing other women. The director has since been moved to another part of the group. Ms. Moussouris added in her deposition that she believes he retaliated against her by giving her a lower bonus, though the company says it found no evidence of that. Ms. Muenchow, who has been working at Microsoft since 2002 and is still employed there, said in the lawsuit that she only progressed four levels in the company's technical career track in the 16 years that she has been there. She believes that she was passed over for promotions even though she was qualified, and male colleagues were promoted. She said in her deposition that she has been criticized for being too assertive. Microsoft argues that the plaintiffs were each promoted on several occasions and paid well. Ms. Moussouris in particular was among the highest paid in her "cost center," making more than her male manager. But Microsoft contends her communication skills needed improvement, something Ms. Moussouris mentioned in her own-self evaluations. The unsealed ruling, written by Judge Robart, contends that the plaintiffs didn't adequately demonstrate a commonality to create a basis for the proposed class of plaintiffs, either in terms of impact or treatment of women at Microsoft. The ruling says the plaintiffs' commonality claims are invalid based on the arguments they make on a lack of standardization in the pay and promotion process. Therefore, the court says, since the plaintiffs' argument centers on discretion, there is no common practice that can be applied to the proposed class. Also because of the discretion-based system, the court said that each plaintiff would have a different experience and Ms. Moussouris' and Ms. Muenchow's experiences could not represent those of the whole class. Further, the court said that the plaintiffs could not adequately protect the class because the proposed class "presents irreconcilable conflicts of interest." The proposed class, which includes more than 8,000 women in technical roles at Microsoft, also includes women who participated as managers in the calibration process used to determine pay and promotions that the plaintiffs argue was discriminatory. After the ruling, Microsoft issued this statement: "We remain committed to increasing diversity and making sure that Microsoft is a workplace where everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed. The judge made the right decision that this case should not be a class action." The plaintiffs' petition to appeal the certification says that "denial of class certification will effectively end the litigation for the plaintiffs." It argues that the discretion-based system does not preclude commonality in the proposed class. In this case, the plaintiffs say that Microsoft's use of a specific calibration process with common criteria to set pay and evaluate promotions means that even with managerial discretion, the proposed class are subject to a common question. The petition also responds to the court's ruling on the plaintiffs' adequate protection of the proposed class. The plaintiffs argue that the female managers the court cited as having conflicts of interest do not "create nor control discriminatory policies." As such, they say, there is no conflict of interest between the plaintiffs and the proposed class. In court documents, Microsoft says it has been committed to diversity and inclusion for more than 20 years. It has a 25-person team working on diversity issues, and a budget of more than $55 million per year through 2020 for new initiatives. Microsoft reports that a little under 26 percent of its global workforce is female. In tech and leadership roles, the split is about 80/20 in favor of men. [GN] MIDLAND CREDIT: Folson Sues over Debt Collection Practices ---------------------------------------------------------- STEPHANIE FOLSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., and MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-00349-JSM-PRL (M.D. Fla., July 9, 2018) seeks to stop the Defendants' unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Midland Credit Management, Inc., a licensed debt collector, assists customers in resolving past-due financial obligations through various education and payment plans. The company was founded in 1953 and is based in San Diego, California. Midland Credit Management, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Encore Capital Group, Inc. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alex D. Weisberg, Esq. WEISBERG CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PA 5846 S. Flamingo Rd., Suite 290 Cooper City, FL 33330 Telephone: (954) 212-2184 Facsimile: (866) 577-0963 E-mail: aweisberg@afclaw.com MONARCH RECOVERY: Faces Olson FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Monarch Recovery Management, Inc. The case is styled as Marissa Olson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Monarch Recovery Management, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-04257 (E.D. N.Y., July 27, 2018). The lawsuit arises under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.[BN] Monarch Recovery Management, Inc. is a debt collection agency in Bensalem, Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell L. Pashkin, Esq. 775 Park Avenue, Ste. 255 Huntington, NY 11743 Tel: (631) 335-1107 Email: mpash@verizon.net MONROE NAIL II: Faces Cui FLSA Suit in New York ----------------------------------------------- A Fair Labor Standards Act class action suit has been filed against Monroe Nail II Corp. The case is styled as Chunhua Cui and Shuya Zhou, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Monroe Nail II Corp. doing business as Monroe Nail, inclusive and Young Kyu Suh also known as Young Suh, Defendants, Case No. 1:2018-cv-04256 (E.D.N.Y., July 27, 2018). Monroe Nail II Corp. is located in Smithtown, New York. This organization primarily operates in the Manicurist, Pedicurist business/industry.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. MONTAGUE URGENT: Faces Murphy ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Montague Urgent Medical Care P.C. The case is styled as James Murphy, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Montague Urgent Medical Care P.C. doing business as: UMD Urgent Care, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06783 (S.D. N.Y., July 27, 2018). The lawsuit arises under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Brooklyn UMD Urgent Medical Care is an urgent care center in Brooklyn, NY located at 633 Driggs Avenue. They are open 7 days a week seeing walk-in patients in Brooklyn. Brooklyn UMD Urgent Medical Care appears to be individually owned and operated and not part of a larger network of urgent care clinics.[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 MONTE PIZZA: Galindo Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------- Marxlenin Galindo Garcia, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. John Doe Corp. dba Monte Pizza and Ciro Lopez, Case No. 1:18-cv-06208 (S.D. N.Y., July 9, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff Galindo was employed as a delivery worker at the "Monte Pizza" restaurant located at 360 E 188th Street, Bronx, NY 10458 from January 2017 until June 17, 2018. The Defendants own, operate, or control a pizzeria, located at 360 E 188th Street, Bronx, NY 10458 under the name "Monte Pizza". [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Tel: (212) 317-1200 Fax: (212) 317-1620 MOTEL 6: Settles Discrimination Class Action -------------------------------------------- Joseph Flaherty, writing for Phoenix New Times, reports that Motel 6 has reached a tentative agreement with a prominent Latino civil rights group to settle a class-action discrimination lawsuit filed on behalf of Latino guests, according to court documents. Last fall, Phoenix New Times revealed that two corporate-owned Motel 6 properties in Phoenix were routinely sharing guest lists with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. In January, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) sued Motel 6 and parent company G6 Hospitality on behalf of eight anonymous plaintiffs who were caught up in the ICE dragnet that snared more than 20 guests at Motel 6 locations in Phoenix. Five plaintiffs are residents of metro Phoenix, two live in Tucson, and one lives in Washington state, according to the complaint. MALDEF said that by sharing guest information with immigration authorities, Motel 6 violated an array of state and federal laws. In federal court in Arizona, the organization argued that the budget motel chain discriminated against customers, violated their Fourth Amendment rights, defrauded guests, and ran afoul of an Arizona law guaranteeing the right to privacy. "This is a note of settlement in principle," MALDEF President Thomas Saenz said in a statement to New Times. "We are still working on the details and plan to present to the court a public filing with the full details of the settlement in the next couple of weeks." The parties notified U.S. District Judge David G. Campbell on July 6 that they have agreed to a settlement. Details of the settlement are not available, and any agreement is still subject to the judge's approval. Motel 6 and MALDEF plan to submit additional documentation to the court by August 15, according to court records. G6 Hospitality did not immediately respond to a request for comment. At the time of the lawsuit, Saenz explained that his organization is hoping to deter unlawful collaboration with ICE by private entities. He commended the plaintiffs for taking on a corporation. "We believe the lawsuit will vindicate their rights and will demonstrate, formally and officially, that immigrants of any status have a right to privacy and protection when they choose to register at a hotel or motel across this country," Saenz said on January 23. Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson has also sued Motel 6 on behalf of his state over discrimination and consumer protection violations. Investigators discovered that six corporate-owned Motel 6 locations in Washington regularly turned over guest information to ICE -- including dates of birth, license plate numbers, and room numbers -- for at least two years. ICE agents at one location in South Everett would circle Latino-sounding names on the guest list, according to the complaint. In Arizona, according to MALDEF's complaint, ICE banged on motel-room doors and handcuffed guests in the parking lot after they checked in at two Motel 6 locations located in predominately Latino neighborhoods of Phoenix. A husband and wife faced a harrowing arrest on June 29, 2017, according to the lawsuit, after they checked in at the Motel 6 on 52nd Drive to escape the heat of a broken air conditioner. ICE agents entered the room at 6 a.m. and demanded that the woman exit the bathroom, where she was attempting to change clothes after recovering from a recent surgery. The agents then separated the pair at ICE's Phoenix field office, where they were able to speak to each other for only a few minutes. The man was released on a $3,000 bond, but the woman was sent to a detention center. According to MALDEF, she was deported on June 30, two days after checking into the Motel 6. At the time of the lawsuit's filing, MALDEF's vice president for litigation, Nina Perales, told reporters that MALDEF would seek damages to compensate guests who had been unlawfully detained. "The essence of this claim is that Motel 6 and its employees collaborated and acted together with ICE agents to interrogate, detain, and arrest the plaintiffs without a warrant and without any probable cause that they had committed a crime," Ms. Perales said. [GN] MULLEN & IANNARONE: Lockett Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- Mullen & Iannarone, P.C. is facing a class action lawsuit under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The case is styled as Charde Lockett, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Mullen & Iannarone, P.C., Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-04279 (E.D. N.Y., July 27, 2018). Mullen & Iannarone, P.C. in Smithtown, NY specialize in every facet of the law from personal injuries to estate planning. It also focuses some of its practice on debt collection.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Faces Ocampo FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- Maribel Ocampo filed a class action lawsuit against Nationwide Credit, Inc. in New York. The case is styled as Maribel Ocampo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Nationwide Credit, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-04270 (E.D. N.Y., July 27, 2018). The lawsuit arises under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Nationwide Credit, Inc., a collection agency, provides customer relationship and accounts receivable management services. The company specializes in collecting delinquent and defaulted accounts. Its customer relationship management services include inbound/outbound customer care and back office services; and accounts receivable management services comprise pre charge-off collections, post charge-off recoveries, charge-off mortgage collections, and an attorney network.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. Sanders Law, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Tel: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com NEW JERSEY: Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment Granted ----------------------------------------------------------- Law firm Stark & Stark on July 10 disclosed that the Superior Court of New Jersey, Mercer County Civil Law Division, granted a motion for partial summary judgment in a class action lawsuit aimed at protecting women in prison from sexual abuse. This is the first time the New Jersey State Superior Court has explicitly held that the Law Against Discrimination (LAD) extends to apply to prisoners, a pivotal step toward providing plaintiffs with equitable and monetary relief. The suit was filed by Stark & Stark's Martin Schrama -- mschrama@stark-stark.com -- and Stefanie Colella-Walsh, along with co-counsel Oliver Barry -- obarry@capelegal.com -- and Frank Corrado of Barry, Corrado, Grassi & Gillin-Schwartz. Filed on behalf of thousands of potential female class members against the New Jersey Department of Corrections (NJDOC), the motion concerned conditions at the Edna Mahan Correctional Facility for Women (EMCFW). "For decades, there has been an environment of rampant and unchecked sexual assault and harassment of female inmates by prison employees," said Ms. Colella-Walsh, partner, Stark & Stark. "We are prepared to be at the forefront of protecting women at risk in sexually abusive environments." During October 2017, a longtime NJDOC employee at EMCFW pleaded guilty to official misconduct for having sex with an inmate, and was sentenced to prison. In January 2018, four veteran EMCFW corrections officers were indicted by a Hunterdon County grand jury on various sexual and other misconduct charges. In all, seven NJDOC employees at EMCFW have been similarly charged within the past two years. This has culminated in an ongoing investigation by the United States Justice Department and the departure of NJDOC's Commissioner. According to Ms. Schrama, partner, Stark & Stark, "An environment of sexual terror pervaded the EMCFW grounds. Stark & Stark has sought to protect the rights of those injured, and force the NJDOC to take appropriate corrective action to end this widespread environment of harassment and discrimination against women at risk." The class action complaint filed alleges that EMCFW is a place of public accommodation subject to the New Jersey LAD. Pursuant to the LAD, freedom from discrimination is a civil right. The class action complaint goes on to allege that the environment at the EMCFW is discriminatory based on the sex of the female inmates, and that the sexual harassment and discrimination at the facility has been so severe and pervasive that it constitutes a hostile and abusive environment in violation of the LAD. Oliver Barry, partner, Barry, Corrado, Grassi & Gillin-Schwartz, explained, "The NJDOC knew, or should have known, of the environment of rampant threats and sexual abuse at EMCFW, which was especially harmful, considering the vulnerable status of those women incarcerated there." NJDOC, a public entity that maintains an annual budget of roughly $1 billion, is responsible for the operations, supervision, and management of EMCFW (formerly known as the Clinton Correctional Facility for Women), which is located at 30 Route 513, in Clinton, Hunterdon County, New Jersey. The state's only women's prison, EMCFW opened in 1913 and has an average daily population of 659. [GN] NISSAN NORTH: Wants Transmission Defects Class Action Dismissed --------------------------------------------------------------- Hayley Fowler, writing for Law360, reports that Nissan North America Inc. told a California federal judge on July 6 to punt part of a putative class action over allegedly defective transmissions prone to violent jerking during acceleration and "catastrophic failure" in the middle of roadways, saying the drivers' amended complaint fares no better than previous iterations. In a motion to dismiss, the automaker said drivers should be barred from seeking restitution, repairs and an injunction that are forms of equitable relief a judge previously dismissed. Nissan also asked to toss repackaged class claims. The case is captioned Falk et al v. Nissan North America, Inc., Case No. 4:17-cv-04871 (N.D. Calif.). The case is assigned to Judge Haywood S Gilliam, Jr. The case was filed August 22, 2017. [GN] NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Faces Dovey FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against NorthStar Location Services, LLC. The case is styled as Michael Dovey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NorthStar Location Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-04264 (E.D. N.Y., July 27, 2018). The lawsuit arises under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. NorthStar Location Services, LLC offers full-service receivables debt collection solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. Sanders Law, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Tel: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com OCEAN VIEW: African-American Employees File Discrimination Case --------------------------------------------------------------- Claire Metz, writing for WESH 2 News, reports that nine African-American women are part of a class-action lawsuit filed against Ocean View, a nursing home and rehabilitation center in New Smyrna Beach, alleging discrimination and harassment. WESH 2 News met with one of the plaintiffs and three attorneys who are representing the women, many of whom have since been fired or left their jobs Several of the plaintiffs were hired in supervisory positions and said some staff members refused to take direction from them and that they were all frequently belittled because of their race. The plaintiffs said they complained to management at the facility and to corporate owners, but got no help. A spokesman for the facility said the claims were investigated last year and found to be without merit. [GN] OKLAHOMA BLOOD: Court OKs Notice and Consent Forms in "Lenore" -------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Vicki Miles-LaGrange grants the Joint Motion for Approval of Notice and Consent Forms filed in the lawsuit captioned LEILA LENORE, Individually and on behalf of other similarly situated employees and former employees v. OKLAHOMA BLOOD INSTITUTE, An Oklahoma not for profit corporation, Case No. 5:17-cv-01326-M (W.D. Okla.). The Court approves the Notice of Collective Action Lawsuit, and the Consent to Join 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) Action. The Notice and Consent shall be sent to the conditionally certified putative class members as directed and defined in the Court's July 16, 2018 Order. OLD MUTUAL: Responds to UCIS Investor Class Action -------------------------------------------------- Pedro Goncalves, writing for International Investment, reports that Old Mutual International (OMI) and Friends Provident International (OMI) have denied any wrong-doing amid claims that a 300-strong group of investors are planning a class action lawsuit, over alleged mis-selling of unregulated collective investment schemes (Ucis), via Isle of Man-based subsidiaries. Both FPI and OMI told International Investment that they believe that the lawsuit -- should it make it to court -- will be thrown out. The group that could be up to 300-strong has accused the companies of mis-selling Ucis to expats and pensioners in jurisdictions including Thailand, Indonesia, Cyprus and the UAE, via subsidiaries in the Isle of Man. The collective schemes' losses reportedly amount to £200m, with class action set to commence within the next two months. The lawsuit is being pushed by a claims manager and could be worth as much as GBP80m, according to a report in UK news outlet City AM. The claim is targeting that Old Mutual International as liable now that the funds have now lost value, as it was the facilitator of the wrapper. OMI says that since it does not provide any services outside of the provision of insurance policies, it is not responsible for investment selection or performance, or the financial advice investors receive, and therefore it is not liable. It does supply open architecture portfolio bond wrappers through which investors, including expats, can invest in several different funds. The claims are understood not to involve any accusations of unsuitable recomendations from financial advisers within the Old Mutual group. 'Without merit' "We are aware of the allegations and have responded to those in detail. The allegations are baseless and without merit," OMI said in a statement. FPI also released a statement, saying it "denies all allegations of wrong-doing or liability". The company added that it "does not have a UK presence and it is not authorised to give investment advice". [GN] ORNUA CO-OPERATIVE: Sued Over Grass-Fed Butter Labeling ------------------------------------------------------- Rick Archer, writing for Law360, reports that a California man on July 6 launched a putative class action in California federal court alleging the makers of Kerrygold butter deceptively promoted their product as produced by milk from exclusively grass-fed cows. Dyami Myers-Taylor claimed Ornua Co-operative Ltd., an Irish corporation, and its U.S. subsidiary label and advertise the products in its Kerrygold butter line as made with milk from "grass-fed cows" when they are actually fed for part of the year with soy, corn and other grains. The case is captioned Myers-Taylor v. Ornua Foods North America, Inc. et al, Case No. 3:18-cv-01538 (S.D. Calif.). The case is assigned to Judge Judge Marilyn L. Huff. The case was filed July 6, 2018. [GN] P.F. CHANG'S CHINA: Doesn't Pay OT to Servers, Belt et al. Say -------------------------------------------------------------- STEVEN BELT; LAURA COUNCIL; and JAMES HARRIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. P.F. CHANG'S CHINA BISTRO, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02126-GJH (D. Md., July 11, 2018) is an action against the Defendant to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as servers. Mr. Belt was employed from May 1, 2017 until February 1, 2018. Ms. Council from November 1, 2014 to the present. Mr. Harris from September 2015 to the present. P.F. Chang's China Bistro, Inc., through its subsidiaries, engages in the ownership and operation of restaurants in the United States. The company owns and operates two restaurant concepts, P.F. Chang's China Bistro and Pei Wei Asian Diner. As of April 30, 2018, it owned and operated approximately 300 restaurants in the United States, including three airport locations in 22 countries and territories. P.F. Chang's China Bistro, Inc. was founded in 1996 and is based in Scottsdale, Arizona. As of July 2, 2012, P.F. Chang's China Bistro, Inc. was taken private. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin L. Davis, III, Esq. George E. Swegman, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL 36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700 Baltimore, MD 21201 Telephone: (410) 244-7005 Facsimile: (410) 244-8454 E-mail: bdavis@nicholllaw.com gswegman@nicholllaw.com PATRIOT HOME: Fails to Pay OT Wages to Health Aides, Hauser Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- KIM CHANNAY HAUSER individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. PATRIOT HOME CARE, INC., Case No. 2:18-cv-03126-JCJ (E.D. Pa., July 25, 2018), alleges that Patriot failed to pay the Plaintiff and other home health aides overtime compensation, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Patriot Home Care, Inc., is a Pennsylvania for-profit corporation with its corporate offices located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Patriot is a provider of integrated healthcare services, offering home care and health services to individuals.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan Allen Hancock, Esq. WILLIG, WILLIAMS, & DAVIDSON 1845 Walnut Street, 24th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 656-3600 E-mail: rhancock@wwdlaw.com - and - Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq. Camille Fundora, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, PC. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: sschalman-bergen@bm.net cfundora@bm.net PATRIOT NATIONAL: PBMS Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The Defendants in a lawsuit filed by PBMS, Inc., filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, (Case No. BC688370) to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The case is assigned to Judge R. Gary Klausner and referred to Magistrate Judge Gail J. Standish. The new case caption is, PBMS, INC., Plaintiff v. PATRIOT NATIONAL, INC.; CASTLEPOINT NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY; AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC.; ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY; BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE INSURANCE COMPANY; SPECIALTY UNDERWRITERS ALLIANCE, INC.; TOWER GROUP, INC.; CASTLEPOINT FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY; TOWER NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY; MASSACHUSETTS HOMELAND INSURANCE COMPANY; YORK INSURANCE COMPANY OF MAINE; TOWER INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK; HERMITAGE INSURANCE COMPANY; NORTH EAST INSURANCE COMPANY; PRESERVER INSURANCE COMPANY; CASTLEPOINT INSURANCE COMPANY; LION INSURANCE COMPANY; JAMESTOWN HOLDINGS CORPORATION; PACKARD CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION, INC.; PLYMOUTH INSURANCE AGENCY, INC.; SOUTH EAST PERSONNEL LEASING, INC.; SOUTH EAST PERSONNEL LEASING II, INC.; SOUTH-EAST EMPLOYEE LEASING, INC.; SOUTH EAST EMPLOYEE LEASING SERVICES, INC.; RISK TRANSFER, LLC; FORZA LIEN, INC.; PATRIOT CAPTIVE MANAGEMENT, LTD.; ANCORA RE, SPC; ENDEAVOR RE, SPC; GREEN OAK RE, SPC; OLD DOMINION RE, SPC; OLD GUARD RE, SPC; TM3 RE, SPC; TRIPLE M II RE, SPC; TRIPLE M RE, SPC; VIRGINIA RE, SPC; ATLAS RE, SPC; HAWKEYE RE, SPC; INTREPID RE, SPC; WATERVILLE RE, SPC; GUARANTEE INSURANCE COMPANY; HEFFERNAN INSURANCE BROKERS; KORAM INSURANCE CENTER, INC.; UNDERWRITING SOLUTIONS OF AMERICA; STEVEN MARIANO; JOHN A. PORRECA; DEBORAH A. PORRECA; LIAM FLEMING; LESLIE LEWIS; CAROL AZZRITO; DOES 1 THROUGH 1000, INCLUSIVE, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-06042-RGK-GJS (C.D. Cal., July 11, 2018). Patriot National, Inc. is a national provider of outsourcing solutions within the workers' compensation marketplace for insurance companies, employers, local governments, and reinsurance captives. The Company provides services to increase business production, contain costs, and reduce claims experience for its clients. Patriot National operates in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ashkahn Mohamadi, Esq. Christopher T Aumais, Esq. Thomas Vincent Girardi, Esq. GIRARDI KEESE 1126 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 977-0211 Facsimile: (213) 481-1554 E-mail: amohamadi@girardikeese.com tgirardi@girardikeese.com tmcfeely@selmanlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Timothy J McFeely, Esq. Meka Moore, Esq. SELMAN BREITMAN LLP 11766 Wilshire Boulevard 6th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 445-0800 Facsimile: (310) 473-2525 E-mail: tmcfeely@selmanlaw.com mmoore@selmanbreitman.com - and - Susan M Walker, Esq. DENTON US LLP 601 South Figueroa Street Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5704 Telephone: (213) 623-9300 Facsimile: (213) 623-9924 E-mail: susan.walker@dentons.com PM PEDIATRICS: Faces Murphy ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against PM Pediatrics Management Group, LLC. The case is styled as James Murphy, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PM Pediatrics Management Group, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06787 (S.D. N.Y., July 27, 2018). The lawsuit arises under the Americans with Disabilities Act. PM Pediatrics Management Group LLC provides pediatric urgent care in New York and New Jersey.[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 PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Court Affirms Class Action Dismissal ---------------------------------------------------------- Bill Wichert, writing for Law360, reports that a New Jersey state appeals court refused on July 11 to revive a proposed class action accusing two lawyers and their respective firms of deducting improper costs from settlement proceeds in litigation against Prudential Financial Inc., saying a trial court properly tossed the case because their former clients did not produce discovery. The two-judge appellate panel upheld the court's rulings dismissing the legal malpractice and related claims against attorneys Stephen Snyder and Madeline Houston and their firms -- first without prejudice and later with prejudice. [GN] REALTY EXECUTIVES: Highline Suit Alleges TCPA Violation ------------------------------------------------------- Highline Residential, LLC, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Realty Executives International, Inc., Realty Executives of New York, Realty Executives Today, John S. Lagoudis, and John Does 1-10, Case No. 1:18-cv-06191 (S.D. N.Y., July 9, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991. The Plaintiff is a Delaware Foreign Limited Liability Company with a place of business located in the County of New York, State of New York, where it maintains telephone facsimile equipment. The Defendant Realty Executives International, Inc. is an Arizona Foreign Business Corporation with a principal place of business located at 8324 East Hartford Drive, Scottsdale, AZ 85255. The Defendant Real Estate Executives of New York is a New York Domestic Business Corporation with a principal place of business located at 32-75 Steinway Street, Astoria, New York 11103. The Defendant Real Estate Today is a New York Domestic Business Corporation with a principal place of business located at 32-75 Steinway Street, Astoria, New York 11103. The Defendant Lagoudis, is an individual residing in the State of New York. Upon information and belief, Lagoudis is the President and/or owner or shareholder of Defendants RENY and RE Today. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 44 Court St., Suite 1217 Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (917) 373-9128 Fax: (718) 504-7555 E-mail: ShakedLawGroup@Gmail.com RETRIEVAL-MASTERS CREDITORS: Rafferty Seeks Cert. of FDCPA Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned CHERYL RAFFERTY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. RETRIEVAL-MASTERS CREDITORS BUREAU, INC., d/b/a RMCB Collection Agency, a foreign corporation, and JEFFREY S. WOLLMAN, an individual, Case No. 5:17-cv-00426-PGB-PRL (M.D. Fla.), moves for class certification under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The proposed class consists of all Florida consumers, who received RMCB's form Collection Letter that contained at least one of RMCB's alleged violations of the FDCPA. The class period begins one year prior to the filing of the action. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Massey, Esq. MASSEY & DUFFY, PLLC 855 East University Avenue Gainesville, FL 32601 Telephone: (352) 505-8900 Facsimile: (352) 414-5488 E-mail: Massey@352law.com - and - Michael D. Sechrest, Esq. D. Marc Warner, Esq. Sean G. Hipworth, Esq. WARNER, SECHREST & BUTTS, P.A. 5200 SW 91st Terrace, Suite 101 Gainesville, FL 32608 Telephone: (352) 373-5922 Facsimile: (352) 373-5921 E-mail: Sechrest@fbswlaw.com Marc@fbswlaw.com shipworth@fbswlaw.com Defendant RETRIEVAL-MASTERS CREDITORS BUREAU, INC., is represented by: Carlos A. Ortiz, Esq. West A. Holden, Esq. HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP 2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 4th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 358-7747 E-mail: cortiz@hinshawlaw.com wholden@hinshawlaw.com RETRIEVAL-MASTERS: Hernandez Sues over Debt Collection Practices ---------------------------------------------------------------- BLANCA HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RETRIEVAL-MASTERS CREDITORS BUREAU, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-01774-N (N.D. Tex., July 10, 2018) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Retrieval-Masters Creditors Bureau, Inc. was founded in 1977. The company's line of business includes collection and adjustment services on claims and other insurance related issues. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joel S. Halvorsen, Esq. HALVORSEN KLOTE 680 Craig Road, Suite 104 St. Louis, MO 63141 Telephone: (314) 451-1314 Facsimile: (314) 787-4323 E-mail: joel@hklawstl.com ROSEWOOD COLONY: Fenner Moves for Certification of FDCPA Class -------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled HILLARY FENNER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. ROSEWOOD COLONY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., CLAYTON & MCCULLOH, P.A., Case No. 6:18-cv-00653-GAP-KRS (M.D. Fla.), asks the Court to certify a class defined, subject to amendment, as follows: a. All persons within the state of Florida who, within one year prior to the filing of this Complaint, have been contacted in writing by Defendant, CM LAW, seeking to collect debts that were time barred by the applicable statute of limitations and said correspondence contained no notice that said debts were uncollectable by legal action; b. All persons within the state of Florida who, within one year prior to the filing of this Complaint, have been contacted in writing by Defendant, CM LAW, seeking to collect debts that imposed an interest fee that was not collectable under the documents governing CM LAW's clients; c. All persons within the state of Florida who, within one year prior to the filing of this Complaint, have been contacted in writing by Defendant, CM LAW, seeking to collect debts that did not contain the "mini-miranda" as required under 15 USCA Section 1692(e)(11); and d. All persons within the state of Florida who, within one year prior to the filing of this Complaint, have been contacted in writing by Defendant, CM LAW, seeking to collect debts that were time barred by the statute of limitations and sought to induce consumers to enter into settlement agreements without warning the consumer that to do so could toll and revitalize time barred debts. Ms. Fenner brings the proposed class action against the Defendant for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act. She also asks the Court to name her as class representative, to appoint her lawyers as counsel for the class, and to allow her to file a memorandum in support of the Motion. The Plaintiff is represented by: Bryant H. Dunivan Jr., Esq. Michael J. Owen, Esq. OWEN & DUNIVAN, PLLC 615 W. De Leon St. Tampa, FL 33606 Telephone: (813) 502-6768 E-mail: bdunivan@owendunivan.com mowen@owendunivan.com Defendant Clayton & Mcculloh, PA, is represented by: Christina B. Gierke, Esq. COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A. 1900 Summit Tower Boulevard, Suite 400 Orlando, FL 32810 Telephone: (321) 972-0025 Facsimile: (321) 972-0099 E-mail: christina.gierke@csklegal.com Defendant ROSEWOOD COLONY OWNER'S ASSOCIATION, INC., is represented by: Matthew Bernstein, Esq. VERNIS & BOWLING OF CENTRAL FLORIDA, P.A 1450 S Woodland Blvd., Floor 4 Deland, FL 32720-7767 Telephone: (386) 734-2505 Facsimile: (386) 734-3441 E-mail: mberstein@florida-law.com ROYAL DUTCH: Fights Climate Change Class Action ----------------------------------------------- Kelly Gilblom, writing for Chron, reports that leaders of the world's largest oil companies want everyone to know it won't do anyone any good to make them pay for the damages of climate change. Executives have been making the argument after a series of U.S. states and municipalities filed class action lawsuits against Royal Dutch Shell, Exxon Mobil and others in recent months, arguing it should be them that pays for the sea walls, levees and other infrastructure climate change is sure to require. "It's sort of bizarre that the users of our products say: 'Well, actually, we didn't want your product. So why did you force it on us?"' Shell CEO Ben van Beurden told reporters in London. "I don't think also that in the end it will solve anything other than maybe redistributing wealth to a certain class of the economy." The quickening pace of climate change -- and the potential environmental catastrophes that could follow -- are blamed on fossil fuels, such as oil, gas and coal, that release carbon dioxide when burned. Carbon dioxide is a leading greenhouse gas that traps heat in the atmosphere and raises global temperatures. The lawsuits brought against oil companies aim to recast the debate around climate change. Many of the world's governments have accepted responsibility for cutting carbon dioxide emissions from the energy system by dedicating money to public funds to infrastructure works and increasing regulation. The class actions argue it was oil companies that forced society to damage the environment, so they solely carry the financial burden of fixing it. "Like the tobacco companies that were successfully sued decades ago, we're also suing five of the biggest including Exxon Mobil, for example, who systematically poisoned the Earth, knew about it, covered it up, explained it away, tried to hook people more and more on their product," said Bill de Blasio, mayor of New York City, about the suits when they were filed. "Let's help bring the death knell to this industry that's done so much harm." Big oil fights back The position has incurred a strong response from the companies facing the complaint, including calling into question whether it's just a money grab from lawyers. Bob Dudley, chief executive of the British oil major BP, said class actions are "a business model in the United States" at the company's annual general meeting this year, and said they're no help. In a statement last month, Chevron Corp. said the same attorneys have been filing suits across the country. A judge in California dismissed suits from Oakland and San Francisco arguing climate change was too broad a topic for a single court to decide, and that it should be left to legislators. He also argued the world has prospered because of fossil fuels and it didn't make sense to now turn against the companies that provide products in high demand. The companies named in the suit said they welcomed the dismissal and expressed hope the logic would prevail across other areas of the country. But days later, the attorney general in Rhode Island filed another suit with the same set of allegations, saying it was part of his fiduciary responsibility to the state. Shell's Van Beurden said the threat of additional legal action has also put the company off the idea of setting specific climate targets, and instead caused it to stick to broader "ambitions." "The moment we adopt a target and you cannot quite deliver on elements of it, you immediately have a class action suit from shareholders or you get the SEC investigating you," he said. Targets that are "legally binding; we don't think it's going to help us." [GN] S.K.I. WHOLESALE: Fails to Pay for Overtime, Tavarez et al. Allege ------------------------------------------------------------------ ANTHONY TAVAREZ and FREDDY AREVALO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. S.K.I. WHOLESALE BEER CORP.; KSH TRUCKING CORP.; RALPH MAURIELLO, and CHARLIE YIM, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-03991 (E.D.N.Y., July 11, 2018) is an action against the Defendants to recover unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as hourly employees. S K I Wholesale Beer Corp was founded in 1987. The company's line of business includes the wholesale distribution of beer, ale, porter, and other malt beverages. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mohammed Gangat, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT 675 3 rd Avenue, Suite 1810 New York, NY 11553 Telephone: (718) 669-0714 E-mail: mgangat@gangatllc.com SALLY BEAUTY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Nance" Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- ROSIE NANCE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SALLY BEAUTY SUPPLY LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00474-SPC-CM (M.D. Fla., July 5, 2018) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, minimum wages, liquidated damages, attorney's fees and costs. Ms. Nance was employed by the Defendant performing customer services at retail locations in Lehigh Acres and at the Gulf Coast Town Center, from February 26, 2006 to February 22, 2018. Sally Beauty Supply LLC retails beauty supplies through its stores and online. The company was founded in 1964 and is headquartered in Denton, Texas with stores in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, Spain, and Ireland. Sally Beauty Supply LLC operates as a subsidiary of Sally Holdings LLC. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bill B. Berke, Esq. BERKE LAW FIRM, P.A. 4423 Del Prado Blvd. S. Cape Coral, FL 33904 Telephone: (239) 549 6689 E-mail: berkelaw@yahoo.com SAM'S EAST INC: Freeman Moves for Class Certification Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled TERRENCE FREEMAN and BRADLEY WARD, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. SAM'S EAST INC., SAM'S WEST, INC., SAM'S CLUB, an operating Segment of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., and WAL-MART STORES, INC., Case No. 2:17-cv-01786-WJM-MF (D.N.J.), moves for conditional certification pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants' answering papers, if any, are due to be served and filed on August 29, 2018, and Plaintiff's Reply papers are due to be served and filed on September 19, 2018. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Marc S. Hepworth, Esq. Charles Gershbaum, Esq. David A. Roth, Esq. Rebecca S. Predovan, Esq. HEPWORTH GERSHBAUM & ROTH PLLC 192 Lexington Avenue, Suite 802 New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 545-1199 Facsimile: (212) 532-3801 E-mail: marc@hgrlawyers.com Charles@hgrlawyers.com david@hgrlawyers.com rpredovan@hgrlawyers.com SCORES HOLDING: Santos de Oliveira Files Class Action Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- Scores Holding Company Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The case is styled as Luisa Santos de Oliveira, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Scores Holding Company Inc. doing business as: Scores, Club Azure LLC doing business as: Scores, Robert Gans, Mark S. Yackow and Howard Rosenbluth, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-06769 (S.D. N.Y., July 27, 2018). Scores Holding Company, Inc. (Scores) is an adult entertainment company.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. SERVICE UNION: Janus Case Ruling Boosts Union Dues Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation on July 9 disclosed that the recent Foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Janus v. AFSCME strengthens the legal case brought for 40,000 California state employees seeking refunds of dues seized by Service Union International (SEIU) union officials. Hamidi et al. v. SEIU Local 1000 is a class-action lawsuit challenging SEIU Local 1000 union officials' opt-out policy that required workers to affirmatively opt-out of the portion of union fees that workers cannot be legally required to fund. In 2015, a federal District Court Judge certified National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorney W. James Young as the attorney for the class of over 40,000 nonmembers who have been forced to fund SEIU union officials as a condition of employment. On the same day Janus was decided, Young wrote a Rule 28(j) letter to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals formally notifying the Court of the Janus decision and its relevance to the Hamidi case. The High Court's opinion in Janus, written by Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, makes several points that bolster the legal claims of lead plaintiff Ken Hamidi and the other tens of thousands of other workers who seek damages for improperly seized "non-chargeable" union fees going back to June 2012. In Janus the Supreme Court not only made it clear that the First Amendment protects public sector workers from being required to make any payments to a union as a condition of government employment, but also that workers cannot be required to opt out of such payments. According to the Supreme Court, "neither an agency fee nor any other payment to the union may be deducted from a nonmember's wages, nor may any other attempt be made to collect such a payment, unless the employee affirmatively consents to pay." The Court also held that, since at least 2012 when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a similar class of tens of thousands of nonmember employees forced to pay money to SEIU Local 1000 in the Foundation-won Knox v. SEIU Local 1000, unions "have been on notice" about the dubious legal grounds for requiring workers to pay any union fees. Because SEIU Local 1000 did not adjust its policy of forcing workers to opt-out of non-chargeable fees after the Knox decision, the Supreme Court's Janus decision means the union could now be required to refund all non-chargeable fees (determined by the Supreme Court in Janus to be all fees) seized since June 2012 from over 40,000 class members, an amount likely well over $100 million. "Around the country, the effect of the Janus decision is just starting to be felt," said Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. "Thanks to this landmark ruling, tens of thousands of California government employees are now a step closer to finally receiving recompense for years of being forced to hand over their hard-earned money to an SEIU union they choose not to join." [GN] SILVER WHEATON: Investors Fight Bid to Avert Tax Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- David Hansen, writing for Law360, reports that investors on July 6 fought Canadian mining company Silver Wheaton Corp.'s bid in California federal court to escape their class action that alleges the firm kept $207 million in transfer pricing tax liability secret to boost stock prices, saying discovery provided enough evidence to prove their case. The investors, who were granted class certification in May 2017, alleged thousands of shareholders lost money due to the mining company's use of a Cayman Islands subsidiary to avoid paying taxes on more than $500 million in profits. The case is captioned Chris Masillion is v. Silver Wheaton Corp. et al, Case No. 2:15-cv-05146 (C.D. Calif.). The case is assigned to Judge Christina A. Snyder. The case was filed July 8, 2015. [GN] SMARTAX SERVICE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Basile" Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- GODWIN BASILE and ALANA CHARLES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SMARTAX SERVICE, INC.; and YVES ST. SURIN, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-03993 (E.D.N.Y., July 11, 2018) is an action against the Defendants to recover unpaid overtime, unpaid hourly wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as an hourly and non-exempt employees. The Plaintiff Basile was hired from January 15, 2018 to April 17, 2018. The Plaintiff Charles was hired on January 2018 to April 2018. Smartax Service, Inc. is an entity incorporated in the State of New York, engaged in providing tax preparation and accounting services to clients. The Company operates under the name "Smartax." [BN] The Plaintiff is representative: Mohammed Gangat, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT 675 3 rd Avenue, Suite 1810 New York, NY 11553 Telephone: (718) 669-0714 E-mail: mgangat@gangatllc.com SOTHEBY'S: Visual Artists Not Entitled to Calif. Resale Royalties ----------------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Svachula, writing for The New York Times, reports that a federal appeals court has ruled that visual artists will no longer be entitled to royalties from resales of their work in California -- a decision that may discourage other states from considering royalty laws. The ruling, issued on July 6, addressed a 1977 law, the California Resale Royalties Act, the only of its kind implemented in the United States. The law benefited visual artists, who, unlike composers, filmmakers or writers, do not receive a share of any future sales under copyright law. California residents selling work in or out of state, or others selling their work in California, were entitled to earn 5 percent of the price of any resale of their artwork over $1,000. (For deceased artists, royalties went to estates or heirs.) After a seven-year battle, prompted by class-action lawsuits, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco restricted the state law to resales occurring in 1977, on the grounds that the statute was pre-empted by the federal copyright law that went into effect on Jan. 1, 1978. The state law stemmed from droit de suite, the French concept of offering artists compensation for future sales. Variations of resale royalty laws for artists have been implemented worldwide, in dozens of countries including Australia, and most of the countries in the European Union, but all attempts at creation of a United States law have failed. The artists Chuck Close and Laddie John Dill, among others, filed the three class-action lawsuits, against Sotheby's, Christie's and eBay, for failing to pay these royalties in California. But in 2012, a district court struck down the law, and in 2015, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the statute could survive if it only applied to resales in California. On July 6, the court said that the state law conflicts with the federal copyright law's first-sale doctrine that claims once a copyright owner sells work a first time, they lose control over future sales. "This quixotic action, which was based on an obviously unconstitutional statute, is finally nearing its end," the auction house Sotheby's said in an email statement. Christie's said in a statement that it "is pleased with the court's decision." Representatives for eBay did not respond to requests for comment. The court also remanded the 1977 claims to the district court. Ira Bibbero, a lawyer arguing for the artists, appeared to be looking on the bright side, saying he was pleased to fight for these artists and to enforce the act for that one-year span. This type of legislation has been introduced in Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Nebraska, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island and Texas, but no laws ever made it through, except in California. Nicholas O'Donnell -- nodonnell@sandw.com -- a partner at the Boston-based firm Sullivan & Worcester, who has written about the case in his firm's Art Law Report, said it would now be up to Congress to do something about art royalties, but he sees any action as unlikely. Representative Jerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York, championed unsuccessful bills for federal droit de suite laws in 2011, 2014 and 2015. In 2014, the issue became especially contentious as arts organizations and auction houses, including Sotheby's and Christie's, became mired in political lobbying. The 2011 lawsuits do not specify particular sales of art, as the action sought to force auction houses to name the identities or locations of sellers, proceedings usually kept secret. Mr. Dill, a plaintiff on the case, said he wanted to stand up to the large auction houses for the sake of helping young artists capitalize on their work. "If they're starting out and something goes up for auction, I think they should get a piece of it," he said, though he added that royalties from auctions sometimes also just don't add up to much -- he's made from a few hundred dollars to the $2,500 range. The artist Robert Rauschenberg, a central figure in the fight for the statute's implementation in the 1970s, often referenced his own experiences to champion the law. (He sold a collage, "Thaw," to the collector Robert Scull for $800 -- the work was later sold at auction for $85,000.) In recent years, a few cases -- all high-profile, with established artists pursuing royalty rights -- have come to light, raising questions in the industry about whether the law benefits everybody, specifically struggling artists. In France, a study of droit de suite demonstrated that around 70 percent of royalty payments went to famous artists like Picasso. In 2012, the famous collector Dean Valentine agreed to a settlement to pay royalties from the sale of a few of the painter Mark Grotjahn's pieces. Under the state law, a seller was supposed to seek out the artist, but if the artist couldn't be traced, the seller was to give the royalties to the California Arts Council. That council then distributed them. . Up until 2012, when the council suspended the administration of the act because of litigation, a spokeswoman said, the organization helped to trace 555 artists or their heirs and distributed $256,144 to them since 1977. It kept $50,839 of royalties for those artists it could not trace. [GN] When contacted, the council could not provide information as to which public art projects this money funded. At the national level, in 2014, the Artists Rights Society was among those lobbying in favor of resale royalties. In an email statement, its president, Theodore Feder, said the group was still hopeful that a federal droit de suite law might be implemented to "enable artists to participate in the ongoing economic exploitation of their works in our country." As for the application of the new ruling, Mr. Dill, one of the original plaintiffs, said he will not be pursuing royalties for any of his works sold in 1977. "I personally am not going to delve into it, because it was a long time ago," he said. [GN] SOUTH CAROLINA: Health Dept. Faces Class Action Suit ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against the Director of the South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services. The case is styled as Planned Parenthood South Atlantic and Julie Edwards, on her behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Joshua Baker in his official capacity as Director, South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, Defendant, Case No. 2:2018-cv-02078 (D.S. C., July 27, 2018). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Recovery Medicare.[BN] The South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services (SCDHHS) administers the Medicaid program, a joint state-federal program that provides health care for about 1 million low-income, elderly and disabled residents each year.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kathleen McColl McDaniel, Esq. Burnette Shutt and McDaniel PA PO Box 1929 Columbia, SC 29202 Tel: (803) 850-0912 Fax: (803) 904-7910 Email: kmcdaniel@burnetteshutt.law SPECIALIZED LOAN: Quinn Seeks to Certify Two Classes Under FDCPA ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled THOMAS QUINN and THERESA QUINN, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons v. SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-02021 (N.D. Ill.), moves to certify two classes under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act: (a) (1) all consumers in Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin, (2) whose home loans SLS began servicing after the loans were in default, (3) where SLS had written notice that the consumer was represented by an attorney, (4) where SLS sent an "Independent Field Inspector" to the consumer's home, who left a door hanger containing a slip of paper requesting that the consumer call a number owned by SLS, and (5) where at least one such "Independent Field Inspector" visit occurred on or after a date one year prior to the filing of this action; and (b) (1) all consumers in Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin, (2) whose loans SLS began servicing after the loans were in default, (3) where SLS caused an "Independent Field Inspector" to visit the consumer's home and leave a door hanger with the same or substantially the same notice, attached hereto as Exhibit A, and (4) where at least one such visit occurred on or after a date one year prior to the filing of this action. The Plaintiffs filed their Amended Class Action Complaint containing two counts for class action relief for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The complaint alleges that it was the policy and practice of the Defendant to send door hanger communications to consumers demanding that the consumer "Please contact Specialized Loan Servicing at 1-800-306-6062." They contend that the Defendant sent the communications without any indication that the communication was from a debt collector and without regard to whether the Defendant knew the consumer was represented by an attorney with respect to the debt. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lloyd Brooks, Esq. Charles Howell, Esq. Deadra Woods Stokes, Esq. CONSUMER LEGAL GROUP, P.C. 4747 Lincoln Mall Drive, Suite 200 Matteson, IL 60443 Telephone: (708) 283-5900 Facsimile: (708) 747-2390 E-mail: lbrooks@clg-lawfirm.com chowell@clg-lawfirm.com dstokes@clg-lawfirm.com - and - Al Hofeld, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF AL HOFELD, JR., LLC 30 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 3125 Chicago, IL, 60602 Telephone: (773) 241-5844 Facsimile: (773) 241-5845 E-mail: al@alhofeldlaw.com STATCARE URGENT: Faces Murphy ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- An Americans with Disabilities Act class action lawsuit has been filed against Statcare Urgent & Walk In Medical Care PLLC. The case is styled as James Murphy, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Statcare Urgent & Walk In Medical Care PLLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06786 (S.D. N.Y., July 27, 2018). Statcare Urgent & Walk In Medical Care PLLC is an Urgent care center in Hicksville, 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 STINE SEED: Mid-South Farmers File Suit Over Fake Soybean Seeds --------------------------------------------------------------- WMCActionNews5.com reports that Mid-South farmers filed a lawsuit against a company that they said sold them fake soybean seeds at a convention. A group of African-American farmers from Louisiana and the Mid-South, say that Stine Seed Company purposefully switched seeds in order to sell black farmers a subpar product at the Mid-South Farm & Gin Show in March 2017. Despite above average rainfall, experienced black farmers saw limited soybean yield from the Stine seeds during the 2017 harvest. "Mother nature doesn't discriminate," President of Black Farmers and Agriculturalists Association Thomas Burrell said. "It doesn't rain on white farms but not black farms. Insects don't [only] attack black farmers' land...why is it then that white farmers are buying Stine seed and their yield is 60, 70, 80, and 100 bushels of soybeans and black farmers who are using the exact same equipment with the exact same land, all of a sudden, your seeds are coming up 5, 6, and 7 bushels?" After losing millions of dollars, the farmers took the seeds to experts at Mississippi State University to have them tested. They say the tests show the seeds sold to the black farmers were not certified Stine seeds. The black farmers said the distributor working for Stine Seed Company used labeled certified seed backs--tampering with factory sewn seals, in order to remove the certified seeds. The distributor would then sell the fake certified seeds to black farmers at a high price. The farmers bought more than $100,000 in soybean seeds from the distributor, plus an additional $100,000 purchase in chemicals. As for a motive, Burrell said farming is a very competitive industry and unscrupulous people see black farmers as easy prey. He said by hurting those farmers' bottom line, someone else would be able to swoop in and buy up the land that belongs to black farmers. "All we have to do is look at here: 80 years ago you had a million black farmers, today you have less than 5,000. These individuals didn't buy 16 million acres of land, just to let is lay idle. The sons and daughters, the heirs of black farmers want to farm, just like the sons and daughters of white farmers. So we have to acknowledge that racism is the motivation here." The farmers filed a class-action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee Western Division in Memphis on April 19, 2018 against Stine Seed Company of the largest genetic seed trait manufacturer in the world. Tennessee Rep. G.A. Hardaway said he will push the state government to investigate these allegations. "We will explore the avenues -- whether its civil, whether it's criminal -- dealing with fraud. Those issues which have negatively impacted our black farmers, those who are in the chain of commerce in agriculture, we'll be looking at how the state of Tennessee can protect the interests of those citizens," Hardaway said. Stine Seed Company President Myron Stine issued the following statement addressing the lawsuit and the allegations his company intentionally sold bad seeds to black farmers: "The lawsuit against Stine Seed Company is without merit and factually unsupportable. Stine takes seriously any allegations of unlawful, improper, or discriminatory conduct and is disturbed by the baseless allegations leveled against the company. Upon learning of these claims, the company took swift action to conduct an internal investigation, which has not revealed any evidence that would support these allegations. Stine intends to vigorously defend itself against this meritless lawsuit and has filed a motion to dismiss. Our focus is on continuing to serve all our customers with the highest degree of integrity and respect that are the bedrock of our company's values." [GN] TC PAYROLL: Przenkop Suit Alleges FLSA Violation ------------------------------------------------ Cassandra Przenkop, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TC Payroll, LLC dba Dunkin Donuts, and Igor Pimentel, Case No. 2:18-cv-14265 (S.D. Fla., July 10, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime and unlawful retaliation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed as store manager of Defendants from August 2016 until January 13, 2018. The Defendants operate Dunkin Donuts franchises in Martin County, Florida. The Plaintiff's immediate supervisor was, at the time of her employment, the Defendant Igor Pimentel. The Defendant Pimentel is a person who acted directly in the interest of the Defendant TC Payroll in relation to the Plaintiff. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Beth Coke, Esq. COKE EMPLOYMENT LAW 131 N. 2nd Street, Suite 204 Fort Pierce, FL 34950 Tel: (772) 252-4230 Fax: (772) 252-4575 TENNECO INC: Rigged Prices of Exhaust Systems, 2 Distributors Claim ------------------------------------------------------------------- MANNY'S AUTO SUPPLY, INC.; and IRVING LEVINE AUTOMOTIVE DISTRIBUTORS, INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TENNECO, INC.; TENNECO GMBH; and TENNECO AUTOMOTIVE OPERATING CO., INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-12166-SFC-EAS (E.D. Mich., July 10, 2018) alleges violation of the Sherman Act. According to the complaint, as early as January 1, 2002, the Defendants violated the antitrust laws by entering into a continuing conspiracy to rig bids and fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize prices of Automotive Exhaust Systems sold in the United States and elsewhere at supra-competitive levels. As a result of this unlawful conduct, the Plaintiffs and other Class members paid artificially inflated prices for Automotive Exhaust Systems and have suffered antitrust injury to their business or property. Tenneco Inc. designs, manufactures, and distributes clean air and ride performance products and systems for light vehicle, commercial truck, off-highway, and other vehicle applications worldwide. The company was formerly known as Tenneco Automotive Inc. and changed its name to Tenneco Inc. in 2005. Tenneco Inc. was founded in 1987 and is headquartered in Lake Forest, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David H. Fink, Esq. Darryl Bressack, Esq. Nathan J. Fink, Esq. FINK + ASSOCIATES LAW 38500 Woodward Avenue; Suite 350 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 Telephone: (248) 971-2500 E-mail: dfink@finkandassociateslaw.com dbressack@finkandassociateslaw.com nfink@finkandassociateslaw.com.com - and - Gregory P. Hansel, Esq. Randall B. Weill, Esq. Michael S. Smith, Esq. PRETI FLAHERTY BELIVEAU & PACHIOS LLP One City Center Portland, ME 04112-9546 Telephone: (207) 791-3000 E-mail: ghansel@preti.com rweill@preti.com msmith@preti.com - and - Joseph C. Kohn, Esq. William E. Hoese, Esq. Douglas A. Abrahams, Esq. KOHN SWIFT & GRAF, P.C. 1600 Market Street, Suite 2500 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 238-1700 E-mail: jkohn@kohnswift.com whoese@kohnswift.com dabrahams@kohnswift.com - and - Steven A. Kanner, Esq. William H. London, Esq. Michael E. Moskovitz, Esq. FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC 2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130 Bannockburn, IL 60015 Telephone: (224) 632-4500 E-mail: skanner@fklmlaw.com wlondon@fklmlaw.com mmoskovitz@fklmlaw.com - and - Eugene A. Spector, Esq. William G. Caldes, Esq. Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq. Jeffrey L. Spector, Esq. SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C. 1818 Market Street, Suite 2500 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 496-0300 E-mail: espector@srkw-law.com bcaldes@srkw-law.com jjagher@srkw-law.com jspector@srkw-law.com - and - Carl E. Person, Esq. 225 E. 36 th Street – Suite 3A New York, N.Y. 10016-3664 Telephone: (212) 307- 4444 E-mail: carlpers2@gmail.com - and - Irwin B. Levin, Esq. Scott Gilchrist, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 E-mail: ilevin@cohenandmalad.com sgilchrist@cohenandmalad.com THOMASSON THOMASSON: Lolongo Files Civil Rights Suit in Indiana --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Thomasson, Thomasson, Long & Guthrie, P.C. The case is styled as Rosalie S. Lolongo also known as: GEDEON French Court Appointed Law-Guardian, and similarly Situated Women & Children form the DRC and Other Civil French Napoleonic Law Contries, State and Provinces, Helene Shaku Ahondju Lolonga French Court protected senior citizen born Lokoto now known as Lumumba, Lolonga Matrimonial Estate of Community of Acquisitions & Educational Trust of its beneficiaries and Martin Mamuntima Ndukisi in his quality as the Manager of the Undivided Marital estate of Community of Acquisition and Educational Trust, Plaintiffs v. Patrick V. Gedeon, Shari Long Esq. and Thomasson, Thomasson, Long & Guthrie, P.C., Defendants, Case No. 1:2018-cv-02306 (S.D. Ind., July 27, 2018). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Civil Rights. Thomasson, Thomasson, Long & Guthrie, P.C. is a Family law attorney in Columbus, Indiana.[BN] The Plaintiffs appear PRO SE. TRANS CONTINENTAL: Loiseau Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ Trans Continental Credit & Collection Corp. is facing a class action lawsuit under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The case is captioned Daphne Loiseau, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Trans Continental Credit & Collection Corp., Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-04262 (E.D. N.Y., July 27, 2018). Trans Continental Credit & Collection Corp. is a loan agency in White Plains, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. Sanders Law, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Tel: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com TRIANGLE CAPITAL: Faces Another Shareholder Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------- Lauren K. Ohnesorge, writing for Triangle Business Journal, reports that as Triangle Capital Corporation's deals inch closer toward a vote, another shareholder has filed a lawsuit against the Raleigh investment company in federal court. [GN] TRIANGLE CAPITAL: Hammer Files Securities Class Action in Maryland ------------------------------------------------------------------ Craig Hammer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Triangle Capital Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-02086 (D. Md., July 9, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Plaintiff also wants to enjoin the vote on, among other things, the Company's sale of its December 31, 2017 investment portfolio to funds advised by Benefit Street Partners LLC pursuant to the Asset Purchase Agreement dated as of April 3, 2018, by and between the Company and BSP Asset Acquisition I, LLC; and the Company's entry into a stock purchase and transaction agreement dated as of April 3, 2018, with Barings LLC, through which Barings will become the investment adviser to the Company in exchange for a cash payment from Barings of $85.0 million, or $1.78 per share, directly to the Company’s stockholders. The Plaintiff alleged that unless remedied, Triangle's public stockholders will be forced to make a voting decision on the Proposed Transactions without full disclosure of all material information concerning the Proposed Transactions being provided to them. The Plaintiff owns Triangle common stock. The Defendant Triangle is a Maryland corporation and maintains its principal executive offices at 3700 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 530, Raleigh, North Carolina 27612. Triangle invests capital in established companies in the lower middle market to fund growth, changes of control and other corporate events and offers a wide variety of debt and equity investment structures including first lien, unitranche, second lien, and mezzanine with equity components. The Individual Defendants are members of Triangle's board of directors. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Donald J. Enright, Esq. Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115 Washington, DC 20007 Tel: (202) 524-4290 Fax: (202) 333-2121 E-mail: denright@zlk.com etripodi@zlk.com UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Chief People Officer Resigns Amid Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Salvador Rodriguez and Heather Somerville, writing for Reuters, report that Uber Technologies Inc's Chief People Officer Liane Hornsey resigned in an email to staff on July 10, following an investigation into how she handled allegations of racial discrimination at the ride-hailing firm. The resignation comes after Reuters contacted Uber on July 9 about the previously unreported investigation into accusations from anonymous whistleblowers that Hornsey had systematically dismissed internal complaints of racial discrimination. Ms. Hornsey is head of Uber's human resources department and one of the firm's top spokespeople on diversity and discrimination issues. She had been in the role for about 18 months, as the company was rocked by claims of widespread issues of gender discrimination and sexual harassment. The allegations raise questions about Chief Executive Dara Khosrowshahi's efforts to change the toxic culture of the firm after he took over in August last year from former CEO Travis Kalanick following a series of scandals. Ms. Khosrowshahi praised Ms. Hornsey in an email to employees, which was seen by Reuters, as "incredibly talented, creative, and hard-working." He gave no reason for her departure. Ms. Hornsey acknowledged in a separate email to her team at Uber, also seen by Reuters, that her exit "comes a little out of the blue for some of you, but I have been thinking about this for a while." She also gave no reason for her resignation and has not responded to requests for comment about the investigation. The allegations against her and Uber's human resources department more broadly were made by an anonymous group that claims to be Uber employees of color, members of the group told Reuters. They alleged Ms. Hornsey had used discriminatory language and made derogatory comments about Uber Global Head of Diversity and Inclusion Bernard Coleman, and had denigrated and threatened former Uber executive Bozoma Saint John, who left the company in June. "This person ultimately was the reason behind (Saint John's) departure from Uber," the anonymous employees said in an email, referring to Ms. Hornsey. Ms. Saint John joined Uber from Apple Inc in June, 2017 but left only a year later to join Endeavor, the parent company of several talent agencies. She declined to comment, telling Reuters by phone: "I don't have anything to say about my experience there." Coleman, who came to Uber in 2017 after serving as the chief diversity and human resources officer of Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign, also declined to comment. Some of the allegations were substantiated, investigators from law firm Gibson Dunn told the employees in a May 15 email that was seen by Reuters. It is not clear which of the allegations were substantiated, but the investigators shared their "thoughts regarding several options to address concerns regarding Ms. Hornsey" with Ms. Khosrowshahi, they wrote in the email. The investigators added that they were commencing another investigation after receiving a complaint from another anonymous Uber employee regarding "allegations that appear to relate in some ways." UNRESOLVED COMPLAINTS The complaints against Ms. Hornsey come about a year after Uber was embroiled in widespread allegations of gender discrimination and sexual harassment, triggering an investigation by former U.S Attorney General Eric Holder and ultimately Mr. Kalanick's resignation. Uber in March agreed to pay $10 million to settle a proposed class-action lawsuit alleging discrimination against more than 400 women and minorities brought by three women engineers. One of the women removed herself from the class-action and sued the company in May alleging discrimination based on gender and race. The employees behind the latest allegations said complaints filed to Uber's anonymous tip line often were left unresolved or were dismissed, especially if they dealt with issues of race. They also accused the company of ignoring a board-approved recommendation by Holder that its chief diversity officer report directly to the CEO or COO. Uber told Reuters in a statement that the latest complaints had been properly investigated. "We are confident that the investigation was conducted in an unbiased, thorough and credible manner, and that the conclusions of the investigation were addressed appropriately," it said. [GN] UNITED CARD: Court Refuses to Certify Class in Fabricant Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable Percy Anderson denies the Motion for Class Certification filed by the Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled Terry Fabricant v. United Card Solutions LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-01429-PA-FFM (C.D. Cal.). Judge Anderson concludes that the Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the class is sufficiently numerous to satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiff's complaint alleges claims for violations of the provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act applicable to telephone calls placed to telephone numbers assigned to cellular telephone services. In the Motion, the Plaintiff, who operates a sliding-door repair business, seeks to represent a class of those who received calls made by or on behalf of the Defendant to cellular telephone numbers. UNITED STATES: Connecticut Court Denies Family Reunification ------------------------------------------------------------ The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction in the case captioned J.S.R., by and through his next friends J.S.G. and Joshua Perry, and V.F.B., by and through her next friends A.B.A. and Joshua Perry, Plaintiffs, v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, et al., Defendants, No. 3:18-cv-01106-VAB (D. Conn.). J.S.R. and V.F.B. ("Plaintiffs"), two children, who were separated from their parents after crossing the country's southern border, filed a motion for preliminary injunction against numerous federal government officials and entities, seeking an Order that would (1) enjoin the Defendants from continuing to detain Plaintiffs J.S.R. or V.F.B., maintaining their separation from their parents, or delaying release to suitable sponsors; and (2) after parent and child confer, order the Defendants to release J.S.R. and V.F.B. to a suitable sponsor or to reunite with their respective parents, as directed by the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction on the grounds that forcibly separating the children from their parents: (1) violates the children's substantive and procedural Fifth Amendment due process rights; (2) denies the children's equal access to the asylum program and constitutes disability discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act; (3) violates the Administrative Procedure Act; (4) and deprives the children of equal protection under the laws. The Plaintiffs argue that J.S.R. and V.F.B., as persons in the United States, have been deprived of their substantive due process rights under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Plaintiffs argue that they have a protected liberty interest in being reunited with their parents. The Plaintiffs also argue that the government lacks any legitimate, let alone compelling, interest in the separation of these children from their families. The Defendants object to the Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs' lawsuits, which seek reunification by July 13, 2018, interfere with the Government's ongoing effort to implement the relief ordered in Ms. L., 2018 WL 3129486. The Defendants argue that there is substantial overlap with Ms. L., and that duplicative litigation is disfavored in the federal courts because of the risk of inconsistent judgments, as well as the waste of the parties' and judicial resources. The Defendants argue that they have already undertaken extensive efforts towards compliance with the preliminary injunction order. Likelihood of Success on the Merits First, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that J.S.R. and V.F.B. suffered a constitutional violation. The Government has not challenged the California Order, and the parties agree that a constitutional violation occurred when the Government separated children from their parents both on the basis of substantive due process, as the separation deprived the children of their right to family integrity, and procedural due process, as J.S.R. and V.F.B. were given no notice and no fair opportunity for a hearing before being separated from their parents. The Court agrees that the Government violated J.S.R.'s and V.F.B.'s constitutional rights by forcibly removing them from their parents without due process of law. The Government failed to provide the children with notice or a hearing, instead taking their parents, while distracting the children. The Court's conclusion is also supported by the California Order. Although that case considered a class of parents, not children, it held that the parents' constitutional rights were violated when they were separated from their children, and that this constitutional violation required reunification. The Court therefore finds that the Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their constitutional claim. Irreparable Injury Dr. Martin offered evidence that J.S.R. struggles to sleep, distrusts adults, and is depressed and tearful. Dr. Martin found that J.S.R. is suffering from PTSD, and that he had an extraordinarily high score on the childhood post-traumatic stress symptom scale, as a result of the acute trauma of being separated from his father, an adult with whom he has a loving, supportive relationship. Dr. Martin offered evidence that V.F.B. is tearful, avoidant, and has a blunted and flat affect. She had a score consistent with PTSD on the childhood post-traumatic stress symptom scale, and Dr. Martin explained that she was so distressed that she had trouble answering many of his questions. Even if this Court did not presume irreparable harm, as it should, this evidence firmly establishes it. As a result, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs likely would succeed on the merits of their motion for a preliminary injunction, and that the Plaintiffs established that the Government violated J.S.R.'s and V.F.B's constitutional rights to due process and caused them irreparable harm. The motion for a preliminary injunction is granted and relief directed towards the effects of the constitutional violation suffered by these minor children, namely trauma or more precisely, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), shall be provided. To the extent that J.S.R. and V.F.B. seek immediate reunification with their respective parents, the motion for a preliminary injunction is denied. A full-text copy of the District Court's July 13, 2018 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yamnhech from Leagle.com. J. S. R., by and through his next friend, Joshua Perry and J.S.G., Plaintiff, represented by Michael J. Wishnie -- michael.wishnie@yale.ed -- Jerome N. Frank Legal Services, Joanne Lewis -- jlewis@connlegalservices.org -- Connecticut Legal Services, Inc., Marisol Orihuela -- marisol.orihuela@ylsclinics.org -- Jerome N. Frank Legal Services & Muneer I. Ahmad -- muneer.ahmad@ylsclinics.org -- Jerome N. Frank Legal Services. V. F. B., by and through her next friend, Joshua Perry and A.B.A., Consol Plaintiff, represented byJoanne Lewis , Connecticut Legal Services, Inc., Marisol Orihuela , Jerome N. Frank Legal Services, pro hac vice, Michael J. Wishnie , Jerome N. Frank Legal Services & Muneer I. Ahmad , Jerome N. Frank Legal Services. Jefferson B. Sessions, III, Attorney General of the United States, Department of Homeland Security, ("DHS"), Kirstjen Nielsen, Secretary of DHS, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, ("CPB"), Kevin K. Mcaleenan, Commissioner of CBP, U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement, ("ICE"), Ronald D. Vitiello, Acting Director of ICE, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, ("USCIS"), L. Francis Cissna, Director of USCIS, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, ("HHS"), Alex Azar, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Refugee Resettlement, ("ORR") & Scott Lloyd, Director of ORR, Defendants, represented by John B. Hughes , U.S. Attorney's Office & Michelle Lynn McConaghy , U.S. Attorney's Office. UNITED STATES: Osage County Joins PILT Class Action --------------------------------------------------- Bill Lynch, writing for Bartlesville Radio, reports that the Commissioners decided to join the class action lawsuit against the federal government and Treasurer Sally Hulse discussed properties acquired at the resale at the meeting of the Osage County Board of County Commissioners. As a continuation of the meeting the Osage County Commissioners discussed and took action to approve and sign a class action opt-in notice form to recover payment-in-lieu-of-taxes for fiscal years 2015, 2016, and 2017 in the case United States Court of federal claims Kane County, Utah v. The United States. Commissioner Darren McKinney was apprehensive on whether joining the class action lawsuit would have ramifications. However, following discussion with the District Attorney's office as well as Osage County Treasurer Sally Hulse The Commissioners decided to join the class action lawsuit. Ms. Hulse discussed the 43 properties which the county acquired the most recent resale, 6 of which have already received bids. Many of the properties on the new County roll will need cleanup and maintenance, and Ms. Hulse discussed with the Commissioners the possibility of purchasing a lawn mower. Currently the county is not equipped to provide simple lawn maintenance, and bids out for the service. The purchase of a lawnmower would reduce the need to go out for bids to maintain county owned properties and lots. The Commissioners decided to go out for bids on a lawn mower for the county, and will discuss the issue in the near future. [GN] UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Billing --------------------------------------------------------------- Linda Blackford, writing for Lexington Herald Leader, reports that a A group of Kentuckians has asked a Franklin County judge to grant class action status to a lawsuit aimed at stopping the University of Kentucky and the Kentucky Department of Revenue from garnishing people's wages for unpaid medical bills. Lexington attorney Doug Richards has already won a separate Fayette Circuit Court judgment, which found that UK's practice of using the revenue department to collect unpaid bills is unlawful. UK appealed that ruling in March, so collections have continued. In that case, now retired Fayette Circuit Judge James Ishmael cited previous court rulings that concluded state universities are not directly part of the executive branch of government because they are overseen by independent governing boards. In the meantime, Mr. Richards said, he's been contacted by hundreds of people who feel they've been unfairly treated by UK HealthCare and the state. If Franklin Circuit Judge Thomas Wingate grants class-action status to the latest lawsuit, Mr. Richards said he thinks the lawsuit could affect as many as 10,000 people. "It's wrong," Mr. Richards said, pointing out that the University of Louisville does not use the state as a collections agency. "I wonder if anyone at UK has ever thought, not just, 'can we do this, but should we do this?'" Mr. Richards estimates the revenue department has collected about $48 million since the practice started in 2006, according to the lawsuit. In 2004, the General Assembly passed a law expanding the revenue department's collection powers, which were originally only used to collect child support and judicial fees. The department now collects overdue payments for 18 state agencies. The lawsuit details the cases of several plaintiffs who sought treatment at UK HealthCare. Several of the plaintiffs were eligible for federal Medicaid assistance for low-income people and should not have received bills, according to the lawsuit. Instead, the lawsuit says, they received a bill for services without any itemization, and after that, discovered the bill was being subtracted from their wages, with 25 percent tacked on by the revenue department as a collection fee. Mr. Richards said many of the people affected are low-income and may have frequently changing addresses that UK does not bother to verify. "So a lot of people said, 'I never even knew that I owed anyone money,'" Mr. Richards said. The lawsuit highlights the case of plaintiff Amelia Long, who went to a UK HealthCare facility in 2012, and visited a UK emergency room in 2013. She had health insurance through Kentucky Passport Health Care, a company that administers Kentucky Medicaid benefits for low-income residents. Ms. Long received a bill that did not itemize UK's charges, but she assumed it would be covered by her insurance. In 2016, she was informed that her wages were being garnished by the revenue department, and that it had added a 25 percent collection fee. This was the first time she was informed that she owed UK any money, according to the lawsuit. Ms. Long called the revenue department "and was told that it was a waste of time to dispute the bill -- essentially that she could do whatever she wanted, but that the agent had never seen anybody's bill adjusted over any kind of dispute," the lawsuit said. Because she was scared of losing her job as a vet tech, M s. Long agreed to a payment plan. "Plaintiff Long continued to make payments on her accounts until early February 2017, when her pregnancy compelled her to stop working temporarily and she had no income," the lawsuit says. "Plaintiff Long delivered her first child on February 22, 2017. On or about February 23, 2017 -- the very next day after her baby was born -- the Department levied against the full balance of Plaintiff Long's bank account, apparently because she had not made a payment to the Department from her wages." Mr. Richards estimated that the department had collected $5,000 from Long, distributing 80 percent to UK and keeping 20 percent for itself. The revenue department's 25 percent collection fee "amounts to the exercise of absolute and arbitrary power over the property of the Plaintiffs and class members, and constitutes a taking of their property without due process," the lawsuit claims. Using a state agency to garnish wages gives UK a financial advantage over its competitors, which must use private collections agencies. Many unpaid debts that are referred to collections agencies eventually end up in district court. "The University has established no procedure, written or otherwise, that grants such rights to a protesting patient, nor did it communicate to patients what rights the patient would have at any such hearing," the lawsuit says, thereby violating the Kentucky Constitution. Further muddying the waters, Mr. Richards said, is the fact that UK HealthCare's bills are issued through its billing arm, the Kentucky Medical Services Foundation, which UK contends is an affiliated entity that is not subject to the Kentucky Open Records Act. The lawsuit asks for restitution of money already paid, further damages and a jury trial. UK spokesman Jay Blanton said UK officials would not comment on the lawsuit, but "it always is our goal and our mission to provide the greatest access to patient care for all Kentuckians regardless of their ability to pay." Department of Revenue spokeswoman Pamela Trautner said the agency does not comment on pending litigation. [GN] US BANK: Beats Royal Park Investments' RMBS Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Jon Hill, writing for Law360, reports that Royal Park Investments SA/NV can't have class action status for its suit accusing U.S. Bank NA of fumbling its duties as trustee to nearly two dozen residential mortgage-backed securities trusts, a New York federal judge ruled on July 10. U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero said in a two-page order denying Royal Park's class certification bid that he wasn't persuaded the requirements for class treatment had been met. The case is captioned Royal Park Investments SA/NV v. U.S. Bank National Association, Case No. 1:14-cv-02590 (S.D.N.Y.). The case Judge is Victor Marrero. The case was filed April 11, 2014. [GN] USA PROFESSIONAL: Fails to Pay Proper OT, "Diaz" Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- LEDIS DIAZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff V. USA PROFESSIONAL LABOR, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-06580-NJB-KWR (E.D. La., July 9, 2018) is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff Diaz was employed by the Defendant as a general laborer from December 2017 to January 2018. SA Professional Labor, LLC is a Louisiana limited liability company with address at 88 Normandy Dr., Kenner, LA 70065. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Preston L. Hayes, Esq. CHEHARDY SHERMAN WILLIAMS MURRAY RECILE STAKELUM & HAYES, L.L.P. One Galleria Boulevard, Suite 1100 Metairie, LA 70001 Telephone: (504) 833-5600 Facsimile: (504) 613-4528 - and - Gloria T. Lastra, Esq. BRADEN GONZALEZ & ASSOCIATES 2100 Bruin Dr. Kenner, LA 70065 Telephone: (504) 712-2003 VALLOUREC STAR: Faces Class Action Over Labor Law Violations ------------------------------------------------------------ Patty Coller, writing for WKBN, reports that a Vallourec Star worker from Struthers is suing the company for what he says are unfair practices in violation of federal and state labor laws. According to court documents requesting class-action status, Christoper Debozy says he is representing all manufacturing workers at the Youngstown facility in his claims that he was not paid for hours he and other workers put in getting ready for their shift and wrapping up their work day. The court filing says that all workers must prepare for their shift by putting on protective gear mandated by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), gather the necessary tools and equipment to perform the job and walk to their workstation. Workers then must take off the protective gear at the end of their shift as required. Mr. Debozy said this process takes 30 minutes a day. The lawsuit claims that workers were not paid for the time it took to prepare for their shift or for the time after their shift to take off their protective gear. According to the lawsuit, Mr. Debozy is asking for class-action status so that all current and former employees can opt in the lawsuit and be compensated. Court documents estimate that at least 300 employees could be impacted. Mr. Debozy is asking for the company to pay lost wages, interest and attorney fees dating back to July 2015. [GN] VENGROFF WILLIAMS: Lopez Sues over Debt Collection Practices ------------------------------------------------------------ CIRO LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VENGROFF WILLIAMS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 6:18-cv-00340-RWS-KNM (E.D. Tex., July 10, 2018) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Vengroff Williams, Inc. provides receivables management and business process outsourcing services. The Company offers third party recovery, insurance services, medical subrogation, revenue cycle management, medical collections, invoice and statement processing, payment monitoring, and legal solutions. Vengroff Williams serves customers in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joel S. Halvorsen, Esq. HALVORSEN KLOTE 680 Craig Road, Suite 104 St. Louis, MO 63141 Telephone: (314) 451-1314 Facsimile: (314) 787-4323 E-mail: joel@hklawstl.com WAL-MART STORE: Loses Judgment on Pleadings Bid in Cashiers' Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, denied Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in the case captioned NISHA BROWN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. WAL-MART STORE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 09-cv-03339-EJD (N.D. Cal.). In this case, a certified class of California cashiers led by Plaintiffs Kathy Williamson and Nisha Brown sue their employer, Defendant Wal-Mart Store, Inc., for failing to provide them with seats while they work at checkout lanes. Wal-Mart's motion for judgment on the pleadings seeks to terminate the entire litigation on the ground that the Wage Order deprives Wal-Mart of statutory and constitutional rights. On the statutory front, Wal-Mart argues that the Wage Order is invalid because it conflicts with the California Labor Code and the California Administrative Procedure Act (APA). On the constitutional front, Wal-Mart contends that enforcement of the Wage Order is unconstitutional because it violates the right to petition the government for redress of grievances under the federal and California Constitutions, the right to procedural due process under the federal and California Constitutions, and the authority of the Executive under the California Constitution. Wal-Mart claims that the Wage Order contravenes both the California Labor Code and the California APA. Neither argument is persuasive. Wal-Mart first seeks to hold the Wage Order invalid based on the Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC)'s failure to comply with its authorizing statute. Under California law, an administrative agency may not exceed the scope of authority conferred on the agency by the Legislature. Wal-Mart says that the Wage Order must be declared invalid because the IWC's defunded status prevents the agency from complying with its continuing duty under the Labor Code and from entertaining petitions to modify its regulations. The Court finds that Wal-Mart cites no statutory authority or case law supporting its view. Indeed, Wal-Mart's argument would have the effect of invalidating not only the Wage Order, but the entirety of the wage orders issued by the IWC. Such a result would contravene the California courts' recognition that the IWC's wage orders remain part of California's wage and hour scheme. Although Wal-Mart suggests that an agency should continually re-evaluate societal understanding of and scientific developments in the area of employee welfare, the Legislature has expressly set up the current system, wherein the DIR does not have the authority to change the Wage Order. The Court will not override that legislative judgment, and the Legislature remains free to change it. California APA Wal-Mart poses a separate, yet similar, conflict between the Wage Order and the California APA. Under the California APA, any interested person may petition a state agency requesting the adoption, amendment, or repeal of a regulation unless the right to petition for adoption of a regulation is restricted by statute to a designated group or where the form of procedure for such a petition is otherwise prescribed by statute. Even assuming that these provisions of the California APA apply here, the Court finds that the Wage Order is not invalid for many of the same reasons stated in the previous section. Unsurprisingly, Wal-Mart has failed to cite any authority finding that all of a defunded agency's regulations are automatically invalidated even if they were issued in compliance with the California APA. Fatally, Wal-Mart makes no argument that the IWC failed to follow any APA-mandated procedure at the time that it adopted the Wage Order. Wal-Mart had the option to file a petition with the IWC from the adoption of the Wage Order in 1976 to the IWC's defunding in 2004. Under the current scheme established by the Legislature, Wal-Mart has different options. Wal-Mart could ask the Legislature to make a legislative change or to refund the IWC. Additionally, although DIR cannot amend the Wage Order, DLSE may grant Wal-Mart an exemption from enforcement, Wal-Mart attempts to override these legislative judgments even though the statute that Wal-Mart relies on expressly permits statutory proscription of the right to petition. Like its claim under the California Labor Code, Wal-Mart's claim under the California APA fails. Constitutional Arguments Wal-Mart contends that enforcement of the Wage Order is unconstitutional because it violates the right to petition the government for redress of grievances under the federal and California Constitutions, the right to procedural due process under the federal and California Constitutions, and the authority of the Executive under the California Constitution. Right to Petition Wal-Mart first challenges the Wage Order under the Petition Clauses of the federal and California Constitutions. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prevents the federal government and the States through the Fourteenth Amendment from abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. In this case, Wal-Mart contends that the continued enforcement of the Wage Order violates its federal and state rights to petition because Wal-Mart cannot seek recourse from the now-defunct IWC The Court disagrees. First, as Wal-Mart acknowledges, there is no constraint on its ability to challenge compliance with the Wage Order in litigation. Wal-Mart has shown no barrier to its access to the courts, where it can file or defend against a lawsuit under the Wage Order. Both activities have been held to be protected petitioning activity. Second, Wal-Mart could seek relief from the California Legislature. Specifically, Wal-Mart could ask the Legislature to modify the Wage Order through legislation or to reinstate the IWC, as the California Supreme Court recently corroborated. Third, and finally, Wal-Mart has had the opportunity to pursue relief before an executive agency. Based on the various grievance-resolution alternatives that Wal-Mart has available before all three branches of the government, the Court concludes that Wal-Mart has not been deprived of its federal or state constitutional rights to petition. Procedural Due Process Wal-Mart's penultimate contention that its federal and state procedural due process rights have been violated is derivative of its claims under the California Labor Code and California APA. Wal-Mart states that to the extent that Wal-Mart has established a violation of its right to petition under the California APA or the Labor Code, as it has, Wal-Mart has likewise established a violation of its due process rights under the United States and California Constitutions. Because the Court has already rejected Wal-Mart's statutory arguments, the Court also rejects Wal-Mart's federal and state procedural due process claims. Executive Authority Wal-Mart's final argument is that enforcement of the Wage Order upsets the balance of power between the California Executive and Legislative branches. The California Constitution vests the supreme executive power of this State in the Governor. It is true that the Governor is statutorily permitted to appoint, with the consent of the Senate, the five members of the IWC. Nevertheless, the California Constitution gives the Legislature the authority to create the IWC and to confer any legislative, executive, and judicial powers. More broadly, the Legislature has the power to make decisions about appropriation of funds. In that regard, neither an executive administrative agency nor a court has the power to require the Legislature to appropriate money. The Legislature's decision to defund the IWC in 2004 appears to fit squarely within these enumerated powers, and Wal-Mart has not raised any reason to think otherwise. The Court rejects Wal-Mart statutory and constitutional bases for holding the Wage Order invalid and unenforceable. Accordingly, the Court denies Wal-Mart's motion for judgment on the pleadings. A full-text copy of the District Court's July 13, 2018 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycyrjm3v from Leagle.com. Nisha Brown & Kathy Williamson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situtated, Plaintiffs, represented by Charles Aubrey Jones -- tony.jones@troutman.com -- Jones Law Firm, James F. Clapp -- jclapp@clapplegal.com -- Clapp Legal APC, Kevin J. McInerney -- kevin@mcinerneylaw.net -- McInerney & Jones & Matthew Righetti -- matt@righettilaw.com -- Righetti Glugoski, P.C. Wal-Mart Store, Inc., Defendant, represented by Alexander Humphrey Hu -- alex.hu@ltlattorneys.com -- LTL ATTORNEYS LLP, Anthony David Sbardellati -- anthony.sbardellati@ltlattorneys.com -- LTL Attorneys LLP, Gloria Franke Shaw -- gloria.shaw@kattenlaw.com -- Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, Jesse A. Cripps, Jr. -- jcripps@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Lisa Yumi Mitchell -- lmitchell@constangy.com -- Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete LLP, Patricia Anne Kinaga -- patricia.kinaga@ltlattorneys.com -- LTL Attorneys LLP, Amber Jene Sayle , GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP, Andrew George Klevorn -- Andrew.klevorn@kattenlaw.com -- Eimer Stahl Klevorn & Solberg LLP, pro hac vice, Brian Lee Duffy -- duffyb@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, LLP, pro hac vice, Chad J. Doellinger -- cdoellinger@eimerstahl.com -- Eimer Stahl Klevorn & Solberg LLP, pro hac vice, James Milton Nelson -- nelsonj@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig LLP, Katherine Shannon Paulson -- katherine.paulson@kattenlaw.com -- Katten Muchin Rosenman, pro hac vice & Naomi Beer -- beern@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, LLP, pro hac vice. WASHINGTON: Home Health Aides File Class Action Over Union Dues --------------------------------------------------------------- Bill McMorris, writing for The Washington Free Beacon, reports that the fallout from the Supreme Court's landmark Janus ruling continued as Washington state workers filed suit to recover their lost wages from forced unionism. Several home health aides are suing Service Employees International Union Local 775 and the state to recover money deducted from Medicaid reimbursements designed to fund the care of disabled or elderly people. The state government automatically sent more than 3 percent of the provider payments to the union, despite the fact that workers never agreed to become members. The practice, according to the suit, violates both the U.S. and state constitutions. "Plaintiffs and class members are not union members and never consented for the union or the state to withdraw union dues or dues equivalent fees from their wages, yet the state deducted such fees from their pay," the suit says. "Defendants conspired to deprive Plaintiffs and class members of their First Amendment rights by deducting union fees from their wages without their clear, prior, affirmative consent." For years Washington state forced such providers, many of whom are caring for relatives, to pay a portion of those reimbursements to the union. The practice only stopped when the Supreme Court declared a similar policy in Illinois unconstitutional. That 2014 ruling led to the Supreme Court's June decision declaring mandatory payments to public sector unions, including SEIU, an unconstitutional violation of free speech in Janus. The caregivers are receiving pro bono representation from the Freedom Foundation, a pro-free market think tank in the state. Foundation labor expert Maxford Nelson said the policy was exploitive and "wrong on every level." "Any business that tried to charge customers without their permission would have the state attorney general trying to shut them down," he told the Washington Free Beacon. "We believe extracting union dues from caregivers' Medicaid checks without permission is not only unfair, but violates caregivers First Amendment rights." The home health providers are asking for "punitive damages against defendants . . . because their conduct, described above, was and is motivated by evil motive or intent, or involves reckless or callous indifference to the federal and state rights of plaintiffs and class members." They also are asking the judge to force the union and state to pay for legal fees. The Washington aides are not the first to demand that unions refund forced unions dues and fees. Former government workers have filed class action suits in seven states, including Washington, to repay past deductions. Mr. Nelson said the Janus decision has settled the question of forced fee payments and "made it clear that unions can't take money out of public employees' pay without their affirmative consent." He said the onus should be on the unions to win the support of public sector workers or personal medical aides and that both groups are motivated by political support, rather than care for the aides. "We believe the same principle protects these caregivers against being exploited by unions like SEIU 775 and politicians like Gov. Inslee," Mr. Nelson said. "SEIU 775 wants to fill its own coffers and Gov. Inslee wants union campaign contributions, so they assume silence means consent and take caregivers' money until and unless the caregiver objects." Local 775 is an influential player in Washington. It has spent nearly $9.5 million on political contributions since 2002 at the state level, according to the National Institute on Money in Politics. Local 775 gave Inslee $7,400 in his 2012 and 2014 gubernatorial campaigns, while the national union contributed $10,000. A spokesman for Gov. Inslee declined comment on the lawsuit, but reiterated the governor's opposition to Janus. Inslee issued a statement after the Janus decision was released, criticizing it as a "ruling designed to undermine public sector unions." "All workers benefit from strong unions and their bargaining activities. Washington has been and will remain a state that believes in and supports the rights of all workers to organize, in both the public and private sector," he said. "We are confident organized labor will come through this fight stronger than before." Local 775 did not return request for comment. [GN] WHITESTONE MARBLE: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Rodriguez Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- JAIME VICTORIANO SIGUENZA RODRIGUEZ and REYNALDO MUNOZ FLORES, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. WHITESTONE MARBLE & GRANITE CORP. (D/B/A WHITESTONE MARBLE & GRANITE), CRISTOBAL MORENO, and OSVALDO MORENO, Case No. 1:18-cv-04223 (E.D.N.Y., July 25, 2018), alleges that the Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation. Whitestone Marble & Granite Corp. is a domestic corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of New York. The Individual Defendants serve or served as owners, managers, principals, or agents of the Defendant Corporation. The Defendants own, operate, or control a construction company, located at 25 Montauk Av., in Brooklyn, New York, under the name "Whitestone Marble & Granite."[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 E-mail: Michael@Faillacelaw.com WORLDWIDE FLIGHT: Doesn't Pay OT to Supervisors, Contreras Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- ERICK CONTRERAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WORLDWIDE FLIGHT SERVICES, INC., and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-06036-PSG-SS (C.D. Cal., July 19, 2018) is an action against the Defendant for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods. Mr. Contreras was employed by the Defendants as supervisor. Worldwide Flight Services, Inc. offers aviation and aircraft ground support services such as cargo handling, technical contracting, and ramp and passenger services primarily to passenger airlines, air-cargo carriers, and airports. Worldwide Flight Services, Inc. was formerly known as AMR Services Corporation and changed its name to Worldwide Flight Services, Inc. in March, 1999. The company was incorporated in 1983 and is based in Irving, Texas. Worldwide Flight Services, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of WFS Global SAS. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott M. Lidman, Esq. Elizabeth Nguyen, Esq. Milan Moore, Esq. LIDMAN LAW, APC 222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (424) 322-4772 Facsimile: (424) 322-4775 E-mail: slidman@lidmanlaw.com enguyen@lidmanlaw.com mmoore@lidmanlaw.com - and - Paul K. Haines, Esq. HAINES LAW GROUP, APC 222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (424) 292-2350 Facsimile: (424) 292-2355 E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com YOUFIT HEALTH: Sued by Halperin Over Unwanted Telemarketing Texts ----------------------------------------------------------------- CYDNEY HALPERIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. YOUFIT HEALTH CLUBS, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Case No. 1:18-cv-23016-FAM (S.D. Fla., July 25, 2018), seeks to stop the Defendant's alleged practice of sending unauthorized and unwanted text messages, which violate the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, to promote memberships to its fitness clubs. Youfit is a Florida limited liability company whose principal office is located in Deerfield Beach, Florida. Youfit is one of the largest fitness clubs in the U.S. operating over 100 locations in 14 states.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Avi R. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 400 NW 26th Street Miami, FL 33127 Telephone: (305) 469-5881 E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com - and - Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 400 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - Scott A. Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, PA 19495 Biscayne Blvd., #607 Aventura, FL 33180 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com ZICAM LLC: Nov. 15 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set -------------------------------------------------- The following release was issued by RG/2 Claims Administration LLC, as Settlement Administrator, on behalf of Bursor & Fisher, P.A. Melgar v. Zicam LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-00160-MCE-AC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA LEGAL NOTICE WHAT IS THIS NOTICE ABOUT? A Proposed Settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court, Eastern District of California, (the "Action") that may affect your rights. The Plaintiff claims that Zicam LLC and Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. ("Zicam"), made false and misleading statements about the effectiveness of certain Zicam products in violation of state and federal law. Zicam denies this claim. The Court has not ruled in favor of Plaintiff or Zicam. Instead, the parties agreed to a Proposed Settlement to avoid the expense and risks of continuing the lawsuit. AM I A MEMBER OF THE CLASS? The class is defined as all residents of the United States of America who purchased any of the following Zicam products in the United States from February 15, 2011 through June 5, 2018: RapidMelts Original, RapidMelts Ultra, Oral Mist, Ultra Crystals, Liqui-Lozenges, Lozenges Ultra, Soft Chews, Medicated Fruit Drops, and Chewables (the "Products"). WHAT DOES THE SETTLEMENT PROVIDE? Subject to Court approval, the parties have agreed to a Settlement under which Zicam will pay $16 million in cash. In addition to paying class member claims, the $16 million settlement fund will be used to pay notice and administration costs, Plaintiff's attorneys' fees, Plaintiff's costs and expenses, and an incentive award to the Class Representative. To recover a cash payment as part of this Settlement you must submit a Claim Form, available at http://www.ZicamClassAction.com, for the Products you purchased during the class period. Claims based on purchases of up to five units of the Products will be paid without requiring proof of purchase. Claims based on purchases of six or more of the Products will require proof of purchase. Your payment will be adjusted based on the number of claims submitted. This adjustment may increase or decrease your recovery. WHAT ARE MY RIGHTS? You have a choice of whether to stay in the Class or not, and you must decide this now. If you stay, you will be legally bound by all orders and judgments of the Court, and you won't be able to sue, or continue to sue, Zicam as part of any other lawsuit involving the same claims that are in this lawsuit. This is true even if you do nothing. 1. You Can Accept the Settlement. Class Members who wish to receive a cash recovery must submit claims by October 3, 2018. You can get a Claim Form on the Internet at http://www.ZicamClassAction.com. Read the instructions carefully, fill out the form, and submit it online on or before October 3, 2018. Alternatively, you may also submit a Claim Form by mailing it to the following address: Zicam Class Action, c/o RG/2 Claims Administration, P.O. Box 59479, Philadelphia, PA 19102-9479. It must be postmarked no later than October 3, 2018. If you fail to submit a timely Claim Form and do not exclude yourself from the Settlement, then you will be bound by the Settlement but will not receive any cash. 2. You Can Object to the Settlement. If you believe any part of the Settlement is unsatisfactory, you may file a written objection with the Clerk of the Court for the Eastern District of California and send copies to the following Counsel representing the Class and Zicam: Plaintiff's Counsel L. Timothy Fisher Bursor & Fisher, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd, Ste 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Zicam's Counsel Robyn E. Bladow Kirkland & Ellis LLP 333 South Hope St Los Angeles, CA 90071 Objections to the Settlement will be considered by the Court, but only if such objections are filed in writing with the Court and sent to Plaintiffs' and Zicam's counsel by October 3. 2018. 3. You Can "Opt Out" of the Settlement. If you exclude yourself from the Class -- which is sometimes called "opting-out" of the Class -- you won't get any cash recovery from the Proposed Settlement. To exclude yourself, mail notice including your name, current address, signature, and a statement that you want to be excluded from Melgar v. Zicam LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-00160-MCE-AC, to Zicam Class Action, c/o RG/2 Claims Administration, P.O. Box 59479, Philadelphia, PA 19102-9479. Such notice must be postmarked no later than October 3, 2018. THE FAIRNESS HEARING On November 15, 2018, at 2:00 pm, the Court will hold a hearing in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California to determine: (1) whether the Proposed Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should receive final approval; and (2) whether the application for Plaintiff's attorneys' fees of up to one-third of the total $16 million settlement fund, plus reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses, should be granted. Objections to the Settlement will be considered by the Court, but only if such objections are filed as explained above. You may hire your own lawyer to appear in Court for you if you wish; however, you will be responsible for paying that lawyer. HOW CAN I GET MORE INFORMATION? If you have questions or want a detailed notice or other documents about this lawsuit and your rights, visit the website at http://www.ZicamClassAction.com.You may also contact the Settlement Administrator by email at info(at)rg2claims.com, or by writing to: Zicam Class Action, c/o RG/2 Claims Administration, P.O. Box 59479, Philadelphia, PA 19102-9479. By order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District. [GN] [*] Class Action Securities Fraud Filings At Near Record Levels --------------------------------------------------------------- Plan Adviser reports that federal class action securities fraud filings continued at near record levels in the first half of this year, according to a new report from Cornerstone Research, "Securities Class Action Filings: 2018 Midyear Assessment." Since midyear 2016, plaintiffs have filed more than 750 federal securities class actions, the most prolific 24-month period since enactment of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. After a sharp decline in the second half of 2017, core filings increased 28%. Nine mega disclosure dollar loss (DDL) filings (those with at least $5 billion) and 11 mega maximum dollar loss (MDL) filings (at least $10 billion) lifted market capitalization losses to levels not seen since 2002. In the first half of this year, plaintiffs filed 204 new federal class action securities fraud cases, twice the 1997-2017 semiannual historical average. Core filings, those excluding mergers and acquisitions (M&A) claims, increased 28% in the first half of 2018. M&A claims decreased nearly 9%. DDL was $157 billion, 162% higher than the historical average. MDL was $643 billion, more than double the historical average. In the U.S., 4.6% of exchange-listed companies were the subject of core filings in the first half of the year. Core filings against S&P 500 firms in the first half of the year occurred at an annualized rate of 9.6%, the highest since 2002.[GN] [*] Five-Partner Team Joins Akin Gump's Class Actions Practice -------------------------------------------------------------- Akin Gump disclosed that a five-partner national class action litigation team: Seamus C. Duffy, Michael W. McTigue Jr., Meredith C. Slawe, Kathryn E. Deal and Michael J. Stortz have joined Akin Gump from Drinker Biddle & Reath, where they practiced together for more than a decade. Mr. Stortz will be resident in the firm's San Francisco office, while the remaining four will reside in its Philadelphia office. At Akin Gump, this experienced group of litigators will expand the firm's national class actions and complex commercial litigation capabilities in key areas, including privacy, advertising and marketing, consumer protection and life sciences; bolster its leadership in the retail litigation space; and strengthen the firm's presence in Philadelphia and San Francisco. "This is a terrific group of lawyers whose outstanding work will complement what we are already doing so well across the United States," said Akin Gump chairperson Kim Koopersmith. "Their arrival further underscores the true nationwide scope of our class action work, and I am very excited to have them here." This powerhouse team has a national practice focused on consumer class actions and complex commercial litigation and related compliance counseling. They represent leading companies in the communications, retail, energy, technology, insurance, and pharmaceutical and life sciences industries in their most challenging and high-exposure cases, and are at the forefront of anticipating the next waves of consumer class action litigation and proactively advising clients on how to mitigate risk. This group has successfully led efforts among the defense bar to combat abusive class action litigation brought by professional plaintiffs. "This group is an ideal fit for our team," stated Stephen M. Baldini, head of Akin Gump's firmwide litigation practice. "They bring a significant track record handling crucial, high-profile matters for global companies, as well as experience in key industries where we have historically been strong. I am thrilled to welcome the five of them to Akin Gump." Added Seamus Duffy, "Akin Gump offers our team an exceptionally high-quality and sophisticated platform built over time and run by great people. The firm's strengths in a number of key areas, including regulatory issues involving the FCC and FTC, intellectual property, labor and employment, data protection and privacy, and marketing and advertising will be extremely beneficial for our clients. We are very happy to be here and look forward to many successful years ahead." Messrs. Duffy and McTigue have served in senior leadership roles at Drinker Biddle: Mr. Duffy as one of the managing partners of the firm and chair of the class actions team, and Mr. McTigue as chair of the firm's litigation group, one of the executive partners and a member of the senior management team. In addition, Ms. Slawe served as chair of the firm's retail industry group and vice chair of the class actions team, Ms. Deal served as chair of the summer associate committee, and Mr. Stortz served as vice chair of the class actions team. This group also launched and led a California retail class actions group and a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) team, which they intend to continue at Akin Gump. About Seamus C. Duffy Mr. Duffy has more than 30 years of experience representing leading businesses in their most significant class action and complex litigation matters and is a trusted advisor to Fortune 100 companies in the communications and energy industries. A sought-after speaker and writer on class action defense, he is a nationally recognized thought leader on privacy law and litigation. Mr. Duffy has been recognized by Chambers USAand as a "Litigation Star" by Benchmark Litigation. Mr. Duffy received his J.D., summa cum laude, from Villanova University School of Law and his B.A. from Villanova University. About Michael W. McTigue Jr. Mr. McTigue is trusted by global companies across a broad range of industries to be lead counsel in their most sophisticated and important disputes. He has nearly 25 years of experience representing companies in class actions, business disputes, intellectual property litigation and domestic and international arbitration proceedings, and also serves as national coordinating litigation counsel for a leading global life sciences company. Mr. McTigue has been recognized by Benchmark Litigation as a "Litigation Star" and by BTI, which noted that in-house corporate counsel praised him for "unsurpassed excellence in client service." Mr. McTigue received his J.D., cum laude, from Boston University School of Law and his B.A., cum laude, from the University of Pennsylvania. About Meredith C. Slawe Ms. Slawe defends companies in class actions and commercial litigation matters in courts and arbitration proceedings across the country. She has earned a reputation as an emerging leader in the national class action bar and as an advocate for, and trusted advisor to, the retail industry. Ms. Slawe has been recognized as a "Rising Star" by the University of Pennsylvania Law School, as a "Top Woman in the Law" by The American Lawyer, as a "Lawyer on the Fast Track" by TheLegal Intelligencer, and as one of the "40 Under 40" professionals by Philadelphia Business Journal. She was also named to the "Under 40 Hot List" by Benchmark Litigation for 2017 and 2018. Ms. Slawe received her J.D. from the University of Pennsylvania Law School and her A.B. from Dartmouth College. She earned a Certificate from Harvard Business School's Executive Education Program for Senior Leaders in Retail. About Kathryn E. Deal Ms. Deal focuses her practice on defending companies at complex civil trials and in class action litigation. She defends leading businesses in the retail, energy and pharmaceutical industries, and manages concurrent class, mass and individual proceedings in a national counsel role. Ms. Deal's class action experience includes defending claims under consumer protection statutes, privacy laws, anti-discrimination legislation and federal and state RICO statutes. She is also a first chair trial lawyer with an outstanding record of success. Ms. Deal has been recognized as a "Lawyer on the Fast Track" by the Legal Intelligencer and as a "Litigation Star" by Benchmark Litigation. Ms. Deal received her J.D., cum laude, from Georgetown University Law Center and her B.A., magna cum laude, from Cornell University. About Michael J. Stortz Mr. Stortz has 30 years of experience representing companies against claims of unfair competition, false advertising, consumer fraud, breach of warranty and product defect, as well as claims arising under the TCPA and related federal and state statutes. He also advises companies as to compliance with these statutes. In addition to his extensive work defending class actions, Mr. Stortz also represents clients in the technology, pharmaceutical and consumer product industries in a wide range of commercial disputes, including antitrust and intellectual property matters. Mr. Stortz received his J.D., cum laude, from Harvard Law School and his B.A, summa cum laude, from Dartmouth College. About Akin Gump's Litigation Practice Akin Gump's commercial litigation representations include nationwide class actions, parallel civil and administrative proceedings, and multidistrict and multistate litigation. The firm's lawyers have the capabilities, experience and skills to successfully guide clients through nationwide disputes, while, at the same time, understanding the unique aspects of local court systems. Many on the Akin Gump team have served with the Department of Justice, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Trade Commission and other federal agencies. Founded in 1945, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP is a leading international law firm with more than 900 lawyers in offices throughout the United States, Europe, Asia and the Middle East. [GN] [*] IADC Calls for Class Action Reform in Ontario ------------------------------------------------- Amanda Jerome, writing for The Lawyer's Daily, reports the International Association of Defense Counsel (IADC) has thrown its hat into the ring for class action reform in Ontario after the Law Commission of Ontario (LCO) released a call for consultation in its review of the Class Proceedings Act. The LCO's review, which was launched in October 2017, is the first independent, evidence-based evaluation of the Act since it was enacted in 1993. When the law commission's call for consultation went out in March 2018, the IADC sent in a list of recommendations in support of reform. "We're committed to positive reform of the civil justice system," said Gordon McKee -- gordon.mckee@blakes.com -- an IADC board member and a partner at Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP in Toronto. Mr. McKee explained that the IADC identified the "Class Actions: Objectives, Experiences and Reforms" project as an opportunity to "level the playing field" as well as modifications that would "more fairly achieve the objectives of class action legislation." The IADC created a task force to consider the issues and McKee was named as chair of the Canadian class action section. According to Mr. McKee, the task force included lawyers with experience defending businesses, not only in Ontario and Canada, but also Australia and the U.S. The draft recommendations were thoroughly discussed in meetings and gained support from: the Lawyers for Civil Justice, the Defense Research Institute, the Federation of Defense & Corporate Counsel, the Canadian Defence Lawyers and the Product Liability Advisory Council. The IADC's recommendations include: adding a merits analysis prior to or at certification, and giving the court more ability to critically review evidence, to weed out class actions with little or no merit, and to narrow overly broad class actions at an early stage; requiring the court to consider co-ordinated case management and discovery as an alternative to a class action where there are a small number of cases, to allow more timely and proportionate resolution of the claims of the putative class members; allowing plaintiffs and defendants equal opportunities to appeal certification decisions; and discouraging wasted resources and costs caused by material changes to the class claims/issues/definition on appeal. As well as, codifying transparency and other requirements for third-party litigation funding to prevent unfairness to the parties or the class members and to remove incentives to fund claims with little or no merit; and adopting provisions to address overlapping class proceedings in multiple provinces, including requiring a certification judge to consider whether he or she should defer to an overlapping class action in another jurisdiction. McKee noted that the recommendations regarding the merits analysis and the appeal process are of particular importance. He said that reforming the appeal process is important in order to get defendants the same rights of appeal as plaintiffs, but also to discourage plaintiffs from "using the appeal process to recast their cost definitions and common issues in order to get a case certified where they took a more unfocused or broad approach on the original motion." McKee explained that this practice results in excessive costs for all parties and wastes resources. The merits analysis, he added, was recommended by the Law Reform Commission in 1982, but wasn't adopted when class actions were brought into force. Instead a 'loser pays costs' rule has been the norm. "Both of these, whether it's the merits assessment or 'loser pays cost' rule, was intended to discourage frivolous class actions because there are significant potential downsides to class actions. When the legislature later looked at it in the secondary market misrepresentation context they added the merits assessment in addition to the 'loser pays costs rule,'" he explained. "The merits analysis, along with a recommendation we made on more power in the court to weigh the evidence, would help to ensure access to justice and access to just outcomes based on assessment of the merits," McKee added, noting that class actions potentially impose pressures from unproven allegations that can impact a company's reputation, business and share value. Peter Pliszka -- ppliszka@fasken.com -- a partner with Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP in Toronto and a member of the IADC's Canadian Class Actions Task Force, said in a statement that the IADC's corporate defence perception is that "class action procedures in Ontario currently are unbalanced and unduly tilted in favour of plaintiffs, and a more level procedural playing field between plaintiffs and defendants is required to achieve fairness and judicial economy." "We want to help ensure access to just outcomes that are not driven by matters extraneous to the merits of a case," he added. The IADC has been contacted by LCO researchers about its recommendations and McKee said a draft report from the LCO should be available for comment this fall. "We will obviously be engaged in commenting after we see that and then a final report either late in the year or early next year," he added. The International Association of Defense Counsel (IADC) has thrown its hat into the ring for class action reform in Ontario after the Law Commission of Ontario (LCO) released a call for consultation in its review of the Class Proceedings Act. The LCO's review, which was launched in October 2017, is the first independent, evidence-based evaluation of the Act since it was enacted in 1993. When the law commission's call for consultation went out in March 2018, the IADC sent in a list of recommendations in support of reform. [GN] [*] Kavanaugh' Class Action Record Few, But Rulings Pro-Business ---------------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh has a limited record on class actions and mass torts, but many of his rulings favor businesses, lawyers say, raising the likelihood that he would favor the defense in such cases. As a judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Kavanaugh has had few dealings with class actions or mass torts. His rulings have focused largely on regulatory matters. But he's sided mostly with parties fighting regulatory action and, in some circumstances, provided a glimpse of how he would rule in class actions. "He would likely favor a restrictive view of class actions," said Carl Tobias, a professor at the University of Richmond School of Law. "His opinions in the regulatory area tend to favor the regulated interests, which are frequent defendants in class action matters. Thus, it is possible to extrapolate from that area to class actions." Thomas Dupree -- tdupree@gibsondunn.com -- of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher in Washington, D.C., predicted Kavanaugh would interpret the federal rule governing class actions "as written." "From this perspective, the law cannot be stretched to facilitate class actions, particularly when doing so may violate the rights of defendants and in some cases the rights of class members as well," he said. Kavanaugh's strongest view on class actions comes in a case called Cohen v. United States, in which 10 taxpayers challenged the Internal Revenue Service's refund procedure involving taxes on phone calls. In a 2011 ruling, the majority allowed the case to go forward, but Kavanaugh dissented with a strong critique of the plaintiffs. "Plaintiffs' ultimate objectives are class certification and a court order that the U.S. government pay billions of dollars in additional refunds to millions of as-yet-unnamed individuals who never sought refunds from the IRS or filed tax refund suits," he wrote. "And class certification is a necessary prerequisite to the class-wide jackpot plaintiffs are seeking here." Kavanaugh ultimately concluded that the plaintiffs failed to go through alternative remedies before suing. But his thoughts about the plaintiffs could portend how he would rule in class actions. "He basically goes on a minor diatribe against class actions," said Brian Fitzpatrick, a professor at Vanderbilt Law School. "He just put it in there for color. And why would you do that unless you have some hostility?" Kavanaugh has dismissed some class actions. In a class action brought on behalf of lactose-intolerant plaintiffs, for example, he tossed failure-to-warn claims against milk producers, concluding "a bout of gas or indigestion does not justify a race to the courthouse." And in a securities class action, he found an investment fund that lost money on mortgage-backed securities had not made material misrepresentations in its public offering. "Some of his opinions, in this area, however reflect a view that plaintiffs are better off pursuing individual challenges or taking advantage of alternative procedures, instead of proceeding with a system-wide challenge to government misconduct," said Adam Zimmerman, a professor at Loyola Law School, Los Angeles. "These decisions may have some relevance to a burgeoning area of class action jurisprudence, where some judges have declined to certify class actions because they believe class action is not 'superior' to other kinds of more individualized alternative dispute resolution." Kavanaugh has a politically conservative resume. Before becoming a judge, he was associate counsel in the Office of Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr during the investigation of President Bill Clinton, a defense lawyer at Kirkland & Ellis and assistant to President George W. Bush, who appointed him to the D.C. Circuit. Advocacy groups immediately mentioned Kavanaugh's favoritism toward business. A joint statement from the American Association for Justice's current president, Kathleen Nastri, and incoming president, Elise Sanguinetti, said: "Judge Kavanaugh has time and again sided with corporations, even when it meant risking the safety of families on our nation's roadways or denying workers their right to band together to hold employers accountable in court for unfair labor practices. We urge the Senate to make workers, investors, consumers, and families a priority when they debate Judge Kavanaugh's nomination." U.S. Chamber of Commerce vice president of media and external communications Blair Holmes said his group looks "forward to reviewing his record on legal issues important to the business community." One of those is a 2007 ruling in a tort case called John Doe v. Exxon Mobil. Kavanaugh dissented from a majority opinion written by Ronald Reagan appointee David Sentelle that refused to grant dismissal of a case brought by 11 Indonesian villagers under the Alien Tort Statute, the Torture Victim Protection Act and other common-law torts, like murder and sexual assault. Exxon had hired Indonesian security officials to guard a natural gas facility. Exxon argued for dismissal due to a "non-justiciable political question," citing letters from the U.S. State Department that cautioned the lawsuit could negatively affect U.S. relations with the Indonesian government. Sentelle agreed but allowed the common-law tort claims to go forward. Kavanaugh found that the panel should dismiss the entire case. "That's a nice case where Republicans were divided, and, dare I say, conservative Republicans, and Kavanaugh took the more conservative view," Fitzpatrick said. But Kavanaugh has primarily ruled on administrative appeals and regulatory matters. In a 2014 opinion, Kavanaugh dissented in favor of SeaWorld in a case challenging a citation the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration leveled after an orca whale killed one of its trainers in Florida. Kavanaugh called it a "new regulatory arena" for the U.S. Department of Labor, which doesn't oversee dangerous sports like football or NASCAR racing. "Why isn't close contact between trainers and whales as intrinsic to SeaWorld's aquatic entertainment enterprise as tackling is to football or speeding is to auto racing?" he asked. "The department offers no answer at all." He ruled against the Federal Communications Commission in a case addressing whether an agency rule requiring opt-out notices on solicited faxes was lawful under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. "It is the Judiciary's job to respect the line drawn by Congress, not redraw it as we might think best," he wrote in a 2017 decision in Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley v. FCC. On 2016, Kavanaugh found in PHH v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that the structure of the CFPB was unconstitutional because it focused power on a single director rather than multiple members of the agency (an en banc panel overturned that decision earlier this year). "What it demonstrates is that he's somebody who's very concerned about concentrating too much power in an administrative agency, like the CFPB," said Alan Kaplinsky, co-practice leader of Ballard Spahr's consumer financial services group. "He's going to take a closer look at federal government agency action than maybe some other judges might, and not provide as much leeway for agencies as they might otherwise get from a different judge. He's going to scrutinize their activities more closely." But does his CFPB ruling give any indication of how Kavanaugh would rule on consumer class actions? "No," Kaplinsky said. "I don't think it provides any peek into how judge Kavanaugh would view consumer class actions." [GN] [*] Pioneering Judges Beginning to Track Class Action Settlements ----------------------------------------------------------------- Cara Bayles, writing for Law360, reports that in a nascent trend that could impact a range of class actions in the employment, securities, consumer protection and product liability spheres, some diligent judges are beginning to track settlements after granting final approval -- adding a so-called third phase of review to ensure class members get the relief they are due. One recent example is U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria's work overseeing Wells Fargo's $142 million settlement with an estimated 3.5 million customers who were charged fees for accounts they never authorized. [GN] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, 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 ***