/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/180814.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, August 14, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 162 Headlines 4C KINZIE: Luna Seeks to Recover Illegally Withheld Tips ACUITY BRANDS: Bid to Consolidate Transferred Suits Still Pending AGILANT SOLUTIONS: O'Conner Sues Over FLSA Violation AGILITY ENERGY: Faces Hunter Suit in District of Utah AGRI LABOUR: Seasonal Workers Launch Wage Class Action ALLIANCE MMA: Oct. 15 Hearing in Class Action Settlement ALTICE: Faces Investor Class Action Over 2017 IPO AMAZON.COM: Paralegals File Misclassification Class Action AMERICAN DG: Seeks to Certify Class of Former Shareholders AMERICAN EXPRESS: April 2019 Trial in Anti-Steering Rules Suit AMERICAN EXPRESS: Mejia Class Certification Bid Stayed ANALOGIC CORP: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action AT ASSOCIATES: Best's Class Certification Bid Denied as Moot AUDIT SYSTEMS: Stevens Sues over Debt Collection Practices AUSTIN, TX: 5 New Plaintiffs Added to Sexual Assault Suit AZZ INC: Continues to Defend "Mullins" Class Action BALBOA CAPITAL: Eco Farms Sues for Fraud and Breach of Good Faith BARNEY'S INC: Davis Employment Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. BERGEY PULLMAN: Richmond Sues Arby's Franchise over No-Poach Deals BIOGEN INC: Plaintiff's Appeal in Massachusetts Suit Still Pending BLUE APRON: Chute and Minshall Sue over 2017 IPO BMW KOREA: Sedan Owners File Class Action Over Defective Engine BNR THE BRIDGE: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Hernandez Suit Says BOGOPA SERVICE: Falcon Seeks Unpaid Wages & OT under FLSA BOTTLING GROUP: Settles FCRA Class Action for $1.2MM BRUMBACH MANCUSO: Wettig Files Suit Over FDCPA Breach BULLET ENERGY: Gandy Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages CA INC: Harvey Balks at Merger Deal with Broadcom Inc. CAL-MAINE FOODS: Summary Judgment Bid Due Fri. in Egg Product Suit CALDER BROTHERS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Moreno Suit Alleges CANADA: 100+ Nursing-Home Patients Sign Up for Class Action CARMAX INC: Still Defends California Wage and Hour Class Suits CC LAST: Sullivan Seeks Conditional Certification of FLSA Class CENTENE CORP: Awaits Court OK to Drop "Sanchez" Suit CENTENE MANAGEMENT: Court Certifies Class in Gudger-King Suit CENTRAL MAINE: Faces PUC Probe Amid Ratepayers' Class Action CHART INDUSTRIES: Faces Aluminum Cryobiological Tank-Related Suit CHART INDUSTRIES: Faces Stainless Steel Cryobiological Tank Suit CHEADLE LAW: Booker Seeks to Certify Class CHICAGO ATHLETIC: Ambrosius Suit Alleges Breach of Contract CHILDRENS ATHLETIC: Kohen Suit Transferred to E.D. New York CJ STAR: Harris Sues Carl's Jr. Franchisees over No-Poach Deals CLARITY SERVICES: Padgett Sues over Background Checks CLEARONE ADVANTAGE: Souders Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls CLEVELAND-CLIFFS: Deal Reached in Wabush Mines Pension Plan Suits COINBASE: Investigation Finds No Wrongdoing, Class Action Pending COMPLYRIGHT: Faces Lawsuit Over Tax Form Data Breach CONAGRA BRANDS: Still Defends "Briseno" Class Action Suit CONGRA BRANDS: "Negrete" Wage and Hour Claims Still Ongoing COTIVITI HOLDINGS: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over Merger CUMMINS PACIFIC: Towle Seeks to Certify 5 Subclasses DADA BHAGAVAN: Faces Quarterman Suit in N.D. Florida DEBT CARE: Ingersoll Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls DIAMOND RESORTS: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Class Action DOUGH DOUGH: Stigar Sues over No-Poach Agreements DPI SPECIALTY: Illegally Uses Biometric Data, Edmond Suit Says DR PEPPER SNAPPLE: Levitt Files Suit Over False Marketing Practices ELITE FUNDING: Hardin Sues over Spam Advertisements ERBA DIAGNOSTICS: Settles Florida Class Suit for $1,215,000 ESA P PORTFOLIO: Faces Quarterman Suit in N.D. Florida EXTENDED LIFE: Hawkins Seeks to Certify FLSA Class F. MILLER PROPERTIES: Hannon Class Certification Bid Denied FABRICA INTERNATIONAL: MOU in Reached in "Garcia" Suit FERRARA CANDY: Settles Packaging Class Action for $2.5-Mil. FIRSTMARK SERVICES: Faces Jessica Stock Suit in C.D. California FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Amonoo Settlement Wins Initial Approval FLINT, MI: State Dismissed From Water Contamination Class Action FLORIDA: Faces Class Action Over Prepaid College Tuition Plans FLOWERS HOSPITAL: Settlement Proposed in Civil Lawsuit FORD MOTORS: Judge Decertifies Consumer Protection Act Claim FORTERRA INC: Maciuga, Lead Plaintiff in Consolidated IPO Suit GCB SERVICES: Wren Seeks to Certify Class of Field Engineers GDS HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Lawsuit GOLDEN BAY TOWERS: Davison Seeks Overtime & Minimum Wages GRANA & MONTERO: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit GREENE CORRECTIONAL: Seelig Seeks to Certify Prisoners Class HALIFAX-YARMOUTH: Diocese Faces Sex Abuse Lawsuit HALSTED FINANCIAL: Faces Coleman Suit in N.D. Illinois HEALTH NET: Barkan Suit Moved to Central District of California HEGEWISCH DEVELOPMENT: White Sues Over Storage of Biometric Data HOHLA & WYSS: Court Approves Notice of Collective Action ILLINOIS: DOC Settles Deaf Prisoners' Class Action INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Faces Shareholder Class Action INTERSTATE REALTY: Brenda Jones Sues over Lease Contract INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Agreement in Principle Reached in Calif. Suit JESSICA HOLDING: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Ning Says JFK MEDICAL: Mendez et al. Amend Bid to Certify 2 Classes JIM GOLDEN: Schnaidt Suit Asserts TCPA Violation JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Suits Over Talcum Powder Cancer Link KITOV PHARMA: Settles Shareholder Class Action for $2-Mil. KOPPERSTON, WV: PSD Sued Over Failure to Monitor Water Quality LAWRENCE LIVERMORE: Appeals Court Rules in Favor of Retirees LEGACY BULK TRUCKING: Dispatchers Seek to Recover Unpaid OT Wages MARBLECAST OF MICHIGAN: Garner Properties Seeks to Certify Class MARTIN COUNTY, FL: Randolph et al. Seek to Certify Employees Class MEDIMETRIKS PHARMACEUTICALS: Cooper Seeks to Certify Class MERCK CANADA: Quebec Court Approves Class Suit Over Propecia MICHIGAN STATE: Insurers Fail to Reimburse Settlement Costs MID SOUTH WAFFLES: Goodman Seeks to Recover Wages Under FLSA MITEL NETWORKS: Faces "Cuddihey"and "Witmer" Suits in New York MONSANTO CO: Farmers Sue in Missouri Over Ruined Crops MONSANTO CO: Wildy Suit Transferred to E.D. Mo. MONSANTO CO: Wiseman Files Suit Over Roundup Exposure MONSANTO COMPANY: Jons' Product Liability Suit Transferred to Mo. MONSANTO COMPANY: Young Sues Over Roundup(R)-Related Injuries MORTGAGE CONTRACTING: Weinstein Seeks Final Settlement Approval NATIONAL ENTERPRISE: Carcamo Hits Illegal Debt Collection NCAA: Poppy Livers Has 2nd Chance to Pursue Wage Suit NEW DOMINION: Central Oklahoma Residents Won't Get Sept. Trial NEWELL BRANDS: Levi & Korsinsky Files Class Action NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Unit Continues to Defend Class Suit in Virginia NOVATO HEALTHCARE: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Understaffing OCLARO INC: Lumentum Merger Deal Triggers Several Lawsuits PARAGONCOINS: Rapper Among Defendants in Weed Cryptocurrency Case PERDUE FOODS: Drew Seeks to Certify Class of Clerks PINNACLE ENTERTAINMENT: Allen Bid to Certify Class Okayed in Part PROLOGIS INC: Faces Class Suits Challenging DCT Merger QUALITY BEVERAGE: Teixeira Labor Suit Removed to Mass. Dist. Ct. RED ROBIN: Outlaw Sues Over Unfair Labor Practices ROCKWELL MEDICAL: Bernstein Liebhard Files Class Action SENIOR CARE CENTERS: Ward Wins Conditional Class Certification SERENITY TRANSPORTATION: Motion for Class Certification Granted SILICON LABORATORIES: "Noyes" Suit Voluntarily Dismissed SMILEMAKERS INC: Wainess Files Placeholder Class Certification Bid SONIC CORP: Consolidated Complaint Filed in Malware-Related Suits SPERIAN ENERGY: Corsale Suit Transferred to W.D. Pa. STARBUCKS CORP: FLSA De Minimis Doctrine Not in Cal. Statutes STARBUCKS CORP: Squire Pattons Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling STEADYMED LTD: "Scarantino" and "Hoover" Suits Balk at Merger Deal STEEL & TUBE: More Homeowners Join Suit Following Guilty Pleas SURFSTITCH: Shareholders to Pursue Class Action Against Ex-CEO SYNAPSE GROUP: Cruz False Advertising Suit Removed to S.D. Cal. SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES: Bid to Drop Consolidated Suit Pending SYNCHRONY BANK: McMullen Seeks to Certify Settlement Class T ROWE PRICE: Faces Class Suit over 401(k) Plan in Maryland TACO BELL: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Lunch Break Class Action TAURANGA CITY: More Homeowners Joining Lawsuit TEZOS: Judge Allows Cryptocurrency Class Action to Proceed TOLL ROADS LITIG: Motion for Class Certification Partly Granted TOYOTA MOTOR: Class Action Over Rodent-Damaged Wiring Tossed TRUECOVERAGE LLC: Court Strikes Conditional Certification Bid TRUGREEN LTD: Notice to Employees of Opt-in Rights Rejected UNITED STATES: Faces Class Action Over Immigrant Detentions UNITED STATES: Father and Son Reunited Following Court Order UNITED STATES: Garfield County Joins PILT Program Class Action UNITED STATES: Luna County May Join PILT Program Class Action UNITED STATES: Migrant Fathers Sue After Separation w/ Children UNITED STATES: Ordered to Follow Up on Missing Migrant Parents UNITED STATES: Victorville Detainees File Class Action Suit UNITED STATES: Wazee Disputes Net Worth Sweep Dividend Payments US PHYSICAL: Bid to Dismiss New York Suit Granted With Prejudice WAL-MART STORES: Mays Seeks to Certify 2 Classes WASTE MANAGEMENT: Settles Stony Hollow Landfill Class Action WITHCOIN: Faces Class Action in Japan Over Misleading Claims YAYO RESTAURANT: Rodriguez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime YOUNGSTOWN, OH: Speed Enforcement Cameras May Spark Class Actions [*] Bill Aims to Stop Student Loan Arbitration, Class Action Ban [*] Initial Coin Offering-Related Lawsuits Hit Record High in 2018 [*] Securities Class Action Filings Up in First Half of 2018 ********* 4C KINZIE: Luna Seeks to Recover Illegally Withheld Tips -------------------------------------------------------- Erik Luna, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. 4C Kinzie Investor, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-05165, (N.D. Ill., July 30, 2018), seeks to recover illegally withheld gratuities pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance. 4C Kinzie Investor, LLC operates as Highline Bar & Lounge where Luna worked as a server. He claims that Defendant failed to give waiters and servers tips they earned. [BN] Luna appears pro se. ACUITY BRANDS: Bid to Consolidate Transferred Suits Still Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- Acuity Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 3, 2018, for the quarterly period ended May 31, 2018, that the motion to consolidate two class action suits transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, is still pending. On January 3, 2018, a shareholder filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against the Company and certain of its officers on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's stock between June 29, 2016 and April 3, 2017. On February 20, 2018, a different shareholder filed a second class action complaint in the same venue against the same parties on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's stock between October 15, 2015 and April 3, 2017. A motion to consolidate the cases has been filed and is presently pending, unopposed. The cases were transferred on April 30, 2018, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The complaints allege that the defendants violated the federal securities laws by making false or misleading statements and/or omitting to disclose material adverse facts that (i) concealed known trends negatively impacting sales of the Company's products and (ii) overstated the Company's ability to achieve profitable sales growth. The plaintiffs seek class certification, unspecified monetary damages, costs, and attorneys' fees. The Company disputes the allegations in the complaints and intends to vigorously defend against the claims. Estimating an amount or range of possible losses resulting from litigation proceedings is inherently difficult, particularly where the matters involve indeterminate claims for monetary damages and are in the stages of the proceedings where key factual and legal issues have not been resolved. For these reasons, the Company is currently unable to predict the ultimate timing or outcome of or reasonably estimate the possible losses or a range of possible losses resulting from the matters described above. The Company is insured, in excess of a self-retention, for Directors and Officers liability. Acuity Brands, Inc. provides lighting and building management solutions and services for commercial, institutional, industrial, infrastructure, and residential applications in North America and internationally. The company is based in Atlanta, Georgia. AGILANT SOLUTIONS: O'Conner Sues Over FLSA Violation ---------------------------------------------------- Javan O'Conner, Ramin Pena and Jonathan Cepada on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Agilant Solutions, Inc. and Technical Staffing Professionals, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-06937, (S.D. N.Y., August 1, 2018), seeks redress for violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. Agilant -- http://www.asisystem.com-- operates as ASI System Integration and is independent provider of IT solutions. Technical Staffing Professionals LLC -- www.techstaffingpros.com -- provides staffing solutions through recruitment for direct hire, contract, and contract-to-hire options. [BN] Plaintiffs appear pro se. AGILITY ENERGY: Faces Hunter Suit in District of Utah ----------------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against Agility Energy. The case is captioned Rickey Hunter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Agility Energy; Perry Taylor, individually and as officer, director, shareholder and/or principal of Agility Energy; Todd Hansen, individually and as officer, director, shareholder and/or principal of Agility Energy; Jessica Hansen, individually and as officer, director, shareholder and/or principal of Agility Energy; Dillion Ping, individually and as officer, director, shareholder and/or principal of Agility Energy; and Heather Stewart, individually and as officer, director, shareholder and/or principal of Agility Energy, the Defendants, Case No. #: 2:18-cv-00618-TS (D. Utah, Aug. 3, 2018). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Ted Stewart.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: April L. Hollingsworth, Esq. HOLLINGSWORTH LAW OFFICE LLC 1115 S 900 E Salt Lake City, UT 84105 Telephone: (801) 415 9909 E-mail: april@aprilhollingsworthlaw.com AGRI LABOUR: Seasonal Workers Launch Wage Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ The Saturday Paper reports that seasonal workers from Vanuatu have launched a class action lawsuit accusing their labour hire employer of exploitation, underpayment and mistreatment. The federal court suit against labour hire firm Agri Labour -- the first under increased penalties for labour hire companies introduced in the 2017 Vulnerable Workers Act -- alleges Agri Labour paid its workers as little as $3.17 an hour after company deductions for rent, food, transport and visas. In May the federal government suspended Agri Labour's licence to import workers after The Sunday Age revealed that agricultural workers being exposed to dangerous chemicals. [GN] ALLIANCE MMA: Oct. 15 Hearing in Class Action Settlement -------------------------------------------------------- Alliance MMA, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on July 19, 2018, that a hearing is set for October 15, 2018, to consider approval of a class action settlement. Pursuant to the order of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (the "Court"), the Court will hold a hearing on October 15, 2018 (the "Settlement Hearing") for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed settlement consisting of the sum of $1,550,000 (the "Settlement"), which was preliminarily approved by the Court on June 28, 2018, should be finally approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the proposed plan to distribute the settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable, and adequate; (3) whether the application for an award of attorneys' fees of up to $516,666.66, or one-third (33-1/3%) of the Settlement Amount, reimbursement of litigation expenses of no more than $25,000, and an award to the Lead Plaintiffs not to exceed $15,000, should be approved; and (4) whether the class action should be dismissed with prejudice. This order of the Court pertains to the previously filed action; no new action has been filed against the Company. The Company believes that the Settlement and related matters will be finally approved by the Court at the Settlement Hearing. The Company believes that the full amount of the Settlement, plus related costs and expenses, will be paid for by the Company's directors and officer's liability insurance policy, subject to the applicable policy deductible of $250,000 and by the Company's underwriter. Alliance MMA, Inc. operates in the sports media industry. The Company promotes, hosts, distributes, and sponsors mixed martial arts (MMA) events and contents. Alliance MMA also offers merchandising, ticketing, agency, and management services throughout United States. The company is based in New York, New York. ALTICE: Faces Investor Class Action Over 2017 IPO ------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that Altice has lost more than $860 million in market value since going public last year, investors claim in separate class actions, noting that shares are trading 40 percent below the IPO stock price of $30 a share. AMAZON.COM: Paralegals File Misclassification Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a class of paralegals accused Amazon.com in King County Superior Court of willfully misclassifying them as exempt from overtime and other labor laws. AMERICAN DG: Seeks to Certify Class of Former Shareholders ---------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled LEE VARDAKAS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN DG ENERGY INC., JOHN N. HATSOPOULOS, GEORGE N. HATSOPOULOS, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-10247-LTS (D. Mass.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: a. certifying this action as a class action on behalf of: all former shareholders of common stock of American DG Energy, Inc. ("ADGE") who held their shares immediately prior to the effective time of the merger between ADGE and Tecogen, Inc. ("Tecogen") (the "Merger") and whose shares were converted in the Merger, except Defendants and any person, firm, trust, corporation, or other entity related to, or affiliated with, any of the Defendants"; b. appointing Plaintiff May as Class Representative; and c. appointing the law firms of Wolf Popper LLP and Monteverde & Associates PC as Class Counsel, and Berman Tabacco as Liaison Counsel. Attorneys for Plaintiff: Nathaniel L. Orenstein, Esq. Norman Berman, Esq. BERMAN TABACCO One Liberty Square Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 542 8300 Facsimile: (617) 542 1194 E-mail: norenstein@bermantabacco.com - and - Carl L. Stine, Esq. Robert S. Plosky, Esq. Adam J. Blander WOLF POPPER LLP 845 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 759 4600 Facsimile: (212) 486 2093 E-mail: cstine@wolfpopper.com - and - Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405 New York, NY 10118 Telephone: (212) 971 1341 E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com - and - Jason M. Leviton, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 155 Federal Street, Suite 400 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 398 5600 Facsimile: (617) 507 6020 E-mail: jason@blockesq.com AMERICAN EXPRESS: April 2019 Trial in Anti-Steering Rules Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- American Express Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2018, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that trial has been scheduled in the individual merchant cases for April 29, 2019, in the case, In re: American Express Anti-Steering Rules Antitrust Litigation (II). American Express said "individual merchant cases and a putative class action, which were consolidated in 2011 and collectively captioned In re: American Express Anti-Steering Rules Antitrust Litigation (II), are pending in the Eastern District of New York against us alleging that our anti-steering provisions in merchant card acceptance agreements violate U.S. antitrust laws." The individual merchant cases seek damages in unspecified amounts and injunctive relief. Following the Supreme Court decision in Ohio v. American Express Co. in favor of American Express, the Court in the Eastern District of New York granted plaintiffs in the individual merchant cases leave to amend their complaint and trial has been scheduled in the individual merchant cases for April 29, 2019. American Express Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides charge and credit payment card products and travel-related services to consumers and businesses worldwide. It operates through four segments: U.S. Consumer Services, International Consumer and Network Services, Global Commercial Services, and Global Merchant Services. American Express Company was founded in 1850 and is headquartered in New York, New York. AMERICAN EXPRESS: Mejia Class Certification Bid Stayed ------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit captioned EVELYN MEJIA, the Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN EXPRESS TRAVEL RELATED SERVICES COMPANY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-03415-JCZ-JVM (E.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Jay C. Zainey entered an order on July 31, 2018: 1. dismissing without prejudice Defendant's motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings; and 2. staying Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Court said, "Following the resolution of Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings, the Plaintiff shall move to re-urge her Motion for Class Certification if necessary." ANALOGIC CORP: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on July 25 disclosed that a class action has been filed on behalf of holders of Analogic Corporation (NASDAQ:ALOG) common stock on May 11, 2018, the record date to vote on the Agreement and Plan of Merger. This action was filed in the District of Massachusetts and is captioned Burcaw v. Analogic Corporation, No. 18-cv-11557. There is at least one other similar case pending in the same court, Carr v. Analogic Corporation, No. 18-cv-11301. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who held Analogic shares on the record date to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice. A class member's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from June 22, 2018. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Esther Lee of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com. A copy of the filed complaint can be viewed at http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/analogic/. The complaint charges Analogic and its Board of Directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("1934 Act") in connection with the sale of the Company to affiliates of Altaris Capital Partners, LLC ("Altaris"). Analogic designs, manufactures and sells advanced medical imaging, ultrasound and security systems and subsystems to original equipment manufacturers and end users primarily in the healthcare and airport security markets. On April 10, 2018, Analogic announced it had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Altaris, pursuant to which each share of Analogic common stock would be converted into the right to receive $84 in cash (the "Transaction"). The Transaction consideration represented a 12.5% discount to Analogic stock's $96.05 per share closing price right before the Transaction was announced. On May 16, 2018, defendants filed a Definitive Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A with the SEC (the "Proxy") to solicit shareholder approval of the Transaction. The complaint alleges the Proxy issued in connection with the Transaction contained materially false and misleading statements in violation of Sec. 14(a) of the 1934 Act. According to the complaint, in pursuing the unfair plan to facilitate the acquisition of Analogic by Altaris for grossly inadequate consideration, defendants made false and misleading statements in the Proxy concerning the merger process and certain financial forecasts prepared by Analogic and relied upon by its financial advisor in support of its fairness opinion. By including the statements in the Proxy, defendants induced stockholders to defer to the Board's recommendation to vote in favor of the unfairly priced Transaction. Pursuant to an uninformed shareholder vote, defendants completed the Transaction on June 22, 2018. Plaintiff seeks damages on behalf of all holders of Analogic common stock as of May 11, 2018 (the "Class"). The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions involving financial fraud. Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- is widely recognized as a leading law firm advising and representing U.S. and international investors in securities litigation and portfolio monitoring. With 200 lawyers in 10 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history. For the third consecutive year, the Firm ranked first in both the total amount recovered for investors and the number of shareholder class action recoveries in ISS's SCAS Top 50 Report. Robbins Geller attorneys have shaped the law in the areas of securities litigation and shareholder rights and have recovered tens of billions of dollars on behalf of the Firm's clients. Robbins Geller not only secures recoveries for defrauded investors, it also implements significant corporate governance reforms, helping to improve the financial markets for investors worldwide. [GN] AT ASSOCIATES: Best's Class Certification Bid Denied as Moot ------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit styled ROBERT BEST, the Plaintiff, v. A T ASSOCIATES, ANDREW LUCHEY, and EVELYN LOONEY, the Defendants, Case No. 9:18-cv-80696-DMM (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Donald Middlebrooks entered an order on July 31, 2018, denying as moot Plaintiff's one-sentence motion for class certification. The Court said, "This cause comes before the Court upon Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification, filed on July 3l, 20l8. On July 6, 2018, Plaintiff's complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff was instructed that any amended Complaint must be filed by July 20, 20l8. Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint and this case was dismissed without prejudice on July 24, 2018. Because this case has been dismissed, Plaintiffs one-sentence Motion for Class Certification is denied as moot. If Plaintiff would like to pursue this matter further, he must initiate a new action by filing a new complaint." AUDIT SYSTEMS: Stevens Sues over Debt Collection Practices ---------------------------------------------------------- JUSTINA STEVENS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AUDIT SYSTEMS, INC., METAVANTE PAYMENT SERVICES, LLC and JOHN DOES 1-25, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00758-EAS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, Aug. 3, 2018), seeks to recover damages under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. According to the complaint, some time prior to December 11, 2017, an obligation was allegedly incurred to Toyota Financial Services. The Toyota obligation arose out of a transaction involving an automobile loan which Plaintiff used to purchase a car used primarily for personal and family reasons. The alleged Toyota obligation is a "debt" as defined by 15 U.S.C. section 1692a(5). Toyota is a "creditor" as defined by 15 U.S.C. section 1692a(4). The Defendant Metavante, a debt collector and the alleged subsequent owner of the Toyota debt, contracted the Defendant ASI to collect the alleged debt. The Defendants collect and attempt to collect debts incurred or alleged to have been incurred for personal, family or household purposes on behalf of creditors using the United States Postal Services, telephone and internet.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amichai E. Zukowsky, Esq. ZUKOWSKY LAW, LLC 23811 Chagrin Blvd, Suite 160 Beachwood, OH 44122 Telephone: (216) 800 5529 E-mail: ami@zukowskylaw.com AUSTIN, TX: 5 New Plaintiffs Added to Sexual Assault Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Sarah Marloff, writing for The Austin Chronicle, reports that five new plaintiffs have been added to a sexual assault federal class action suit against the city of Austin, Travis County, and local law enforcement. The more robust complaint, which now details eight women's accounts of sexual assault and the subsequent abandonment of their cases by local law enforcement, was filed on August 1 afternoon. Elizabeth Myers, Esq. -- Elizabeth.Myers@tklaw.com -- one of several lawyers representing the plaintiffs, said more than 40 women have reached out since the complaint was filed on June 18. The suit alleges that systemic failures within law enforcement have led to discrimination and mistreatment of women rape survivors in Travis County. The new accounts illustrate a "far-reaching, systemic problem that needs to be fixed" by the defendants, said Myers, who noted that while each woman's story is different -- one was kidnapped and repeatedly raped for 12 hours by three men; another was violently raped by her boyfriend while her child was in the house; a third, assaulted by a nurse during a routine medical exam; a fourth, drugged, raped, and left on train tracks; and the fifth, sexually assaulted by another patient at Austin State Hospital -- the common thread is their interaction with the system meant to protect them. The updated complaint follows four motions to dismiss from the defendants. One motion, filed jointly by D.A. Margaret Moore, Esq. -- MargaretForDA@gmail.com -- and her predecessor, Rosemary Lehmberg, Esq., argues that the "moral and legal duty of the elected District Attorney [is] not to convict, but to seek justice. ... The District Attorney must exercise prosecutorial discretion to balance the needs of a victim, the rights of an accused, and the safety of the community. In so doing, the District Attorney necessarily makes decisions that some agree with and some do not." It goes on to say the "law affords District Attorneys protection from lawsuits such as this." The plaintiffs' response asserts: "Every Defendant in this lawsuit is legally required to provide equal protection to the women of Travis County. They have not done so, and for that -- and other legal wrongs -- they can indeed be held to account." It also calls the claims made in the D.A.s' motion "breathtaking," noting that less than 0.2% of the approximately 1,000 sexual assaults reported annually in the county "proceed to finality" on criminal charges. Ultimately, the suit seeks an injunction ordering each defendant to properly train and supervise employees handling sexual assault cases; require and enforce trauma-informed approaches; submit, test, and analyze all sexual assault kits obtained by (or sent to) law enforcement; offer survivors a timeline for when they can expect their sexual assault kit to be tested; begin prosecuting cases without DNA evidence; and a string of other initiatives. Myers reiterated that the case is not about the prosecution of individual assailants, but a systemwide change that offers women rape survivors the same respect and dignity given to men who survive rape as well as victims of other violent crimes.[GN] AZZ INC: Continues to Defend "Mullins" Class Action --------------------------------------------------- AZZ Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 3, 2018, for the quarterly period ended May 31, 2018, that the company continues to defend itself in a putative class action suit entitled, Logan Mullins v. AZZ, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:18-cv-00025-Y (N.D. Tex.). On January 11, 2018, Logan Mullins, acting on behalf of himself and a putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities between April 22, 2015 and January 8, 2018, filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas against the Company and two of its executive officers, Thomas E. Ferguson and Paul W. Fehlman. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company's SEC filings contained statements that were rendered materially false and misleading by the Company's alleged failure to properly recognize revenue related to certain contracts in its Energy Segment in purported violation of (1) Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 and (2) Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The plaintiffs seek an award of compensatory and punitive damages, interests, attorneys' fees and costs. AZZ Inc. said "The Company denies the allegations and believes it has strong defenses to vigorously contest them. The Company cannot predict the outcome of this action nor when it will be resolved. If the plaintiffs were to prevail in this matter, the Company could be liable for damages, which could potentially be material and could adversely affect its financial condition or results of operations." AZZ Inc. provides galvanizing and metal coating services, welding solutions, specialty electrical equipment, and highly engineered services to the power generation, transmission, distribution, refining, and industrial markets. The company is headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas. BALBOA CAPITAL: Eco Farms Sues for Fraud and Breach of Good Faith ----------------------------------------------------------------- Eco Farms Investments Holdings, LLC a California Limited Liability Company, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Balboa Capital Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-01339 (C.D. Cal., August 2, 2018), seeks monetary damages, restitution and injunctive relief resulting from tortious fraud and intentional deceit, actual fraud, negligent misrepresentation, violation of unfair competition law, breach of contract, breach of good faith and fair dealing. Eco Farms Investments Holdings currently owns a commercial Freightliner truck financed by Balboa. The latter allegedly did not disclose that it intended to charge substantial sums of money for what it calls "prefund rent charges," nor that it intends to delay the "commencement" of the loan so it could maximize its own profit. ECO paid $46,660.52 that Balboa claims was rental payments instead of its amortization. Balboa offers various commercial financing products, such as franchise financing and business cash advances. Its principal place of business is 575 Anton Boulevard, 12th Floor, Costa Mesa, California 92626. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Deval R. Zaveri, Esq. James A. Tabb, Esq. ZAVERI TABB APC 402 West Broadway, Suite 1950 San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: (619) 831-6988 Fax: (619) 239-7800 Email: dev@zaveritabb.com jimmy@zaveritabb.com - and - Matthew C. Klase, Esq. WEBB KLASE AND LEMOND LLC 1900 The Exchange S E, Suite 480 Atlanta, GA 30339 Tel: (770) 444-0998 Fax: (770) 444-0271 Email: matt@webbllc.com BARNEY'S INC: Davis Employment Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Corey Davis, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Barney's, Inc., Defendant, Case No. BC710733, (Cal. Super. June 20, 2018), was removed to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on August 2, 2018, under Case No. 18-cv-06627. Barney's, Inc. is a specialty retailer of high-quality men's and women's clothing and accessories, as well as gifts, cosmetics, fragrances, housewares, jewelry, antiques, stationery, and luggage.[BN] Plaintiff appears pro se. Barney's Inc. is represented by: Miranda Alona Mossavar, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON PC 2049 Century Park East 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Tel: (310) 553-0308 Fax: (310) 553-5583 Email: mmossavar@littler.com BERGEY PULLMAN: Richmond Sues Arby's Franchise over No-Poach Deals ------------------------------------------------------------------ MYRRIAH RICHMOND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BERGEY PULLMAN, INC., a Washington Corporation, ARBY'S FRANCHISOR, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00246-TOR (E.D. Wash., Aug. 3, 2018), seeks millions of dollars in lost wages, plus triple damages, and interest, caused by Defendants' long-standing and illegal mutual non-solicitation agreements. Defendants engaged in per se violations of the Washington Unfair Competition Act and the Sherman Act by entering into non-solicitation agreements for the express purpose of depressing and/or reducing market-based wages and benefit increases for Class Members that are typically associated with the active solicitation of employees and workers in a competitive industry. According to the complaint, the non-solicitation agreements provide that Arby's franchisees could not solicit for employment the staff of Arby's and/or of other Arby's franchisees that were all entered into by Arby's franchises throughout Washington State and that had the intended and actual effect of significantly reducing Class Members' wages and salaries. The genesis of the non-solicitation agreements at issue were franchise agreements between Arby's and its franchisees, and between its franchisees, including, upon information and belief, Bergey. This illegal conspiracy among and between Defendants and other Arby's franchisees to not solicit or attempt to solicit one another's employees, in order to thereby suppress their wages, was not known, to Plaintiff and the Class Members until July 12, 2018, when the Washington State Attorney General revealed as part of its then-pending investigation into illegal behavior by some of the largest fast food franchises in Washington and the United States, including Arby's, that Arby's would no longer enforce provisions in its franchise agreements that prevented workers from being solicited by other Arby's franchisees. While protecting and enhancing their profits, Defendants, through their non-solicitation agreements, robbed Class Members millions of dollars-worth of wages for which Plaintiff and the Class now seek relief.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class: India Lin Bodien, Esq. INDIA LIN BODIEN, ATTORNEY AT LAW 2522 North Proctor Street, #387 Tacoma, WA 98406-5338 Telephone: (253) 212 7913 Facsimile: (253) 276 0081 E-mail: india@indialinbodienlaw.com - and - Craig J. Ackermann, Esq. Brian Denlinger, Esq. ACKERMANN & TILAJEF, P.C. 2602 North Proctor Street, No. 205 Tacoma, WA 98406 Telephone: (310) 277 0614 Facsimile: (310) 277 0635 E-mail: cja@ackermanntilajef.com bd@ackermanntilajef.com BIOGEN INC: Plaintiff's Appeal in Massachusetts Suit Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ Biogen Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2018, for the quarterly period ended June 30 , 2018, that the plaintiff's appeal from a ruling in a class action lawsuit remains pending. Biogen said "We and certain current and former officers are defendants in an action filed by a shareholder in October 2016 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts alleging violations of federal securities laws under 15 U.S.C Section 78j(b) and Section 78t(a) and 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5 and seeking a declaration of the action as a class action and an award of damages, interest and attorneys' fees." In March 2018 the court dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The plaintiff's appeal is pending. An estimate of the possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time. Biogen Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and delivers therapies for the treatment of neurological and neurodegenerative diseases worldwide. Biogen Inc. was founded in 1978 and is headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts. BLUE APRON: Chute and Minshall Sue over 2017 IPO ------------------------------------------------ GARY CHUTE and TERRY MINSHALL, Individually and On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. BLUE APRON HOLDINGS, INC., MATT SALZBERG, BRADLEY DICKERSON, BENJAMIN C. SINGER, JULIE M.B. BRADLEY, TRACEY BRITT COOL, KENNETH A. FOX, ROBERT P. GOODMAN, GARY R. HIRSHBERG and BRIAN P. KELLEY, the Defendants, Case No. 653844/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Aug. 3, 2018), is a securities class action on behalf of all persons, other than Defendants, who purchased or otherwise acquired Blue Apron securities pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's initial public offering on or about June 29, 2017. Blue Apron is a subscription-based, meal-kit delivery service founded in 2012. Blue Apron sends weekly boxes of pre-portioned ingredients with instructions for cooking meals at home. According to the complaint, Blue Apron's Class A common stock was offered in the IPO and thereafter traded on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) under the ticker symbol "APRN." Blue Apron's IPO was conducted pursuant to a registration statement and prospectus. In the IPO Registration Statement and the IPO Prospectus, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and its operational and compliance policies. In addition, Defendants failed to disclose known material trends that would have a material impact on net sales or revenues or income from continuing operations, and that would cause reported financial information not to be necessarily indicative of future operating results.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Curtis V. Trinko, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CURTIS V. TRINKO, LLP 16 West 46th Street, 9th Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 490 9550 Facsimile: (212) 986 0158 E-mail: ctrinko@trinko.com BMW KOREA: Sedan Owners File Class Action Over Defective Engine --------------------------------------------------------------- Kang Young-woon and Lee Eun-joo, writing for Pulse, report that a group of BMW owners in South Korea have filed a class suit against the Korean unit of the German automaker on July 30 over a defective engine part that has led to a series of fires. Four owners of BMW sedans filed a representative suit with a Seoul Central District Court against BMW Korea and its official dealer Deutsche Motors Inc. on July 30 to claim damages for the destruction in their cars that caught fire while being driven. An unnamed official from Barun Law LLC representing the plaintiffs, said that each individual asked for 5 million won ($4,480.1) in compensation that include damages from user benefit infringement. Total compensation amount may increase depending on the outcome of a safety inspection, the official added. The number of BMW sedan drivers joining the legal move may increase as well. The collective suit, meanwhile, comes after BMW Korea belatedly announced a plan to recall 106,317 vehicles from 42 models after a defective engine part led to a series of fire. The automaker presumes the fire to have been caused by a faulty exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) module based on its initial inspection using an endoscope. Consumers, however, claimed the recall plan as "inadequate." In the petition submitted by the BMW sedan owners, the plaintiffs noted that they weren't able to drive their BMW vehicles until they were completely repaired and remained fretful while driving. They would fear fire-prone vehicle unless all parts are replaced. The plaintiffs also challenged the recall plan that could be delayed due to shortage of supplies as more than 100,000 vehicles are subject to the recall. The delay would ultimately lead to continued interruption in vehicle operation, they said. The plaintiffs also claimed they must be compensated for the devaluation of their used cars due to fire concerns. The drivers also suspected the automaker would have long been aware of the faulty issue as it used a differently-designed EGR module for 2017 BMW sedans. They said that BMW tried to cover up the defect even though it was aware of the faulty component. They also asked for compensation over psychological trauma as they have been exposed to fire risk without protection. [GN] BNR THE BRIDGE: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Hernandez Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------- JUAQUIN C. HERNANDEZ, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BNR THE BRIDGE, LLC, and BOBBY RISHER, individually, Jointly and severally, Case No. 2:18-cv-12361-PDB-SDD (W.D. Mich., July 30, 2018), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Michigan Workforce Opportunity Wage Act alleging that the Defendants: -- failed to pay the Plaintiff and similarly situated workers their proper wages, overtime pay, and at times failed to pay any wages at all; -- failed to make payments as promised; -- failed to ensure sufficient funds in payroll accounts; and -- unjustly enriched themselves at the expense of their workers. BNR The Bridge LLC is a foreign limited liability company organized and registered under the laws of Texas with its corporate headquarters in San Antonio, Texas. Bobby Risher is the owner, president, and director of BNR and resides in San Antonio. BNR is a residential and commercial remodeling firm that does business throughout the United States, including the state of Michigan. BNR provides residential and commercial building services, including interior and exterior painting, drywall hanging, finishing and repairs, plaster repairs, concrete and wood staining, caulking, scraping, glazing, texturing, spray brush and roll finishes, power washing and insulating.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony D. Paris, Esq. John Philo, Esq. SUGAR LAW CENTER FOR ECONOMIC & SOCIAL JUSTICE 4605 Cass Avenue, Second Floor Detroit, MI 48201 Telephone: (313) 993-4505 Facsimile: (313) 887-8470 E-mail: tparis@sugarlaw.org jphilo@sugarlaw.org - and - Jack W. Schulz, Esq. SCHULZ GOTHAM PLC P.O. Box 44855 Detroit, MI 48244 Telephone: (313) 652-1906 E-mail: jackwschulz@gmail.com BOGOPA SERVICE: Falcon Seeks Unpaid Wages & OT under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------- SERVERIANO FALCON, on behalf of himself and the Class, the Plaintiff, v. BOGOPA SERVICE CORP. d/b/a FOOD BAZAAR, JOHN DOE CORPS 1-25, and SPENCER AN, the Defendants, Case No. 515875/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Aug. 3, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid regular and overtime wages due to an impermissible policy of rounding hours worked, unpaid spread-of-hours premium, statutory penalties, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs are and have been similarly situated; have had substantially similar job requirements and pay provisions; and are and have been subjected to Defendants' decisions, policies, plans, programs, practices, procedures, protocols, routines, and rules, all culminating in a willful failure and refusal to pay them the proper wages for all hours worked due to impermissible rounding. Food Bazaar Supermarkets operate as a single integrated enterprise. Specifically, they are engaged in related activities, share common ownership and have a common business purpose.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC New York, NY 30 East 39th Street, Second Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 465 1188 Facsimile: (212) 465 1181 BOTTLING GROUP: Settles FCRA Class Action for $1.2MM ---------------------------------------------------- Employment Screening Resources, citing Top Class Actions, reports that a subsidiary of food and beverage giant PepsiCo has agreed to pay $1.2 million to settle a class action lawsuit that claimed the company violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) "by procuring background reports for employment purposes without making certain required disclosures". A former employee claimed PepsiCo subsidiary Bottling Group LLC violated the FCRA -- a federal law that regulates background checks in the U.S. -- by failing "to disclose that it would obtain a consumer report for employment purposes in a document consisting solely of the disclosure," Top Class Actions reports. Plaintiff Altareek Grice claimed that when he applied for a job at Bottling Group LLC in August of 2016 that the company allegedly violated 15 U.S.C. Section 1681b(b)(2) of the FCRA by failing to make necessary disclosures prior to obtaining background checks for employment purposes. Specifically: * 604. Permissible purposes of consumer reports [15 U.S.C. § 1681b] (b) Conditions for Furnishing and Using Consumer Reports for Employment Purposes. (2) Disclosure to Consumer. (A) In general. Except as provided in subparagraph (B), a person may not procure a consumer report, or cause a consumer report to be procured, for employment purposes with respect to any consumer, unless – (i) a clear and conspicuous disclosure has been made in writing to the consumer at any time before the report is procured or caused to be procured, in a document that consists solely of the disclosure, that a consumer report may be obtained for employment purposes; and (ii) the consumer has authorized in writing (which authorization may be made on the document referred to in clause (i)) the procurement of the report by that person. Top Class Actions reports that the defendants denied any wrongdoing but agreed to the settlement -- which was preliminarily approved on May 23, 2018 -- to avoid the burden and expense of litigation. Approximately 23,133 Class Members who may be entitled to a payment from the settlement include: * Job applicants for whom Bottling Group LLC, Grayhawk Leasing LLC or New Bern Transport Co. (collectively referred to as "Pepsi Beverages Company") procured a background report for employment purposes from June 19, 2015, through December 1, 2016. * Employees subject to Department of Transportation DOT background checks and for whom Pepsi Beverages Company procured a background report for employment purposes from June 19, 2015, through September 4, 2017. * All other employees for whom Pepsi Beverages Company procured a background report for employment purposes from June 19, 2015, through October 2, 2017. FCRA violations may result in fines of up to $100 to $1,000 per violation. The final approval hearing will be held on November 15, 2018. The class action lawsuit is Altareek Grice v. Pepsi Beverages Co., et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-08853, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Passed by Congress in 1970, the FCRA promotes the accuracy, fairness, and privacy of consumer information contained in the files of consumer reporting agencies (CRAs) and is intended to protect consumers from the willful and/or negligent inclusion of inaccurate information in their credit reports. In May 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled consumers must prove "concrete injury" in lawsuits for alleged "bare" violations of federal statutes like the FCRA in the case Spokeo v. Robins that involved a man who claimed he suffered an injury when Spokeo published incorrect information about him on its website. The U.S. Supreme Court stated in its opinion: Article III standing requires a concrete injury even in the context of a statutory violation. For that reason, Robins could not, for example, allege a bare procedural violation, divorced from any concrete harm, and satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement of Article III. In January 2018, the Supreme Court denied a petition for a writ of certiorari that sought a review of its opinion following a ruling in August 2017 by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Appeals Court on remand from the Supreme Court that found Robins had sufficient concrete injury under Article III of the U.S. Constitution. The fact that employers are still targeted in FCRA class action lawsuits for technical violations of the statute even after the Supreme Court ruling in Spokeo is one of the "ESR Top Ten Background Check Trends" for 2018 selected by leading global background check firm Employment Screening Resources® (ESR). "In no way did the Supreme Court decision in Spokeo mean employers could relax obligations for FCRA compliance," said ESR founder and CEO Attorney Lester Rosen. "Employers must ensure they comply with the FCRA and work with a background screening firm that understands the FCRA inside and out." [GN] BRUMBACH MANCUSO: Wettig Files Suit Over FDCPA Breach ----------------------------------------------------- SCOTT WETTIG v. BRUMBACH, MANCUSO & FEGLEY P.C. DBA BMF LAW GROUP, Case No. 5:18-cv-03231-EGS (E.D. Pa., July 30, 2018), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated, accusing the Defendant of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Brumbach Mancuso is an entity that uses mails and telephone, in the business of attempting to collect a "debt" from the Plaintiff and others. Brumbach Mancuso regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due, or asserted to be owed or due, another.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Ruggiero, Esq. THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP PLLC 275 Grove Street, Suite 2-400 Newton, MA 02466 Telephone: (888) 332-7252 Facsimile: (866) 317-2674 E-mail: DRuggiero@ThompsonConsumerLaw.com BULLET ENERGY: Gandy Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Rick Gandy, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. Bullet Energy Services and Christopher Hays, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00732, (W.D. Okla. July 30, 2018), seeks to recover to recover unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, and other damages owed under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Oklahoma Minimum Wage Act. Bullet Energy Services paid Gandy an hourly rate, but did not pay Gandy and the other workers for all hours worked or an overtime premium for hours worked over 40 in a workweek. Bullet provides salt water disposal services for its clients in support of oilfield operations. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew S. Parmet, Esq. PARMET HEDGPETH LLP 800 Sawyer St. Houston, TX 77007 Tel: (713) 999-5228 Email: matt@parmethedgpeth.com CA INC: Harvey Balks at Merger Deal with Broadcom Inc. ------------------------------------------------------ KELLI HARVEY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. CA, INC., MICHAEL GREGOIRE, JENS ALDER, RAYMOND BROMARK, JEAN HOBBY, ROHIT KAPOOR, JEFFREY KATZ, KAY KOPLOVITZ, CHRISTOPHER LOFGREN, RICHARD SULPIZIO, LAURA UNGER, ARTHUR WEINBACH, COLLIE ACQUISITION CORP., and BROADCOM INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-06996 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 3, 2018), alleges that Defendants violated Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, arising out of the Board's attempt to sell the Company to Broadcom Inc. through its wholly-owned subsidiary Collie Acquisition Corp. According to the complaint, the Defendants caused a materially incomplete and misleading preliminary proxy statement to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2018. The Proxy recommends that CA shareholders vote in favor of a proposed transaction whereby CA is acquired by Broadcom. The Proposed Transaction was first disclosed on July 11, 2018, when CA and Broadcom announced that they had entered into a definitive merger agreement pursuant to which Broadcom will acquire all of the outstanding shares of common stock of CA for $44.50 per share. The deal is valued at approximately $18.9 billion and is expected to close in the fourth quarter of 2018. The Proposed Transaction makes little sense. CA is a software company; Broadcom is a hardware company. There are few, if any, synergies expected with the Proposed Transaction. Analysts have noted that this may just make Broadcom harder to manage. And Broadcom is known for "wringing" value out of acquired companies by drastically cutting costs and selling off business units. If the Board believed that stockholder value could be maximized by cutting costs or selling off segments, it could have chosen to do so. Instead, stockholders are being shut out of a business that has existed for over 40 years.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shane T. Rowley, Esq. Danielle Rowland Lindahl, Esq. ROWLEY LAW PLLC 50 Main Street, Suite 1000 White Plains, NY 10606 Telephone: (914) 400 1920 Facsimile: (914) 301 3514 E-mail: srowley@rowleylawpllc.com drl@rowleylawpllc.com CAL-MAINE FOODS: Summary Judgment Bid Due Fri. in Egg Product Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2018, for the fiscal year ended June 2, 2018, that the defendants' motion for summary judgment is due August 17, 2018, in the non-class lawsuits related to the Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation. On September 25, 2008, the Company was named as one of several defendants in numerous antitrust cases involving the United States shell egg industry. The cases were consolidated into In re: Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:08-md-02002-GP, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (the "District Court"), in three groups of cases -- the "Direct Purchaser Putative Class Action", the "Indirect Purchaser Putative Class Action" and the "Non-Class Cases." The Direct Purchaser Putative Class Action The named plaintiffs in these cases alleged that they purchased eggs or egg products directly from a defendant and sued on behalf of themselves and a putative class of others who claimed to be similarly situated. In November 2014, the District Court approved the Company's settlement with the direct purchaser plaintiff class and entered final judgment dismissing with prejudice the class members' claims against the Company. The Indirect Purchaser Putative Class Action The named plaintiffs in these cases are individuals or companies who allege that they purchased shell eggs indirectly from one or more of the defendants -- that is, they purchased from retailers that had previously purchased from defendants or other parties -- and have sued on behalf of themselves and a putative class of others who claim to be similarly situated. The District Court denied the indirect purchaser plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On June 28, 2018, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with the indirect purchaser plaintiffs, for an immaterial amount, and on July 17, 2018, the Court entered an order dismissing all indirect purchaser plaintiffs' claims against the Company and other defendants. The Non-Class Cases In the remaining cases, the named plaintiffs allege that they purchased shell eggs and egg products directly from one or more of the defendants but sue only for their own alleged damages and not on behalf of a putative class. On April 4, 2018, the Court entered a final judgement dismissing all claims against the Company brought by the following non-class plaintiffs: The Kroger Co.; Publix Super Markets, Inc.; SUPERVALU, Inc.; Safeway, Inc.; Albertsons LLC; H.E. Butt Grocery Co.; The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc.; Walgreen Co.; Hy-Vee, Inc.; and Giant Eagle, Inc., with prejudice, pursuant to the Company's previously announced $80.8 million settlement with the named plaintiffs. The only non-class plaintiffs that are not included in the settlement agreement are the following companies that sought substantial damages allegedly arising from the purchase of egg products (as opposed to shell eggs): Conopco, Inc., Kraft Food Global, Inc., General Mills, Inc., Nestle USA, Inc., and The Kellogg Company. The egg products plaintiffs sought treble damages and injunctive relief under the Sherman Act attacking certain features of the UEP animal-welfare guidelines and program used by the Company and many other egg producers. On September 6, 2016, the District Court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed with prejudice all claims based on the purchase of egg products. That ruling was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and on January 22, 2018, the Third Circuit reversed the District Court's grant of summary judgement and remanded the case to the District Court. Even though the appealing egg-products plaintiffs had asked the Third Circuit to remand the case for trial, the Third Circuit declined, instead remanding the case for further proceedings, including the suggestion that the District Court determine whether the egg-products plaintiffs had sufficient evidence of causation and damages to submit the case to a jury. On March 5, 2018, defendants filed a motion in the District Court seeking leave to file a motion for summary judgment in light of the remand statements in the Third Circuit's opinion. Plaintiffs opposed that motion, and on March 26, 2018, the defendants filed a reply in support of the motion. On July 16, 2018, the court granted the defendants' motion for leave allowing the defendants to re-file a motion for summary judgment no later than August 17, 2018. The Company intends to file a motion for summary judgment by this deadline based on the non-class egg products plaintiffs' failure to present any triable issue of fact on the elements of causation and damages in their claims related to the purchases of processed egg products. Allegations in Each Case In all of the cases, the plaintiffs allege that the Company and certain other large domestic egg producers conspired to reduce the domestic supply of eggs in a concerted effort to raise the price of eggs to artificially high levels. In each case, plaintiffs allege that all defendants agreed to reduce the domestic supply of eggs by: (a) agreeing to limit production; (b) manipulating egg exports; and (c) implementing industry-wide animal welfare guidelines that reduced the number of hens and eggs. The Company intends to continue to defend the remaining cases as vigorously as possible based on defenses which the Company believes are meritorious and provable. While management believes that the likelihood of a material adverse outcome in the overall egg antitrust litigation has been significantly reduced as a result of the settlements and rulings, there is still a reasonable possibility of a material adverse outcome in the remaining egg antitrust litigation. At the present time, however, it is not possible to estimate the amount of monetary exposure, if any, to the Company because of these cases. Adjustments, if any, which might result from the resolution of these remaining legal matters, have not been reflected in the financial statements. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. produces, grades, packages, markets, and distributes shell eggs. The company offers specialty shell eggs, such as nutritionally enhanced, cage free, organic, and brown eggs under the Egg-Land's Best, Land O' Lakes, Farmhouse, and 4-Grain brand names, as well as under private labels. The company was founded in 1957 and is based in Jackson, Mississippi. CALDER BROTHERS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Moreno Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- Wilson Moreno v. Calder Brothers Corporation, Case No. 6:18-cv-02085-HMH (D.S.C., July 30, 2018), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all non-exempt employees employed by the Defendant arising from its alleged failure to pay overtime in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act. Calder Brothers Corporation is a South Carolina corporation, which manufactures heavy equipment sold in interstate commerce.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas L. Stephenson, Esq. Brian P. Murphy, Esq. STEPHENSON & MURPHY, LLC 207 Whitsett Street Greenville, SC 29601 Telephone: (864) 370-9400 Facsimile: (864) 240-9292 E-mail: Tom@stephensonmurphy.com Brian@stephensonmurphy.com CANADA: 100+ Nursing-Home Patients Sign Up for Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Aaron Derfel, writing for Montreal Gazette, reports that in less than three weeks, more than 100 nursing-home patients and their families have come forward to sign up for a class-action lawsuit against the government over the "shameful" treatment of residents of long-term care centres. Daniel Pilote, the lead plaintiff in the $500-million class action that must still be authorized by the courts, said he's heartened by the "phenomenal" response so soon after his July 10 news conference. "This shows that there is a big problem to fix, and that the population has for a long time denounced the mistreatment in CHSLDs," Mr. Pilote said on July 24, alluding to the government network of nursing homes known as Centres d'hebergement de soins de longue duree. "Despite this systemic mistreatment, the government's response has been inaction." The Conseil pour la protection des malades (CPM), arguably the most active patient-rights group in the province, is behind the court action, months in the planning. The court documents cite 22 examples of purported abusive living conditions in CHSLDs -- from shoddy quality of care and food to poor hygiene and spotty maintenance. The CPM is seeking compensatory damages of $250 to $750 per CHSLD resident, as well as exemplary damages of $100 per individual, for each month spent living in the nursing-home network. In total, lawyers estimate the class action would cover 37,000 users during the past three years. The total compensation being sought would reach at least $500 million. Although the class action hasn't yet received the go-ahead from a judge, the province's ombudsman has repeatedly criticized the management of CHSLDs, accusing the government of reducing such basic services as hygiene to the point that bed sores have become a rampant problem. And one month before the CPM held its news conference, Health Minister Gaetan Barrette visited the CHSLD Ste-Dorothee in Laval, where patients' relatives complained that residents were being neglected because of a lack of staff. The reports of mistreatment prompted the Parti Quebecois opposition to demand that the ombudsman hold an inquiry into all CHSLDs in the province. Paul G. Brunet, executive director of the CPM, said his organization has been receiving dozens of phone calls from patients and families since the news conference. "Clearly, through the dozens of messages we're getting at the CPM and the 110 already-registered cases at the law firm, (the response) overwhelmingly confirms the issues alleged in the action," Brunet said by email. The class action dates back three years to the time when Barrette launched his massive cost-cutting reforms to the health system. The class action not only targets CHSLDs but some private nursing homes where the CPM has gathered complaints from residents. Mr. Pilote, who is 56, has been living for the past four years in a CHSLD in St-Jean-sur-Richelieu because he's paralyzed from the neck down as a result of muscular dystrophy. He said the mistreatment all boils down to a lack of human resources and poor management. Although the Liberal government has added 14 new nursing homes to the CHSLD network since 2014, families have complained of lengthy waits to get into nursing homes, especially in the Montreal area. Anyone who is interested in the class action can contact the lawyers at CHSLD@larochelleavocats.com. [GN] CARMAX INC: Still Defends California Wage and Hour Class Suits -------------------------------------------------------------- Carmax, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 5, 2018, for the quarterly period ended May 31, 2018, that the company continues to defend itself in four class action lawsuits asserting wage and hour claims. CarMax entities are defendants in four proceedings asserting wage and hour claims with respect to CarMax sales consultants in California. The asserted claims include failure to pay minimum wage, provide meal periods and rest breaks, pay statutory/contractual wages, reimburse for work-related expenses and provide accurate itemized wage statements; unfair competition; and Private Attorney General Act claims. On September 4, 2015, Craig Weiss et al., v. CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC, and CarMax Auto Superstores West Coast, Inc., a putative class action, was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Placer. The Weiss lawsuit seeks civil penalties, fines, cost of suit, and the recovery of attorneys' fees. On June 29, 2016, Ryan Gomez et al. v. CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC, and CarMax Auto Superstores West Coast, Inc., a putative class action, was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, Los Angeles. The Gomez lawsuit seeks declaratory relief, unspecified damages, restitution, statutory penalties, interest, cost and attorneys' fees. On September 7, 2016, James Rowland v. CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC, and CarMax Auto Superstores West Coast, Inc., a putative class action, was filed in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division. The Rowland lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, restitution, statutory penalties, interest, cost and attorneys' fees. On October 31, 2017, Joshua Sabanovich v. CarMax Superstores California, LLC et. al., a putative class action, was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Stanislaus. The Sabanovich lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, restitution, statutory penalties, interest, cost and attorneys' fees. Carmax said, "We are unable to make a reasonable estimate of the amount or range of loss that could result from an unfavorable outcome in these matters." CarMax, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as a retailer of used vehicles in the United States. The company operates in two segments, CarMax Sales Operations and CarMax Auto Finance. It offers customers a range of makes and models of used vehicles, including domestic, imported, and luxury vehicles; vehicles that do not meet its retail standards to licensed dealers through on-site wholesale auctions; and extended protection plans to customers at the time of sale. The company is based in Richmond, Virginia. CC LAST: Sullivan Seeks Conditional Certification of FLSA Class --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned TERRICK SULLIVAN, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. COURIER CONNECTION, INC., CC LAST MILE, LLC, and JOHN F. LAUTH, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-04655-MLB (N.D. Ga.), the Parties ask the Court an Order granting the Parties' stipulation and joint motion for conditional certification of a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and staying discovery until the status conference after the opt-in notice period closes. Attorneys for Plaintiff: Dustin L. Crawford, Esq. John L. Mays, Esq. POOLE HUFFMAN LLC 315 W. Ponce de Leon Avenue, Suite 344 Decatur, GA 30030 Telephone: (404) 855 3002 E-mail: dustin@poolehuffman.com john@poolehuffman.com Attorneys for Defendant: Kathryn S. McConnell, Esq. Ryan B. Sheffield, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 3344 Peachtree Road N.E., Suite 1500 Atlanta, GA 30326-4803 Telephone: (404) 233 0330 E-mail: kmcconnell@littler.com rysheffield@littler.com CENTENE CORP: Awaits Court OK to Drop "Sanchez" Suit ---------------------------------------------------- Centene Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2018, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company's motion to dismiss the case entitled, Israel Sanchez v. Centene Corp., et al., is still pending. On November 14, 2016, a putative federal securities class action, Israel Sanchez v. Centene Corp., et al., was filed against the Company and certain of its executives in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. In March 2017, the court entered an order transferring the matter to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit allege that the Company's accounting and related disclosures for certain liabilities acquired in the acquisition of Health Net violated federal securities laws. In July 2017, the lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint. The Company filed a motion to dismiss this complaint in September 2017. In February 2018, the Court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss but has not yet issued a ruling. The Company denies any wrongdoing and is vigorously defending itself against these claims. Nevertheless, this matter is subject to many uncertainties and the Company cannot predict how long this litigation will last or what the ultimate outcome will be, and an adverse outcome in this matter could potentially have a materially adverse impact on our financial position and results of operations. Centene Corporation operates as a diversified and multi-national healthcare enterprise that provides programs and services to under-insured and uninsured individuals in the United States. Centene Corporation was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri. CENTENE MANAGEMENT: Court Certifies Class in Gudger-King Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled JODY GUDGER AND RHONDA KING, on behalf of themselves and similarly situated others, the Plaintiffs, v. CENTENE MANAGEMENT CO., LLC and SUNSHINE STATE HEALTH PLAN, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-14281-JEM (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Jose E. Martinez has entered an order: 1. granting Plaintiffs' motion to conditionally certify collective action, consistent with the instructions set forth in Magistrate Judge Maynard's Report and Recommendation; and 2. denying Defendants' motion to strike. CENTRAL MAINE: Faces PUC Probe Amid Ratepayers' Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Tux Turkel, writing for Press Herald, reports that in a ditch, half-hidden in weeds, is a remnant of the storm Mainers won't soon forget. It's a cut-up utility pole, one of hundreds that were destroyed in the October 2017 wind and rain storm that left a record 470,000 customers in the dark. "That pole snapped, broke in two," said Gordon Weil, who lives at the end of a narrow, woodsy lane and gets electrical service via the pole. "And the wire sat on the ground for 10 days." Mr. Weil's house was among the last in Maine to get power restored, and when crews working for Central Maine Power replaced the broken pole, they made an important improvement. The new pole has a larger circumference than the old one in the weeds. It's designed to handle a heavier load. It also has a wooden side-support anchored in the ground to stabilize the structure, which also carries phone and cable lines. Stouter utility poles are one feature likely to be highlighted in a plan announced in June by CMP's parent company, Avangrid, to reduce the cost and frequency of storm-related power outages. Avangrid is pursuing a $2.5 billion effort to beef up its distribution system over the next 10 years in Maine and New York. Storm damage and recovery over the last 16 months in the two states and Connecticut, where Avangrid is headquartered, have cost more than $450 million. And as a changing climate fuels storms that are more frequent and intense, the company said, it needs to harden its electric grid to maintain reliable service. Over the next few months, Avangrid will zero in on exactly where upgrades should take place in each state and how much they will cost. Besides stronger poles, measures may include more-aggressive tree trimming, greater use of a special coated wire that resists falling branches and putting more portions of the system underground. Also being considered are emerging technologies such as microgrids, which involve small service areas with their own power supplies that can keep energy flowing when the wider system goes down. Avangrid said it will release specific details this fall for its plan, called Transforming Energy. For Avangrid to go forward, the Maine Public Utilities Commission will have to find that the level of investment and the strategies selected are reasonable and should be recovered over time in customer bills. "You have to have a varied approach," said Michael West, a spokesman for Avangrid. "No one solution will fit all." HEIGHTENED SCRUTINY But it's already clear that Avangrid's plan will face hurdles. The PUC is in the midst of investigating how the state's power companies responded to the October storm. Many residents and some politicians have criticized CMP for taking too long and for downplaying problems with an online portal meant to show when power was restored. CMP has calculated that recovering from the storm cost $69 million. If regulators agree the spending was justified, customers will pick up much of the tab over several years. At the same time, the PUC is conducting a probe into what caused bills to spike for thousands of customers last winter, hundreds of ratepayers are seeking a class-action lawsuit over the issue, and the PUC has begun a separate inquiry into whether CMP is overcharging customers. Taken together, these and other events are fomenting a growing public mistrust and skepticism about the motivations of CMP/Avangrid, and to what degree they could raise electric bills. Barry Hobbins, the state's consumer watchdog, said that with Avangrid's ongoing problems with its current infrastructure and business management, the company should step back and get input from other stakeholders, before charging ahead with a costly new venture. "It is my opinion," Mr. Hobbins, Maine's public advocate, said, "that they need to 'get their act together' before they even consider putting more future, long-term financial obligations on the backs of Maine ratepayers." The plan also may come under scrutiny in the Legislature, specifically by Democrats. Rep. Seth Berry, D-Bowdoinham, immediately criticized Avangrid's proposal in June as continuing to favor a centralized electric system over microgrids and distributed generation, in which batteries, fuel cells, solar panels and other alternatives supply power closer to where it's being consumed. In Maine, a microgrid at the former Brunswick Naval Air Station is being developed to tap a large solar farm and methane gas digester and to power industrial and commercial space. A small microgrid is trying to get up and running on Isle au Haut, six miles off the coast of Stonington. In Connecticut, an Avangrid affiliate has built a microgrid that can power the town of Woodbridge's public safety buildings, aided by a $3 million state grant. In a follow-up interview, Mr. Berry, who co-chairs the legislative committee that handles energy and utility matters, acknowledged that microgrids are expensive and won't help residents on far-flung roads, such as the one Mr. Weil lives on. "The larger point," he said, "is that CMP/Avangrid came out with a proposal that they want to make the grid more reliable. But there's no detail and, to be clear, that generally means they want more money from ratepayers." In the absence of detail, these misgivings show the tension that's building in Maine between the conficting desires to reduce storm-related blackouts and not to raise electric bills. SEEING THE FOREST FOR THE TREES In a place called the Pine Tree State, where more than 90 percent of the land is forested, the leading cause of storm-related outages isn't a mystery. Trees falling on or touching the electric distribution system are responsible for 80 percent of problems, Avangrid estimates. One solution is to install wire with a protective, insulated layer. Most electric wire spans are bare and vulnerable to falling branches or leaning trees. That can cause short circuits. In the past, CMP has run tree wire sparingly, because it's up to four times more expensive. But that may be changing, under Avangrid's new calculus. More-expensive wire that reduces service calls can make long-term economic sense, said Mr. Weil, a former Maine public advocate and state energy director. Walking along his lane, Mr. Weil pointed up to the black, coated tree wire that CMP installed years ago, at his request. It runs from the new pole, past other neighbors, to his house, through a narrow right of way flanked by dense woods. It's easy to see how the electric lines are at risk from wind-blown limbs or falling trees. Stringing more tree wire might make a difference in heavily wooded communities such as Harpswell, where most of the 5,000 or so residents live on three bridge-connected islands and a 10-mile long peninsula that reach like bony fingers into Casco Bay. Harpswell's power is fed from two substations in neighboring Brunswick, Weil said. If something happens between a substation and Harpswell, power to half the town goes down. One solution Avangrid is expected to propose in Transforming Energy is shortening long, radial circuits, like the two feeding Harpswell. That way, if a tree falls on a power line halfway along the system, it doesn't black out everyone on the circuit. NATURAL CONFLICT More than a decade ago, the PUC ordered CMP to increase its trim schedule for trees within power line rights of way to once every five years. That has reduced outages. But after crunching recent data, Avangrid determined that half of the storm outages were triggered by trees outside the public right of way, where CMP isn't authorized to prune branches. There's no easy answer to this problem, which is evident when driving from Brunswick to Mr. Weil's road along Route 123. This is a narrow byway, with utility lines running along the sides and crossing the roadway here and there. The rights of way directly above and adjacent to the poles are trimmed. But many stretches are flanked by tall pine and spruce trees that can fall into the power corridor, if buffeted by wind or weighed down with heavy ice. One idea, Mr. Weil said, is to seek more cooperative agreements with landowners, which allow for trimming outside the right of way. That's what he negotiated with CMP, so he can preserve trees desirable for privacy but also identify and prune so-called danger trees that become threatening. There's a natural conflict, he added, between living in a forested landscape and having reliable electrical service. "It's not realistic to expect urban, underground service," he said. "But if you know something's going to happen repeatedly, it's a good idea to harden the system." Expectations aside, after the 1998 ice storm that took out power for days, Mr. Weil did what four of his eight neighbors have done -- he installed a propane-fired generator. FOCUS ON ACCOUNTABILITY Efforts to harden the electrical system against storms in Maine and New York are part of a national trend that includes customer expectations of 24/7 power in the digital age and mounting cyber threats, according to Scott Aaronson, vice president of security and preparedness at the Edison Electric Institute. The industry trade group prepared a report in 2014 on best practices called Before and After the Storm that highlights general strategies, several of which are being proposed by Avangrid. In terms of natural events, Mr. Aaronson said, the focus in the Northeast is on trees. In the West, it's wildfires. In Florida, it's hurricanes. Investments in grid hardening can make a difference in storm recovery. In Florida, Mr. Aaronson said, it took 13 days to restore all power after Hurricane Wilma in 2005. Following a similar storm last year, Hurricane Irma, power was back in five days. Since 2005, he said, Florida Power & Light has spent $3 billion for concrete poles, smart meters, flood monitors in substations and better mutual aid and recovery plans. Increasing customer bills to pay for these upgrades remains controversial, Mr. Aaronson said, but state utility regulators are feeling the same pressure as power companies. "They don't want to be blamed for not approving prudent investments to keep the lights on," he said. But any investments Avangrid proposes to reduce storm outages will receive intense scrutiny. For instance: In its $2.5 billion estimate, Avangrid notes that $500 million of the total is earmarked for a full rollout of smart meters for its New York utilities. Among the touted benefits of digital, networked meters during storms is the ability of utilities to detect outages, make faster repairs and share information with customers. But that promise so far has fallen short in Maine. CMP installed smart meters seven years ago, with a $200 million investment split equally between a federal grant and ratepayers. But according to comments filed in June by the Public Advocate's Office in the PUC storm-response inquiry, only 48 percent of the meters worked properly on Oct. 31, when the storm hit. Hobbins' office wants CMP to file a report on what steps it's taking to improve smart meter performance. Berry said Avangrid has to be held accountable for new spending, to assure it will make a real difference in future storms. "We were promised that the massive public investment in the (smart meter) system would help with resiliency, and that clearly didn't happen," he said. "So we all are rightly skeptical and want to see the details." [GN] CHART INDUSTRIES: Faces Aluminum Cryobiological Tank-Related Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Chart Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 19, 2018, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company is defending a purported class action suit related to the alleged failure of an aluminum cryobiological storage tank. Chart has been named in purported class action lawsuits filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against the Company and other defendants with respect to the alleged failure of an aluminum cryobiological storage tank (model FNL XC 47/11-6 W/11) at The Toronto Institute for Reproductive Medicine in Etobicoke, Ontario. Chart Industries said "We have confirmed that the tank in question was part of the aluminum cryobiological tank recall commenced on April 23, 2018. We are currently evaluating the merits of the claims. Accordingly, an accrual related to any damages that may result from the lawsuit has not been recorded because a potential loss is not currently probable or estimable." Chart Industries, Inc. manufactures and sells engineered equipment, packaged solutions, and value-add services for the industrial gas, energy, and biomedical industries worldwide. It operates in three segments: Energy & Chemicals (E&C), Distribution & Storage (D&S), and BioMedical. The company is based in Ball Ground, Georgia. CHART INDUSTRIES: Faces Stainless Steel Cryobiological Tank Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chart Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 19, 2018, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company is facing a purported class action lawsuit related to the alleged failure of stainless steel cryobiological storage tank. During the three months ended June 30, 2018, Chart was named in lawsuits (including a purported class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California) filed against Chart and other defendants with respect to the alleged failure of a stainless steel cryobiological storage tank (model MVE 808AF-GB) at the Pacific Fertility Center in San Francisco, California. No monetary damages related to the alleged failure have been specified or communicated to Chart at this point, and Chart is evaluating the merits of such claims in light of the limited information available to date regarding use, maintenance and operation of the tank which has been out of the company's custody for the past six years when it was sold to the Pacific Fertility Center through an independent distributor. Accordingly, an accrual related to any damages that may result from the lawsuits has not been recorded because a potential loss is not currently probable or estimable. Chart Industries said "We plan to assert various defenses against the claims in the lawsuits, including a defense that since manufacture, we were not in any way involved with the installation, ongoing maintenance or monitoring of the tank or related fertility center cryogenic systems at any time since the initial delivery of the tank." Chart Industries, Inc. manufactures and sells engineered equipment, packaged solutions, and value-add services for the industrial gas, energy, and biomedical industries worldwide. It operates in three segments: Energy & Chemicals (E&C), Distribution & Storage (D&S), and BioMedical. The company is based in Ball Ground, Georgia. CHEADLE LAW: Booker Seeks to Certify Class ------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit captioned SHERRY BOOKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CHEADLE LAW, the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-CV-01394 (M.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on August 14, 2018, for an order: 1. granting Plaintiff's motion for class certification of: "all person between, October of 2016 to the present who received a letter from Defendant, where the letter listed attorneys' fees in the amount of one third of the obligation and the original creditor and the borrower did not agree to this amount of attorneys' fees"; and 2. appointing Plaintiff as Class Representative, and for appointment of Plaintiff's attorneys as Class Counsel. Attorneys for Plaintiff: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (877) 206 4741 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com CHICAGO ATHLETIC: Ambrosius Suit Alleges Breach of Contract ----------------------------------------------------------- ANDY AMBROSIUS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CHICAGO ATHLETIC CLUBS LLC, EVANSTON ATHLETIC CLUB, INC., LINCOLN PARK ATHLETIC CLUB, INC., LPAC HOLDINGS LLC, WESTLOOP ATHLETIC CLUB LLC, LAKEVIEW ATHLETIC CLUB, INC., LINCOLN SQUARE ATHLETIC CLUB LLC, WICKER PARK ATHLETIC CLUB LLC, BUCKTOWN ATHLETIC CLUB LLC, and WEBSTER PLACE ATHLETIC CLUB LLC, Case No. 2018CH09598 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., July 30, 2018), is brought for alleged breach of contract, breach of contract via breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, promissory estoppel, and for violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act. The Defendants own and operate athletic clubs in and around Chicago, Illinois. The Plaintiff and thousands of other individuals are members of the Defendants' gyms. For the last 2 and a half years, all of the Defendants' gyms provided to their members a rewards program (the "CAC Rewards Program") as a term of membership, in which gym members earn points ("CAC Rewards Points") for various activities, such as going to the gym. On July 16, 2018, at approximately 12:11 a.m., the Defendants announced that they had unilaterally terminated the CAC Rewards Program effective immediately. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants refused to allow CAC Members to redeem unused CAC Rewards Points, and the Defendants did not compensate gym members for the unused CAC Rewards Points they had accrued. Evanston Athletic Club, Inc., was an Illinois corporation with its principal place of business located in Chicago, Illinois. EAC owned and operated the gym known as Evanston Athletic Club, located in Evanston, Illinois. Lincoln Park Athletic Club, Inc., was an Illinois corporation, and LPAC Holdings LLC was an Illinois limited liability company, with their principal places of business located in Chicago, Illinois. LP AC and LP ACH owned and operated the gym known as Lincoln Park Athletic Club, located in Chicago. Westloop Athletic Club LLC was an Illinois limited liability company with its principal place of business located in Chicago. WAC owned and operated the gym known as West Loop Athletic Club, located in Chicago. Lakeview Athletic Club, Inc., was an Illinois corporation with its principal place of business located in Chicago. LAC owned and operated the gym known as Lakeview Athletic Club, located in Chicago. Lincoln Square Athletic Club LLC was an Illinois limited liability company with its principal place of business located in Chicago. LSAC owned and operated the gym known as Lincoln Square Athletic Club located in Chicago. Wicker Park Athletic Club LLC was an Illinois limited liability company with its principal place of business located in Chicago. WPAC owned and operated the gym known as Wicker Park Athletic Club located in Chicago. Bucktown Athletic Club LLC was an Illinois limited liability company with its principal place of business located in Chicago. BAC owned and operated the gym known as Bucktown Athletic Club located in Chicago. Webster Place Athletic Club LLC was an Illinois limited liability company with its principal place of business located in Chicago. Webster Place owned and operated the gym known as Webster Place Athletic Club located in Chicago. Chicago Athletic Clubs LLC was an Illinois limited liability company with its principal place of business located in Chicago, Illinois. The Gyms were part of the overall CAC enterprise, such that all of the gyms were owned and operated, in part, by CAC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq. Sharon A. Harris, Esq. Matthew C. De Re, Esq. Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq. ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C. 77 West Washington Street, Suite 1220 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 440-0020 Facsimile: (312) 440-4180 E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com sharon@attorneyzim.com matt@attorneyzim.com nick@attorneyzim.com CHILDRENS ATHLETIC: Kohen Suit Transferred to E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled MATTHEW KOHEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CHILDRENS ATHLETIC DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC. a not for profit corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-21884, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn) on Aug. 3, 2018. The New York Eastern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-04404-CBA-CLP to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Carol Bagley Amon. The case is a class action stemming from Defendant's invasion of privacy, which violated the Telephone Consumer Protection. Specifically, Defendant sent unsolicited, invasive, advertising text-messages, using an autodialer to the cellphones of Plaintiff and the class. The Defendant owns and operates sports camps in New Jersey and, in its persistent efforts to advertise solicit business, Defendant regularly engages in these text-message-advertising campaigns, without regard for the law or consumers' privacy rights. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kimberly A. Slaven, Esq. ZEBERSKY PAYNE LLP 110 SE 6 Street, Suite 2150 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 595 6063 Facsimile: (954) 595 6063 E-mail: kslaven@zpllp.com - and - Scott Lance Silver, Esq. SILVER LAW GROUP 11780 W Sample Road Coral Springs, FL 33065 Telephone: (954) 755 4799 Facsimile: (954) 755 4684 E-mail: ssilver@silverlaw.com - and - Jordan Alexander Shaw, Esq. ZEBERSKY PAYNE 110 SE 6th St, suite 2150 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 361 3633 Facsimile: (954) 989 7781 E-mail: jshaw@zpllp.com Attorneys for Childrens Athletic Development Association, Inc.: Dale Lyn Friedman, Esq. CONROY SIMBERG GANON KREVANS & ABEL 3440 Hollywood Boulevard, 2nd Floor Hollywood, FL 33021 Telephone: (954) 961 1400 Facsimile: (954) 967 8577 E-mail: dfriedman@conroysimberg.com - and - Rebecca Jean Williams, Esq. CONROY, SIMBERG, GANON, KREVANS, ABEL, LURVEY, MORROW & SCHE 3440 Hollywood Blvd., Second Floor Hollywood, FL 33021 Telephone: (954) 518 1384 Facsimile: (954) 967 8577 E-mail: rwilliams@conroysimberg.com CJ STAR: Harris Sues Carl's Jr. Franchisees over No-Poach Deals --------------------------------------------------------------- ASHLIE HARRIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CJ STAR, LLC AN IDAHO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, an Idaho Limited Liability Company, CARL'S JR. RESTAURANTS, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Plaintiff, v. the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00247-TOR (E.D. Wash., Aug. 3, 2018), seeks to recover millions of dollars in lost wages, plus triple damages, and interest, caused by Defendants' long-standing and illegal mutual non-solicitation agreements (i.e., agreements that Carl's Jr. franchisees could not solicit for employment the managerial-level employees of Carl's Jr. and/or of other Carl's Jr. franchisees) and no-hire agreements (i.e., agreements that Carl's Jr. franchisees could not hire the managerial-level employees of Carl's Jr. and/or other Carl's Jr. franchisees) that were all entered into by Carl's Jr. franchises throughout Washington State for decades and that had the intended and actual effect of significantly reducing Class Members' wages and salaries. According to the complaint, the genesis of the no-hire and non-solicitation agreements at issue were franchise agreements between Carl's Jr. and its franchisees, and between its franchisees, including, upon information and belief, CJ Star. The illegal conspiracy among and between Defendants and other Carl's Jr. franchisees to not employ, seek to employ, or to recruit one another's employees, in order to thereby suppress their wages, was not known, to Plaintiff and the Class Members until July 12, 2018, when the Washington State Attorney General revealed as part of its then-pending investigation into illegal behavior by some of the largest fast food franchises in Washington and the United States, including Carl's Jr., that Carl's Jr. would no longer enforce provisions in its franchise agreements that prevented managerial-level workers from being hired or solicited by other Carl's Jr. franchisees. In sum, Defendants engaged in per se violations of the Washington Unfair Competition Act and the Sherman Act by entering into no-hire and non-solicitation agreements, for the express purpose of depressing and/or reducing market-based wages and benefit increases for Class Members that are typically associated with the active recruitment of employees and workers in a competitive industry. While protecting and enhancing their profits, Defendants, through their no-hire and non-solicitation agreements, robbed Class Members millions of dollars-worth of wages for which Plaintiff and the Class now seek relief.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class: India Lin Bodien, Esq. INDIA LIN BODIEN, ATTORNEY AT LA W 2522 North Proctor Street, No. 387 Tacoma, WA 98406-5338 Telephone: (253) 212 7913 Facsimile: (253) 276 0081 E-mail: india@indialinbodienlaw.com - and - Craig J. Ackermann, Esq. Brian Denlinger, Esq. ACKERMANN & TILAJEF, P.C. 2602 North Proctor Street, #205 Tacoma, WA, 98406 Telephone: (310) 277 0614 Facsimile: (310) 277 0635 E-mail: cja@ackermanntilajef.com bd@ackermanntilajef.com CLARITY SERVICES: Padgett Sues over Background Checks ----------------------------------------------------- ADRIENNE L. PADGETT, individually and behalf of persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CLARITY SERVICES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 8:18-cv-01918-JSM-CPT (M.D. Fla., Aug. 3, 2018), alleges that Defendant has allegedly reported illegal, void, and uncollectible loans from installment loan and "payday" lenders, such as Plain Green, LLC, as having balance due on Plaintiff's consumer report in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Clarity Services operates as a real-time credit bureau addressing fraud detection and credit risk management solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon J. Hill, Esq. Luis A. Cabassa, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A. 1110 N. Florida Avenue, Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 224 0431 Facsimile: (813) 229 8712 E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com - and - Michael A. Caddell, Esq. Cynthia B. Chapman, Esq. John B. Scofield, Esq. Amy E. Tabor, Esq. CADELL & CHAPMAN 628 East 9th Street Houston TX 77007 1722 Telephone: (713) 751 0400 Facsimile: (713) 751 0906 E-mail: mac@caddellchapman.com cbc@caddellchapman.com jbs@caddellchapman.com aet@caddellchapman.com CLEARONE ADVANTAGE: Souders Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls -------------------------------------------------------------- KRISTYNA SOUDERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CLEARONE ADVANTAGE, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-06693 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 3, 2018), seeks damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant, in negligently contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby causing Plaintiff to incur unwanted and unnecessary charges and invading Plaintiff's privacy. According to complaint, beginning in or around March of 2018, the Defendant contacted Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone numbers ending in -4086 in an attempt to solicit Plaintiff to purchase Defendants' services. The Defendants contacted or attempted to contact Plaintiff from telephone numbers belonging to Defendants, including without limitation (443) 692-5455. The Defendants used an "automatic telephone dialing system" as defined by 47 U.S.C. section 227(a)(1) to place its calls to Plaintiff seeking to solicit its services. Furthermore, at one or more instance during these calls, Defendant utilized an "artificial or prerecorded voice" as prohibited by 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1)(A). Defendant's calls constituted calls that were not for emergency purposes as defined by 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1)(A). Defendant's calls were placed to telephone number assigned to a cellular telephone service for which Plaintiff incurs a charge for incoming calls pursuant to 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1). The Plaintiff is not a customer of Defendant's services and has never provided any personal information, including her telephone number, to Defendant for any purpose whatsoever.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. Thomas E. Wheeler, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (877) 206 4741 Facsimile: (866) 633 0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com twheeler@toddflaw.com CLEVELAND-CLIFFS: Deal Reached in Wabush Mines Pension Plan Suits ----------------------------------------------------------------- Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2018, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the Company and its affiliate have made cash contributions as part of the settlement of employment-related class action lawsuits. On May 31, 2017, an action captioned Johnson, et al. v. Cliffs Mining Company, et al. was filed in the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, Trial Division (General) under the Class Actions Act (Newfoundland) by certain former employees of Wabush Mines on behalf of all non-union employees and retirees of Wabush Mines, against the defendants Cliffs Natural Resources Inc., Cliffs Mining Company, and certain former and current officers, directors and employees. The Salaried Employees Action sought, among other things, various declarations and damages relating to the "Contributory Salaried Plan for Salaried Employees of Wabush Mines, Cliffs Mining Company, Managing Agent, Arnaud Railway Company and Wabush Lake Railway Company, Limited". On or about June 23, 2017, a separate action captioned Skinner, et al. v. Cliffs Mining Company, et al. was filed in the Newfoundland Court under the Class Actions Act (Newfoundland) by certain former employees of Wabush Mines on behalf of all unionized employees and retirees of Wabush Mines against the same defendants. The Union Employees Action sought, among other things, declarations and damages relating to the "Pension Plan for Bargaining Unit Employees of Wabush Mines, Cliffs Mining Company, Managing Agent, Arnaud Railway Company and Wabush Lake Railway Com6pany, Limited". On May 10, 2018, the parties reached a settlement of both the Salaried Employees Action and the Union Employees Action, which will be implemented as part of the Amended Plan within the CCAA proceedings involving the Bloom Lake Group and the Wabush Group. Cleveland-Cliffs said "Under the terms of the Amended Plan, we and certain of our wholly-owned subsidiaries have made a C$19.0 million cash contribution to the Wabush Group pension plan and will contribute into the CCAA estate any distributions or payments we may be entitled to receive as creditors of the Bloom Lake Group and the Wabush Group for distribution to other creditors within the CCAA proceedings. Upon implementation of the Amended Plan, each of the Employee Actions will be discontinued and the defendants in the Employee Actions will be released from those claims contained in or which could have been raised in the Employee Actions." Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. operates as an iron ore mining company in the United States. The company operates four iron ore mines in Michigan and Minnesota; and Koolyanobbing iron ore mining complex located in Western Australia. Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. was founded in 1847 and is headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio. COINBASE: Investigation Finds No Wrongdoing, Class Action Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- CCN reports that a Coinbase internal investigation into alleged insider trading before it listed Bitcoin Cash has found no evidence to support the allegations. The exchange, which hired two law firms to carry out an in-house investigation of the accusations, has stated that no wrongdoing was found, and it will take no further action. Bitcoin Cash Allegations Since December 2017, America's largest cryptocurrency exchange has been dogged by a series of accusations surrounding the events of December 20, when it surprised the market by announcing the listing of Bitcoin Cash. The trouble started when Bitcoin Cash prices suddenly spiked in a heavy and unprecedented manner, driven primarily by a surge in demand from south Korean buyers on December 20. The same day, Coinbase put out a surprise announcement revealing its decision to list Bitcoin Cash on its platform, despite having previously stated that it would not support the cryptocurrency until January 2018. Traders who bought BCH before the announcement saw their assets more than double in price in just a few minutes. Naturally it did not take long for industry players to begin insinuating that Coinbase knew something about the inexplicable BCH spike just before its announcement. Bitfury Vice Chairman George Kikvadze was one of such people. Coinbase immediately announced the launch of an internal investigation, promising to get to the bottom of the matter. To this end the company hired two "well known national law firms" to check whether any of its employees took part in such practises. Not Out Of The Clear Yet Following months of investigation by the law firms, the all-clear comes as a boost to Coinbase, which stood to suffer a great amount of reputational damage as a result of the matter. The company is eager to point out that the probe completely cleared Coinbase employees of all insider trading allegations and recommended no further action. In a statement released to Fortune, Coinbase said: "We would not hesitate to terminate an employee or contractor and/or take appropriate legal action if evidence showed our policies were violated. We can report that the voluntary, independent internal investigation has come to a close, and we have determined to take no disciplinary action." The company however is not quite out of the woods yet. In March 2018, Arizona resident Jeffrey Berk filed a class action lawsuit alleging professional negligence on the part of Coinbase. The suit seeks a payout of at least $5 million to Berk and other investors like him. It also places attention on the so-called "Coinbase Effect" where a listing announcement for any digital asset on the exchange results in sharp price increases, such as with Ethereum Classic in June 2018. Bitcoin Cash 'Scandal' Timeline July 2017 -- Coinbase announces that it will not support BCH and advises investors to redeem their funds. August 2017 -- Coinbase announces partial support for BCH. December 20, 2017 -- Bitcoin Cash records a sudden price spike due to a sharp and unexpected rise in demand from South Korea. December 20, 2017 -- Coinbase makes a surprise announcement informing the market that it is listing Bitcoin Cash December 20, 2017 -- Accusations of insider trading begin to surface as investors and observers smell a rat. December 20, 2017 -- Coinbase announces that it has launched an internal investigation into insider trading accusations. March 2018 -- Arizona resident Jeffrey Berk files a class action lawsuit against Coinbase in the US District Court for the Northern District of California seeking a payout of more than $5 million on allegations that Coinbase tipped off its employees about its decision to list Bitcoin Cash, enabling them to carry out insider trades ahead of the listing announcement. [GN] COMPLYRIGHT: Faces Lawsuit Over Tax Form Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------- Mark Jones, writing for Komando.com, reports that data breaches are commonplace in today's digital world. It seems we're finding out about major new breaches every week. The Equifax breach that we learned about last year was particularly harsh. Critical information from over 145 million Americans was exposed in that breach, making it one of the worst ever. Even though breaches are happening constantly, we shouldn't sit back and accept it as the norm. Something needs to be done to stop these from happening, and I'm talking sooner rather than later. A group of recent victims have decided to fight back. Are you part of this breach? One of the latest major data breaches happened at an HR and tax service company called ComplyRight. The company helps employers streamline administrative tasks and takes care of tax forms like your W-2. It recently announced that it was the victim of a data breach from earlier this year. The breach began sometime in April and lasted through May. Over 660,000 people have been impacted by this breach. Exposed data includes: names, addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, and Social Security numbers of individual tax form recipients. This is bad! What happened was, at the end of May, ComplyRight was notified of a security issue with its website. After an investigation, it determined that there was unauthorized access to its site. The company says that it sent notification letters through snail-mail to everyone who was affected. It also set up a dedicated response line that you can call if you were a victim of the breach. That number is 844-299-7772 and can be reached Monday through Friday from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. EST. ComplyRight is offering affected individuals free credit monitoring services for 12 months through TransUnion. How victims are fighting back Victims of this breach aren't taking it lightly. In fact, some have filed lawsuits against ComplyRight for allegedly not properly protecting its data and not immediately notifying victims. The lawsuits seek damages for the improper disclosure of personal information, including time and effort to clean-up the data breach. It's possible these lawsuits could turn into class action suits, so all victims could join in. This is an interesting response to a data breach. If it works, will it be the new way to handle breaches in the future? [GN] CONAGRA BRANDS: Still Defends "Briseno" Class Action Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Conagra Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on July 20, 2018, for the fiscal year ended May 27, 2018, that the company continues to defend itself in a class action suit entitled, Briseno v. ConAgra Foods, Inc. Conagra Brands said "We are party to a number of putative class action lawsuits challenging various product claims made in the Company's product labeling. These matters include Briseno v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., in which it is alleged that the labeling for Wesson® oils as 100% natural is false and misleading because the oils contain genetically modified plants and organisms." In February 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted class certification to permit plaintiffs to pursue state law claims. The Company appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed class certification in January 2017. The Supreme Court of the United States declined to review the decision and the case has been remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. Conagra Brands said "While we cannot predict with certainty the results of this or any other legal proceeding, we do not expect this matter to have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or business." Conagra Brands, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a food company in North America. The company operates through Grocery & Snacks, Refrigerated & Frozen, International, and Foodservice segments. Conagra Brands, Inc. was founded in 1919 and is headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. CONGRA BRANDS: "Negrete" Wage and Hour Claims Still Ongoing ----------------------------------------------------------- Conagra Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on July 20, 2018, for the fiscal year ended May 27, 2018, that the company continues to defend itself in the case, Negrete v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., et al. Conagra Brands said "We are party to matters challenging the Company's wage and hour practices. These matters include a number of putative class actions consolidated under the caption Negrete v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., et al, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, in which the plaintiffs allege a pattern of violations of California and/or federal law at several current and former Company manufacturing facilities across the State of California." Conagra Brands said "While we cannot predict with certainty the results of this or any other legal proceeding, we do not expect this matter to have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or business." The Plaintiff's motion for class certification remains pending. On the court's own motion, the Motions to Certify Class were taken off the August 9, 2018, calendar and placed under submission. Conagra Brands, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a food company in North America. The company operates through Grocery & Snacks, Refrigerated & Frozen, International, and Foodservice segments. Conagra Brands, Inc. was founded in 1919 and is headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. COTIVITI HOLDINGS: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over Merger ------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News, reported that directors are selling Cotiviti Holdings too cheaply through an unfair process to Verscend Technologies, for $44.75 per share or $4.9 billion, shareholders of the tech company say in a federal class action. CUMMINS PACIFIC: Towle Seeks to Certify 5 Subclasses ---------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled JUAN TOWLE, on behalf of himself and all other aggrieved non-exempt employees, the Plaintiff, v. CUMMINS PACIFIC, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00083-LAB-JLB (S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court for an order: 1. appointing Plaintiff as the class representative; 2. appointing Plaintiff's attorneys as class counsel and 3. certifying subclasses: Unlawful Meal Period Policy Subclass: "all of Defendant's non-exempt California employees who were subject to Defendant's Meal and Rest Breaks policy and who were not relieved of all duties for a first meal period by the end of the fifth hour of work and/or a second meal period by the end of the tenth hour of work between December 4, 2013 and May 31, 2016"; Unlawful Meal Period Premium Pay Practice Subclass: "all of Defendant's non-exempt California employees who were not relieved of all duties for a first meal period by the end of the fifth hour of work and/or a second meal period by the end of the tenth hour of work, and who were not compensated with one hour of pay for all such instances between December 4, 2013 and the date of judgment"; Unlawful Rest Period Policy Subclass: "all of Defendant's non-exempt California employees who were subject to Defendant's Meal and Rest Breaks policy and who did not receive a first, paid 10-minute rest period during work shifts of 3.5 but less than 4 hours, a second rest period during shifts greater than 6 hours but less than 8 hours, or a third rest period during shifts greater than 10 hours but less than 12 hours, any time between December 4, 2013 and May 31, 2016"; Unlawful Rest Period Premium Pay Practice Subclass: "all of Defendant's non-exempt California employees who were not compensated with one hour of pay for all instances where they did not receive a first, paid 10 minute rest period during work shifts of 3.5 but less than 4 hours, a second rest period during shifts greater than 6 hours but less than 8 hours, or a third rest period during shifts greater than 10 hours but less than 12 hours, any time between December 4, 2013 and the date of judgment"; and Unlawful Derivative Waiting Time Penalty Subclass: "all of Defendant's former non-exempt California employees who were not provided timely payments of all final wages as required by the California Labor Code upon separation of employment during any time between". Attorneys for Plaintiff: Jeffrey L. Hogue, Esq. Tyler J. Belong, Esq. Erik A. Dos Santos, Esq. HOGUE & BELONG 170 Laurel Street San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 238 4720 Facsimile: (619) 270 9856 E-mail: jhogue@hoguebelonglaw.com tbelong@hoguebelonglaw.com edossantos@hoguebelonglaw.com DADA BHAGAVAN: Faces Quarterman Suit in N.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dada Bhagavan Hospitality LLC. The case is captioned as LANIE QUARTERMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DADA BHAGAVAN HOSPITALITY LLC, Defendant Case No. 1:18-cv-00132-MW-GRJ (N.D. Fla., July 12, 2018). The lawsuit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is assigned to Chief Judge Mark E. Walker and referred to Magistrate Judge Gary R. Jones. Dada Bhagavan Hospitality, LLC is engaged in the Hotels and Motels business. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jessica Lynn Kerr, Esq. JESSICA L KERR PA 200 SE 6th Street, Suite 504 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 282-1858 Facsimile: (844) 786-3694 E-mail: service@advocacypa.com DEBT CARE: Ingersoll Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls ------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL INGERSOLL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DEBT CARE USA, INC. d/b/a DEBT CENTER OF AMERICA, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-06674 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 3, 2018), seeks damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant, in negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and related regulations, specifically the National Do-Not-Call provisions, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy. According to the complaint, beginning in or around November 2017, Defendant contacted Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in -3875, in an attempt to solicit Plaintiff to purchase Defendant's services. Defendant used an "automatic telephone dialing system" as defined by 47 U.S.C. section 227(a)(1) to place its call to Plaintiff seeking to solicit its services. The Defendant contacted or attempted to contact Plaintiff from telephone numbers belonging to Defendants, including without limitation (775) 223-1629 and (702) 749-4288, confirmed to be Defendant's number. Defendant's calls constituted calls that were not for emergency purposes as defined by 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1)(A). Defendant's calls were placed to telephone number assigned to a cellular telephone service for which Plaintiff incurs a charge for incoming calls pursuant to 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1). The Defendant did not possess Plaintiff's "prior express consent" to receive calls using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice on his cellular telephone pursuant to 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1)(A). Further, Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in -3875 was added to the National Do-Not-Call Registry on or about July 6, 2010. Defendant placed multiple calls soliciting its business to Plaintiff on his cellular telephone ending in -3875 in or around November 2017. Those calls constitute solicitation calls pursuant to 47 C.F.R. section 64.1200(c)(2) as they were attempts to promote or sell Defendant's services. The Plaintiff received numerous solicitation calls from Defendant within a 12-month period.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (877) 206 4741 Facsimile: (866) 633 0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com DIAMOND RESORTS: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Labaton Sucharow LLP ("Labaton Sucharow") on July 25 disclosed that on July 23, 2018, it filed a securities class action lawsuit on behalf of its client Local 705 International Brotherhood of Teamsters Pension Fund ("Local 705") against Diamond Resorts International, Inc. ("Diamond" or the "Company") (NYSE:DRII), and certain of its senior executives (collectively, "Defendants"). The action, which is captioned Local 705 International Brotherhood of Teamsters Pension Fund v. Diamond Resorts International Inc., No. 18-cv-01355 (D. Nev.), asserts claims under Sections 14(e) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") on behalf of all shareholders who held, sold, or tendered Diamond common stock, or derivative securities convertible into, exercisable for, or exchangeable against Diamond common stock, from the period beginning on July 14, 2016 through September 1, 2016. The Company owns a network of international vacation destinations and sells vacation ownership "points," which entitles the owner to reserve rooms in one of Diamond's resort or hotel properties. On July 14, 2016, Dakota Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of private equity firm Apollo Global Management LLC ("Apollo"), commenced a cash tender offer to acquire Diamond at a purchase price of $30.25 per share (the "Tender Offer"). The Complaint alleges that Diamond issued a materially incomplete and misleading Schedule 14D-9 Solicitation/Recommendation Statement (the "Recommendation Statement") related to the Tender Offer. Among other things, Defendants omitted the critical fact that the Stephen J. Cloobeck ("Cloobeck"), Diamond's founder, Chairman, and largest stockholder, had abstained from voting on the sale of Diamond for reasons that directly contradicted the Board's recommendation to the stockholder. Further, the Complaint alleges that Apollo offered consulting agreements or co-investment opportunities to Cloobeck, Diamond's Vice Chairman Lowell Kraff, and Diamond's President and Chief Executive Officer David Palmer to support the sale of Diamond to Apollo, additional consideration not provided to any other stockholder in the Company. If you held, sold, or tendered Diamond common stock, or derivative securities convertible into, exercisable for, or exchangeable against Diamond common stock, from the period beginning on July 14, 2016, through September 1, 2016, you are a member of the "Class" and may be able to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff. Lead Plaintiff motion papers must be filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada no later than September 24, 2018. The Lead Plaintiff is a court-appointed representative for absent members of the Class. You do not need to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff to share in any Class recovery in this action. If you are a Class member and there is a recovery for the Class, you can share in that recovery as an absent Class member. You may retain counsel of your choice to represent you in this action. If you would like to consider serving as Lead Plaintiff or have any questions about this lawsuit, you may contact Francis P. McConville, Esq. of Labaton Sucharow, at (800) 321-0476, or via email at fmcconville@labaton.com. You can view a copy of the complaint here. Local 705 is represented by Labaton Sucharow, which represents many of the largest pension funds in the United States and internationally with combined assets under management of more than $2 trillion. Labaton Sucharow's litigation reputation is built on its half-century of securities litigation experience, more than 60 full-time attorneys, and in-house team of investigators, financial analysts, and forensic accountants. Labaton Sucharow has been recognized for its excellence by the courts and peers, and it is consistently ranked in leading industry publications. Offices are located in New York, NY, Wilmington, DE, and Washington, D.C. More information about Labaton Sucharow is available at www.labaton.com. [GN] DOUGH DOUGH: Stigar Sues over No-Poach Agreements ------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH STIGAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DOUGH DOUGH, INC., a Washington Corporation, AUNTIE ANNE'S FRANCHISOR SPV, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00244 (E.D. Wash., Aug. 3, 2018), seeks millions of dollars in lost wages, plus triple damages, and interest, caused by Defendants' long-standing and illegal mutual non-solicitation agreements (i.e., agreements that Auntie Anne's franchisees could not solicit for employment the employees of Auntie Anne's and/or of other Auntie Anne's franchisees) and anti-poach agreements (i.e., agreements that Auntie Anne's franchisees could not hire the employees of Auntie Anne's and/or other Auntie Anne's franchisees) that were all entered into by Auntie Anne's franchises throughout Washington State and that had the intended and actual effect of significantly reducing Class Members' wages and salaries. According to the complaint, the genesis of the anti-poach and non-solicitation agreements at issue were franchise agreements between Auntie Anne's and its franchisees, and between its franchisees, including, upon information and belief, Dough Dough. This illegal conspiracy among and between Defendants and other Auntie Anne's franchisees to not employ, seek to employ, or to recruit one another's employees, in order to thereby suppress their wages, was not known, to Plaintiff and the Class Members until July 12, 2018, when the Washington State Attorney General revealed as part of its then-pending investigation into illegal behavior by some of the largest fast food franchises in Washington and the United States, including Auntie Anne's, that Auntie Anne's would no longer enforce provisions in its franchise agreements that prevented workers from being hired by other Auntie Anne's franchisees. In sum, Defendants engaged in per se violations of the Washington Unfair Competition Act and the Sherman Act by entering into anti-poach and non-solicitation agreements, for the express purpose of depressing and/or reducing market-based wages and benefit increases for Class Members that are typically associated with the active recruitment of employees and workers in a competitive industry. While protecting and enhancing their profits, Defendants, through their anti-poaching agreements, robbed Class Members millions of dollars worth of wages for which Plaintiff and the Class now seek relief.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: India Lin Bodien, Esq. INDIA LIN BODIEN, ATTORNEY AT LAW 2522 North Proctor Street, No. 387 Tacoma, WA 98406-5338 Telephone: (253) 212 7913 Facsimile: (253) 276 0081 E-mail: india@indialinbodienlaw.com - and - Craig J. Ackermann, Esq. Brian Denlinger, Esq. ACKERMANN & TILAJEF, P.C. 2602 North Proctor Street, #205 Tacoma, WA 98406 Telephone: (310) 277 0614 Facsimile: (310) 277 0635 E-mail: cja@ackermanntilajef.com bd@ackermanntilajef.com DPI SPECIALTY: Illegally Uses Biometric Data, Edmond Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- FONTAINE EDMOND, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DPI SPECIALTY FOODS, INC., DPI SPECIALTY FOODS MIDWEST, INC., DPI DEDICATED LOGISTICS, INC., DAYFORCE, INC., CERIDIAN HCM, INC., and CERIDIAN HCM HOLDING, INC., Case No. 2018CH09573 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., July 30, 2018), wants redress and to curtail the Defendants' alleged unlawful collection, use, storage, and disclosure of the Plaintiff's sensitive biometric data, in violation of the Biometric Information Privacy Act. DPI Specialty Foods, Inc., is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware. DPI Specialty Foods Midwest, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Illinois. DPI Dedicated Logistics, Inc., is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware. DPI is a sales, marketing, and logistics provider for food products in eight locations across the United States, including a distribution center in Hodgkins, Illinois. Dayforce, Inc., is a Canadian corporation and a subsidiary of Ceridian HCM, Inc. Ceridian HCM, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware. Ceridian HCM Holding, Inc., is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware. Ceridian HCM Holding, Inc. is the parent company of Ceridian HCM, Inc.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. James B. Zouras, Esq. Haley R. Jenkins, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560 Chicago, Illinois 60601 Telephone: (312) 233-1550 Facsimile: (312) 233-1560 E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com jzouras@stephanzouras.com hjenkins@stephanzouras.com DR PEPPER SNAPPLE: Levitt Files Suit Over False Marketing Practices ------------------------------------------------------------------- FRANK LEVITT, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated in Florida v. DR. PEPPER SNAPPLE GROUP, INC. and DR. PEPPER/SEVEN UP, INC., Case No. CACE-18-018098 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., July 30, 2018), is a consumer protection class action alleging that the Defendants misrepresented certain products as "Made from Real Ginger." The crux of this case is based on the Defendants' alleged deceptive, unfair, and false marketing practices regarding its Canada Dry brand Ginger Ale that claims to be "Made from Real Ginger," according to the complaint. The label of the Products uniformly and prominently represent that the Products are "Made from Real Ginger," which leads Florida consumers to believe that the Products are comprised of real ginger, ie: ground up ginger root ("Real Ginger"). The Plaintiff argues that the Products are not made from Real Ginger. Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, Inc., is a corporation existing under the laws of the state of Delaware, having its principal place of business in Plano, Texas. Dr. Pepper/Seven Up, Inc., is a corporation existing under the laws of the state of Delaware, having its principal place of business in Plano, Texas. It is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, Inc. The Defendants manufactured, advertised, sold, and distributed the Products to the general public throughout the state of Florida, including to Plaintiff and members of the putative Class, who purchased the Products from retail stores located throughout the state of Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq. Michael J. Pascucci, Esq. Steven Saul, Esq. EGGNATZ PASCUCCI 5400 S. University Drive, Suite 417 Davie, FL 33328 Telephone: (954) 889-3359 Facsimile: (954) 889-5913 E-mail: JEggnatz@JusticeEarned.com MPascucci@JusticeEarned.com SSaul@JusticeEarned.com ELITE FUNDING: Hardin Sues over Spam Advertisements --------------------------------------------------- TENLEY HARDIN, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ELITE FUNDING GROUP, INC., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-06686 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 3, 2018), seeks damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant, in negligently contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy. According to the complaint, in or about January of 2018, the Plaintiff received an unsolicited text message from Defendant on her cellular telephone number, ending in -2480. During this time, Defendant began to use Plaintiff's cellular telephone for the purpose of sending Plaintiff spam advertisements and/or promotional offers, via text messages, including a text message sent to and received by Plaintiff in or around January of 2018 from Defendant's phone number, (631) 782-8770. These text messages sent from Defendant to Plaintiff's cellular telephone were automated messages, asking Plaintiff to contract Defendant in order to obtain more information for business funding and underwriting. This text message placed to Plaintiff's cellular telephone were placed via an "automatic telephone dialing system" as defined by 47 U.S.C. section 227 (a)(1) as prohibited by 47 U.S.C. section 227 (b)(1)(A). The telephone number that Defendant, or its agent, sent unsolicited a text message to was assigned to a cellular telephone service, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. section 227 (b)(1). These unsolicited text messages constituted text messages that were not for emergency purposes as defined by 47 U.S.C. section 227 (b)(1)(A)(i). The Plaintiff was never a client of Defendant's and never provided her cellular telephone number to Defendant for any reason whatsoever. Accordingly, Defendant and its agent never received Plaintiff's prior express consent to receive unsolicited text messages. These text messages by Defendant, or its agents, violated 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1).[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Tom E. Wheeler, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (877) 206 4741 Facsimile: (866) 633 0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com twheeler@toddflaw.com ERBA DIAGNOSTICS: Settles Florida Class Suit for $1,215,000 ----------------------------------------------------------- ERBA Diagnostics, Inc. said in its Form 8-K report with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on July 5, 2018, that the parties in the class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida entered into a Stipulation of Settlement for a settlement amount equal to $1,215,000. In December 2015, a class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida against ERBA Diagnostics, Inc. and certain of its current or former executive officers. The original Complaint was replaced by an Amended Complaint that added, as defendants, certain other of the Company's former executive officers, the Company's executive chairman, the entity that is the Company's majority stockholder (ERBA Diagnostics Mannheim GmbH), the company that owns the majority stockholder (Transasia Bio-medicals Ltd.), and the Company's independent registered public accounting firm at the time the Amended Complaint was filed (Mayer Hoffman McCann P.C.). The Amended Complaint alleged generally that during the purported class period of June 14, 2013 through November 20, 2015, the Company and the other Company-related defendants knowingly or recklessly disseminated or approved statements about the Company's financial position and results of operations, business operations, and prospects that were materially false and misleading or lacked a reasonable basis. The Amended Complaint asserted claims for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and sought damages in the amount that the class members allegedly lost on account of the allegedly false and misleading statements. The Company, together with those of its current and former officers and directors who were named as defendants and served, filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint; the Company's former auditors also moved to dismiss. On February 16, 2017, the court heard oral argument on the motions to dismiss. At the conclusion of the hearing, the judge ruled from the bench (i) granting the motions to dismiss; (ii) denying the plaintiff's request for permission further to amend the Amended Complaint; and (iii) dismissing the case. On March 23, 2017, the plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. On June 28, 2018, the Company, the other named defendants and the plaintiff entered into a Stipulation of Settlement pursuant to which the parties agreed to settle and resolve the matter, subject to court approval, for a settlement amount equal to $1,215,000, of which $1,100,000 will be paid by the Company and the Company's current and former officers and directors named as defendants, and $115,000 will be paid by Mayer Hoffman McCann P.C. The settlement amount to be paid by the Company and the Company's current and former officers and directors is within the limits of the Company's insurance coverage and is expected to be paid either directly by the Company's insurance provider or by the Company subject to reimbursement from its insurance provider. As consideration for the payment of the settlement amount, the plaintiff agreed, on behalf of himself and the settlement class, to release any and all claims related to the subject matter of the Amended Complaint and such additional claims as set forth in further detail therein. The settlement remains subject to the approval of the district court. However, the timing of any approval from the district court is uncertain because the plaintiff's Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit divested the district court of jurisdiction. Accordingly, on June 29, 2018, the plaintiff moved the district court for an indicative ruling that preliminary approval of the class settlement raises a substantial issue that warrants further consideration. If the district court grants the motion, then the parties will move the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit for a stay and limited remand of the action so that the district court can proceed with considering whether to preliminarily approve the proposed settlement. If preliminary approval is granted, then class members will receive notice and an opportunity to object to or opt out of the settlement. The district court will then consider final approval of the settlement and conduct a fairness hearing. The Company, its current and former directors and officers and all of the defendants in this action denied and continue to deny that any of them violated any laws or committed any wrongdoing whatsoever, and this Stipulation of Settlement should not be deemed to be an admission, concession, or finding of any fault, liability, or wrongdoing whatsoever by any of the defendants. ERBA Diagnostics, Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets test kits, laboratory instruments, and raw materials such as antigens. The Company's products perform diagnostic tests for the detection of disease. ERBA's products are sold to hospitals and clinical laboratories. The company is based in Miami Lakes, Florida. ESA P PORTFOLIO: Faces Quarterman Suit in N.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against ESA P Portfolio Operating Lessee Inc. The case is captioned as LANIE QUARTERMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ESA P PORTFOLIO OPERATING LESSEE LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-00130-MW-GRJ (N.D. Fla., July 12, 2018). The lawsuit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is assigned to Chief Judge Mark E. Walker and referred to Magistrate Judge Gary R. Jones. ESA P Portfolio Operating Lessee Inc. operates as a hotel. The Company offers short term lodging and resort services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jessica Lynn Kerr, Esq. JESSICA L KERR PA 200 SE 6th Street, Suite 504 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 282-1858 Facsimile: (844) 786-3694 E-mail: service@advocacypa.com EXTENDED LIFE: Hawkins Seeks to Certify FLSA Class -------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled Hawkins, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. Extended Life Home Care, LTD, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00344-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. conditionally certifying Fair Labor Standards Act collective: 2. implementing a procedure whereby Court-approved notice of Plaintiff's FLSA claims is sent (via U.S. Mail and e-mail) to: "all current and former employees and independent contractors of Defendants who: (i) worked as home health aides, support associates, caregivers, or other employees or independent contractors who provided companionship services, rehabilitation services, domestic services, home care, and/or other in-home services; (ii) worked over 40 hours in any workweek; and (iii) were not paid one and one half times their regular rate of pay for the overtime hours they worked during three years preceding the filing date of this Motion and continuing through the date of final disposition of this case (the "216(b) Class" or the "216(b) Class Members"); and 3. requiring Defendants to, within 14 days of this Court's Order, to provide a list in electronic and importable format, of the names, addresses, and e-mail addresses of all potential opt-in plaintiffs who worked for Defendants at any time from three years preceding the filing of this Motion through the present. Attorneys for Named Plaintiff and those similarly situated: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1457 S. High St. Columbus, OH 43207 Telephone: (614) 949 1181 Facsimile: (614) 386 9964 E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com - and - Peter A. Contreras, Esq. CONTRERAS LAW, LLC PO Box 215 Amlin, OH 43002 Telephone: (614) 787 4878 Facsimile: (614) 923 7369 E-mail: peter.contreras@contrerasfirm.com F. MILLER PROPERTIES: Hannon Class Certification Bid Denied ----------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned SHANNON HANNON, ET AL., the Plaintiffs, v. F. MILLER PROPERTIES, LLC, ET AL., the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00304-JWD-EWD (M.D. La.), the Hon. Judge John W. DeGravelles entered an order: 1. granting a motion to suspend briefing; and 2. denying a motion for provisional class certification, without prejudice to that Motion's refiling following the appearance of newly added Defendant, with any revisions necessary to reflect the current scope of the case. FABRICA INTERNATIONAL: MOU in Reached in "Garcia" Suit ------------------------------------------------------ The Dixie Group, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on July 2, 2018, that the parties in the case, Carlos Garcia v. Fabrica International, Inc. et al, agrees to file a motion for approval of the memorandum of understanding. As of June 25, 2018, the Company and the Class Representative have agreed to a Memorandum of Understanding regarding settlement of the class action litigation styled Carlos Garcia v. Fabrica International, Inc. et al., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2017-00949461-CU-OE-CXC. The parties agreed to file a motion for approval of the memorandum of understanding with the court in which the case is pending, and to finalize a definitive agreement subject to court approval. The parties intend to file the memorandum of understanding with the Court within the next three to four weeks. The Company expects to incur costs of approximately $1.5 million upon final resolution of the matter. The Dixie Group, Inc. manufactures, markets, and sells floor-covering products for residential and commercial applications primarily in the United States. It offers residential carpets and custom rugs, specialty carpets and rugs, residential tufted broadloom and rugs, and broadloom and modular carpet tiles. The company is based in Dalton, Georgia. FERRARA CANDY: Settles Packaging Class Action for $2.5-Mil. ----------------------------------------------------------- Jason Mealey, writing for News4JAX, reports that the Ferrara Candy Company will pay $2.5 million in a class action lawsuit settlement. The lawsuit was over packaging alleging the company boxed its products in oversized packaging with excessive space. Ferrara Candy makes jujyfruits, jujubes, Now & Later, Lemonhead, Applehead, Cherryhead, Grapehead, RedHots, Trolli, Chuckles, Black Forest, Jawbuster, Jawbreaker, Brach's, Boston Baked Beans, Super Bubble, Rainblo and Atomic Fireball candies. If you bought one of those candies from Feb. 21, 2013 to June 21, 2018, you may be entitled to a cash payment. In addition to payments, Ferrara agreed to modify quality control procedures and fill levels. People who do not have proof of purchase can claim up to 15 boxes for a maximum refund of $7.50. [GN] FIRSTMARK SERVICES: Faces Jessica Stock Suit in C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Firstmark Services. The case is captioned Jessica Stock, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. Firstmark Services, Defendant, Case No. 8:18-cv-01363 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 3, 2018). FirstMark engages in originating and servicing privately funded education loans for financial institutions, borrowers, and schools. Its service cycle includes loan application entry, automated credit decisioning, loan disbursement, and document management.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew M Loker, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC 245 Fischer Avenue Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400 6808 Facsimile: (800) 520 5523 E-mail: ml@kazlg.com FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Amonoo Settlement Wins Initial Approval -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned DOMONIQUE AMONOO, PAOLA PAZYMINO, and ROSA M. WILLIAMS-HOPKINS, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-01601-SCM (D.N.J.), Magistrate Judge Steven C. Mannion has granted preliminary approval of the Class Action Settlement Agreement, at the Plaintiff's behest. The Complaint alleged that Defendant committed violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692 et seq. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), the Court held that these Settlement Classes are certified for purposes of settlement: Class A: All natural persons with an address within the State of New Jersey, to whom Firstsource Advantage. LLC sent one or more collection letters from March 22, 2015 to November 11, 2017 in an attempt to collect a consumer debt on behalf of Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., which were not returned as undeliverable, which letter contained the statement: As a result of settling a debt for less than the balance owed, the creditor may be required to report the amount forgiven to the Internal Revenue Service on a 1099C form[.]" Class B: All natural persons with an address within the State of New Jersey, to whom Firstsource Advantage, LLC, sent one or more collection letters from March 22, 2015 to November 11, 2017 in an attempt to collect a consumer debt on behalf LVNV Funding LLC, which were not returned as undeliverable, which letter contained the statement: "Please be advised that interest will continue to accrue on this account." The Court appoints Yongmoon Kim of Kim Law firm LLC as Class Counsel; and Dahl Administration, LLC, as the Settlement Administrator. A fairness hearing is set for Nov. 6. Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the putative class: Yongmoon Kim, Esq. KIM LAW FIRM LLC 411 Hackensack Avenue, Suite 701 Hackensack NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 273 7117 E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com Attorneys for Firstsource Advantage, LLC: Dinesh U. Dadlani, Esq. SEGAL MCCAMBRIDGE SINGER & MAHONEY, LTD. 15 Exchange Place, Suite 1020 Jersey City, NJ 07302 - and - Jordan S. Yu, Esq. YU MOHANDESI LLP 633 West Fifth Street, Suite 2800 Los Angeles, CA 90071 FLINT, MI: State Dismissed From Water Contamination Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that a federal judge has dismissed the state of Michigan and Gov. Rick Snyder from a consolidated class action brought over water contamination in the city of Flint, while allowing some claims to go forward. On August 1 order, by U.S. District Judge Judith Levy in Ann Arbor, Michigan, significantly pared down the lead case brought on behalf of Flint residents who suffered health problems and businesses that saw diminished property values after government officials switched the source of their drinking water. But she kept several former state officials and the city of Flint in the case. "During this period, some governmental officials disregarded the risk the water posed, denied the increasingly clear threat the public faced, protected themselves with bottled water, and rejected solutions that would have ended this crisis sooner," Levy wrote. Co-lead plaintiffs counsel Ted Leopold, Esq. -- tleopold@cohenmilstein.com -- praised the decision. "The case, for purposes of moving forward, is a lot cleaner and concise," said Leopold, a partner at Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. "The takeaway is the case is not going away. There are plenty of claims that survived that will be litigated, prosecuted and tried at the end of the day." A spokeswoman for the Attorney General's Office, which is representing the state and the former treasurer, did not respond to a request for comment. Snyder spokeswoman Ari Adler declined to comment. Flint Mayor Karen Weaver said the state got a "free pass." "The Flint water crisis, as we all know, occurred while the city of Flint was in financial receivership and controlled by state officials who were appointed by the governor," she said in a statement. "The decision to use Flint River water, and the response to the water crisis, required the direction and approval of the MDEQ [Michigan Department of Environmental Quality] and other state officials. The state of Michigan certainly has moral responsibility for this crisis. It would be manifestly unjust for the city to be left holding the bag for these state decisions." In 2014, state officials decided to shift the city's water supply from Lake Huron to the Flint River, despite studies warning the corrosive nature of the river could risk lead getting into the drinking water. Lawsuits have faced jurisdictional and procedural hurdles. The consolidated class action brought 13 claims by 12 individuals and three businesses against more than 20 defendants. Levy heard oral arguments on July 11 on several motions to dismiss. Levy found the state of Michigan was entitled to sovereign immunity, but that several former employees of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality and Flint officials were not. Among the claims the judge tossed were constitutional claims based on race. Plaintiffs had alleged government officials violated the 14th Amendment's equal protection claims and the federal Civil Rights Act by shifting the water supply for Flint residents, who are predominantly poor African-Americans—but not for the more affluent white residents of Genesee County. Levy, however, pointed out that not all Flint residents are black. "In short, the common thread of the plaintiffs' proposed equal protection class is not race, but association," she wrote. "Here, a class of people are alleging that, regardless of race, they were equally punished based on animus toward the African-American members of the class. Despite undertaking significant research, the court can find no case asserting claims for race discrimination under the equal protection clause by a class of individuals where at least a 34 percent are not members of the protected class." The judge also tossed claims that Snyder, the state of Michigan and several individual defendants violated the 14th Amendment's substantive due process clause against a "state-created danger." She also dismissed claims alleging substantive due process violations of bodily integrity against Snyder and former Michigan Department of Environmental Quality director Dan Wyant. But she allowed them to go forward against Dillon, who plaintiffs have alleged "took affirmative–and decisive–steps to expose Flint water users to contaminated water," as well as Michigan Department of Health and Human Services director Nick Lyon and a dozen other governmental officials, many of whom face criminal charges. One of those individual defendants is Howard Croft, Flint’s former director of public works, who is now charged with involuntary manslaughter. "We believe Judge Levy correctly dismissed the substantive due process claim based upon an alleged state-created danger against Mr. Croft," said Croft’s lawyer, Alexander Rusek,Esq.-- alexrusek@whitelawpllc.com-- of White Law in Okemos, Michigan. "However, we intend to pursue our right of appeal in regards to the substantive due process bodily integrity claim as plaintiffs have failed to allege specific acts committed by Mr. Croft that would avoid his qualified immunity in this matter." Levy also dismissed some negligence claims against two engineering firms—Lockwood, Andrews & Newnam and Veolia. They still face claims of professional negligence. Lockwood Andrews attorney Wayne Mason, Esq. -- wayne.mason@dbr.com -- a partner at Drinker Biddle & Reath in Dallas, said in a statement: "We believe the decision is consistent with the court’s past rulings. LAN is generally pleased with the court’s decision to dismiss all but one of the claims against it. LAN will continue to defend itself against the remaining, baseless claim." The ruling does not affect a separate class action in the Michigan Court of Claims, which handles tort claims against the state. In that case, the Michigan Court of Appeals refused to dismiss claims against Snyder and the state of Michigan earlier this year. "Although the court has narrowed the focus of the Flint water crisis class action, it is important for the people of Flint to understand that the heart of the case is very much alive and well," said Michael Pitt, Esq. -- mpitt@pittlawpc.com -- co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs in both cases, and a partner at Pitt McGehee Palmer and Rivers. "With this ruling, the pace of the case will pick up dramatically so that there will be no further delays in getting our clients the justice to which they are entitled."[GN] FLORIDA: Faces Class Action Over Prepaid College Tuition Plans -------------------------------------------------------------- Jeffrey S. Solochek, writing for Tampa Bay Times, reports that Susan Snyder remembers the day well. Her younger son was 5, and the older one 7. The family had just moved to Tampa, and came upon a glossy brochure touting the benefits of Florida Prepaid college tuition plans. "It was clear that costs were possibly going to double, and it would be a good idea to pay today's rate," said Ms. Snyder, who now lives in Ohio. The Snyders bought two plans. When they tapped into the accounts a decade later, though, they didn't get everything they thought they had purchased. So now Susan Snyder is the lead plaintiff in a class-action lawsuit that contends Florida Prepaid has violated its agreement when it comes to students who attend universities outside the state. At stake: Potentially millions of dollars that could be owed to about 20,000 families who used their plans at out-of-state schools. At issue is the "tuition differential fee," adopted by lawmakers in 2007 to allow the state's five largest universities -- later expanded to all of them -- to charge an undergraduate fee that would help bolster program funding. The state distinguished the fee from tuition, which it wanted to keep low. And so, too, did Florida Prepaid. It exempted families with tuition plans purchased before 2007 from responsibility for the fee, while incorporating the amount into plans bought afterward. For families like the Snyders, whose children attended universities outside Florida, that meant they'd get the value of Florida tuition -- but not that of the differential fee. Students who attend out-of-state schools make up about 10 percent of Florida Prepaid's approximately 112,450 active plan holders, according to the latest annual report. What's the difference? Florida Prepaid contributed $116 per credit hour toward Snyder's older son's tuition at The Citadel, while the average cost per credit at the University of Florida was about $202. "I paid in $13,000 (per plan). They said the value of my plan was roughly $14,000," Susan Snyder said, suggesting the agency initially made it seem like families would see a greater return. "I would have been better off setting up my own private investment plan." She contended the differential fee is no different than tuition, as it essentially pays for the same thing, just with a separate name. The plans she bought promised to transfer "current" rates to out-of-state schools, and that didn't happen, in her view. "The folks that stay in state get their value. The folks that don't, don't get their value," said Ed Zebersky, the lawyer leading the class action suit. "They're just stealing the benefit from these folks, and the time value of money." In court documents and public statements, Florida Prepaid representatives have rejected the notion that they've violated the contracts. They contended the families are getting the full value of their tuition plan, and are asking for benefits they never purchased. "The tuition plan specifically defines which fees plaintiff is purchasing, and provides that all other fees are plaintiff son's responsibility," Florida Prepaid lawyers wrote in one motion. "The tuition differential fee and the technology fee are not part of the benefits she purchased." Shannon Colavecchio, a spokeswoman for Florida Prepaid, further noted that families who buy a tuition plan are not making an investment, but rather locking in a tuition rate with guaranteed repayment. Newer plans account for the differential, she stressed, and older ones do not. "The trial court upheld the fact that a subscriber using her plan at an approved out-of-state institution is entitled to nothing more and nothing less than what the subscriber would have received had the beneficiary . . . attended a Florida institution," Ms. Colavecchio said. In an October 2017 ruling, Leon County Circuit Judge John Cooper found that the plan purchasers are bound by the Florida Prepaid master contract, which when signed was clear that it could be amended from time to time. That meant the families were bound to any adopted changes to the terms. Even so, Judge Cooper noted, the language regarding use of the benefits at qualified out-of-state schools did not materially change. And, he continued, the agreement was "plain" in not including the tuition differential or technology fees. "No matter which version of the master contract applies, plaintiff is not entitled to recover the value of a plan she never purchased, to compensate her for a cost that she will never incur," he wrote. He also noted that students attending Florida universities on a plan bought before 2007 do not get the differential fee, either. And he added that relying on marketing language to infer Florida Prepaid's intent is not relevant. Some of the materials Snyder said she received indicated she was buying "the cost of college at today's prices. What you pay now is guaranteed . . . no matter how much college costs increase in the future." The master contract, Judge Cooper wrote, is clear and unambiguous and the only intent that matters. Ms. Snyder has appealed the case in the 1st District Court of Appeal. The sides are still submitting briefs, and have received an extension to complete that work. Mr. Zebersky said he anticipates a different outcome. "This is such an important case. It's one of those head-scratchers where you're like, I can't believe this is happening," he said. "It makes a big difference to those folks who are on a much more limited income." Florida Prepaid stands by its interpretation. "We are confident that the 1st DCA considering this will rule the same," Ms. Colavecchio said. Florida Prepaid | by the numbers $126.7 million: Total tuition and fee payments from Florida Prepaid to Florida's state universities and colleges in 2016. 510,566: Number of children with a Florida Prepaid college plan, at last count. 464,000: Approximate number of students who have attended college using a Florida Prepaid plan. 157,182: Number of children in the Tampa Bay area with a Florida Prepaid college plan, at last count. (Hillsborough, Pinellas, Pasco and Hernando counties) 17,200: Approximate number of students now using Florida Prepaid benefits at a private, out-of-state or technical school. 30: Number of years Florida Prepaid has existed. The program has been around since September 1988. Source: Florida Prepaid College Board annual report, 2017 [GN] FLOWERS HOSPITAL: Settlement Proposed in Civil Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------ Jeremy Wise, writing for Donathan Eagle, reports that a settlement has been proposed in the class-action lawsuit filed against Flowers Hospital after one of its former employees stole patient information. According to federal court filings, parties on both sides of the issue have filed a motion for settlement. In the settlement, Flowers Hospital agrees to set aside $150,000 in a fund to address claims from the 1,208 people or parties potentially affected by the data breach. Flowers also agrees to pay for all attorney fees and related costs, which will be a minimum of $125,000. A judge in the Middle District of Alabama's federal district court system must approve the settlement before it becomes final. A hearing on the matter has not yet been scheduled. The lawsuit followed the arrest of former Flowers phlebotomist Kamarian Millender, who was convicted in 2014 of using patients' personal information to file false tax returns. Millender participated in the scheme between January 2013 and February 2014, obtaining information on more than 700 patients, a federal prosecutor said following Millender's conviction. If the settlement gains approval, those who are a part of the class-action suit will be entitled to compensation from the purchase of credit monitoring and identity theft protection services up to $250. The claimants can also be reimbursed up to four hours of time they lost battling data theft or alleged identity fraud, though in extreme cases, a claims administrator can award damages for up to 16 hours. Claimants can also receive reimbursement for credit reports they purchased as a result of the incident, any unreimbursed interest related to a delayed tax refund and any other damages attributable to the data theft. Each individual claimant can receive a maximum of $5,000, but Flowers Hospital will not pay more than the $150,000 set aside in the funding as part of the agreement. If claims top the established limit, they will be prorated in order to adhere to the figure. Flowers Hospital admits no wrongdoing as a part of the proposed settlement. The claims administrator has until Aug. 15 to mail notices of the proposed settlement to those involved in the lawsuit. Class members have until Nov. 1 to submit written objections or comments regarding the settlement to the court.[GN] FORD MOTORS: Judge Decertifies Consumer Protection Act Claim ------------------------------------------------------------ Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a federal judge agreed on Aug. 1 to decertify a Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act claim in a consumer class action about the allegedly defective MyFord Touch auto software system. Claims involving express warranty and used car purchases remain certified. FORTERRA INC: Maciuga, Lead Plaintiff in Consolidated IPO Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Wladislaw Maciuga, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. Forterra, Inc., Jeffrey Bradley, William Matthew Brown, Lori M. Browne, Kyle S. Volluz, Kevin Barner, Robert Corcoran, Samuel D. Loughlin, Clint Mcdonnough, John Mcpherson, Chris Meyer, Jacques Sarrazin, Chadwick Suss, Grant Wilbeck, Forterra US Holdings, LLC, Mid Holdings, Concrete Holdings, LSF9 Concrete Ltd, LSF9 Concrete II Ltd, Stardust Holdings, LSF9 Stardust GP, LLC, Lone Star Fund IX (U.S.), L.P., Lone Star Partners IX, L.P., Lone Star Management Co. IX, Ltd., John P. Grayken, Goldman, Sachs & Co., Citigroup Global Markets Inc. and Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-01957 (E.D. N.Y., July 31, 2018), is a consolidation of related actions seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with Forterra's October 21, 2016 initial public stock offering (IPO) with movant Wladislaw Maciuga as lead plaintiff. Forterra allegedly failed to disclose that organic sales in its drainage and water segments had significantly declined in the months leading up to the IPO, that the Company was relying on highly-leveraged, expensive acquisitions to make up for those lost sales, that the Company was experiencing increased pricing pressure to significantly lower prices due to competition, that its concrete and steel pipe business softened, accounting for 10% of its annual sales, that Forterra had not accrued expenses for in the months leading up to the IPO, thus understating its expenses and overstating its profits and control deficiencies related to physical inventory counts. Forterra common stock is trading below $5 per share, a decline of approximately 75% from the IPO price. Forterra is a manufacturer of pipes and various precast products for water-related infrastructure applications, including water transmission, distribution and drainage. It operates 96 manufacturing facilities located across North America. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. Mary K. Blasy, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Tel: (631) 367-7100 Fax: (631) 367-1173 Email: srudman@rgrdlaw.com mblasy@rgrdlaw.com - and - Corey D. Holzer, Esq. Marshall P. Dees, Esq. HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC 1200 Ashford Parkway, Suite 410 Atlanta, GA 30338 Tel: (770) 392-0090 Fax: (770) 392-0029 Email: cholzer@holzerlaw.com mdees@holzerlaw.com Defendants are represented by: Melissa Colon-Bosolet, Esq. Sidley Austin LLP 787 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Tel: (212) 839-5543 Fax: (212) 835-5100 Email: mcolon-bosolet@sidley.com GCB SERVICES: Wren Seeks to Certify Class of Field Engineers ------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit captioned CORNELIUS WREN on Behalf of Himself and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. GCB SERVICES, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00168-LMB-MSN (E.D. Va.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order granting conditional certification and approving a Court-approved notice of the lawsuit to: "all field engineers and similarly situated workers of GCB Services, LLC" Attorneys for Plaintiff: Gabriel A. Assaad, Esq. KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P. 4409 Montrose Blvd., Ste. 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 523 0001 Facsimile: (713) 523 1116 E-mail: GAssaad@kennedyhodges.com - and - Don J. Foty, Esq. 4409 Montrose Blvd, Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 523 0001 Facsimile: (713) 523 1116 E-mail: DFoty@kennedyhodges.com GDS HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of GDS Holdings Limited (NASDAQ: GDS) from March 29, 2018 through July 31, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for GDS Holdings investors under the federal securities laws. To join the GDS Holdings class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1388.html NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR’S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. According to the lawsuit, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) GDS Holdings overstated the value of certain data centers it had acquired; (2) GDS Holdings failed to maintain adequate internal controls; and (3) as a result, defendants’ statements about GDS Holdings’ business, operations, and prospects were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 1, 2018. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1388.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim or Zachary Halper of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com. Follow us for updates on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm or on Twitter: https://twitter.com/rosen_firm. Contacts: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. Zachary Halper, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. Telephone: 212-686-1060 Toll Free: 866-767-3653 Fax: 212-202-3827 Website: www.rosenlegal.com Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com zhalper@rosenlegal.com [GN] GOLDEN BAY TOWERS: Davison Seeks Overtime & Minimum Wages --------------------------------------------------------- CALBERT DAVISON, and other similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. GOLDEN BAY TOWERS, INC., Defendant, Case No. CACE-18-018506 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial, Broward Cty., Aug. 3, 2018), seeks to recover damages exceeding &15,000 excluding attorney's fees or costs resulting from Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, Defendants had or should have had full knowledge of all hours worked by Plaintiff including those worked in excess of 40 in a given work week. The Plaintiff was not paid at the proper overtime rate and minimum wage rate for all hours worked.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rainier Regueiro, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC 319 Clematis Street, Suite 606 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: (561) 225 1970 Facsimile: (305) 416 5005 E-mail: rrgueiro@rgpattorneys.com GRANA & MONTERO: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Grana & Montero S.A.A. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on July 2, 2018, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that the company continues to defend itself in a consolidated class action suit in the Eastern District of New York. Two securities class action complaints have been filed against the company and certain of its former directors and current and former executive officers in the Eastern District of New York during the first quarter of 2017. These complaints were consolidated into a single class action. The plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended compliant on May 29, 2018. Graña & Montero said "We believe that we have meritorious defenses to the claims asserted, and we intend to defend ourselves vigorously in these matters." Graña & Montero S.A.A. is the largest engineering and construction company in Peru as measured by revenues during 2017, and one of the largest publicly traded engineering and construction company in Latin America as measured by market capitalization as of December 31, 2017, with strong complementary businesses in infrastructure and real estate. The company is based in Lima, Peru. GREENE CORRECTIONAL: Seelig Seeks to Certify Prisoners Class ------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit captioned Paul Seelig, the Plaintiff, v. Kenneth Lassiter, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 5:18-ct-03189-D (E.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order certifying a class of prisoners. Seelig Says, "The size of the class will exceed 75 prisoners at Greene Correctional Institution and may exceed 5000 prisoners in the North Carolina Department of Public Safety State wide. The Plaintiff appears pro se. HALIFAX-YARMOUTH: Diocese Faces Sex Abuse Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------- Jack Julian, writing for CBC News, reports that a man who says he was sexually abused by a priest as a boy in Halifax in the 1960s has filed notice that he is planning a lawsuit against the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Halifax-Yarmouth. His lawyer believes if certified by the Nova Scotia Supreme Court, the class-action lawsuit could eventually involve many more sex abuse claimants. "It seems likely to me that there are hundreds, perhaps many hundreds, of potential victims out there," lawyer John McKiggan,Esq.-- john@mckigganhebert.com -- of the Halifax law firm McKiggan Hebert, said on August 2. The lead plaintiff in the case is Douglas Champagne, who in court documents claims he was abused by priest George G. Epoch while he was an altar boy at Canadian Martyr's Church on Inglis Street. Boy sought counselling after father left The lawsuit says Champagne's father abandoned his family in 1960 and Douglas Champagne, then eight, was sent to Epoch for counselling. "He came from a vulnerable family -- single mom, a number of kids. And his mom wanted him to join the church and become an altar boy because she thought it would be good for him," McKiggan said. In court documents, Champagne says he became a "knight of the altar" in 1962 and that Epoch asked him to stay one day after the other boys left. Champagne says Epoch told him he loved him and sexually assaulted him in the garment room of the church, and in Epoch's room at the priests' dormitory. The alleged abuse went on for months, Champagne says. The lawsuit says it often took place at the residence where all the priests live. "Other priests that lived at the residence looked at Douglas with a combination of disgust and sympathy," the notice of action filed with lawsuit claims. "They did not lift a finger to prevent the abuse that they knew or ought to have known was taking place." Epoch was eventually transferred, but Champagne says Epoch continued to send him love letters. Champagne travelled around Canada and returned to Nova Scotia in 1972 but left because of the memories it brought up. He now lives in B.C. Canadian Martyrs church has since merged with another congregation and the church building has been torn down. Epoch died in Ontario in 1986. According to the Nova Scotia Justice Department's 2002 Kaufman Report, Epoch sexually abused many male and female children on First Nations reserves during his time in Ontario. The Jesuit Fathers of Upper Canada, the order Epoch belonged to, found "an extensive history of sexual abuse by the late priest" and offered a public apology in 1992. They eventually reached a financial settlement with those victims. McKiggan acted on behalf of sex-abuse victims in a 2009 $16-million settlement with the Diocese of Antigonish. He said 142 victims received compensation for abuse by priests. That case began with a single complainant but prompted dozens of people to come forward with similar allegations against several priests, dating back 60 years. 'We know there are others' Since the Halifax-Yarmouth diocese is twice the size of the Antigonish diocese, he expects a proportionate number of victims to step forward. "There is no reason to believe that the Halifax-Yarmouth diocese ran its affairs any differently than the Antigonish diocese did. The policies were the same," he said. "We already know that there have been a number of priests publicly who have been convicted. We know there are others who have been assaulted [and] not been made public." Priests Angus McRae, Edouard Josepth Theriault, Robert MacDougall, and Albert LeBlanc all pleaded guilty between 1980 and 2012 to sexually abusing young parishioners while working in the Halifax-Yarmouth diocese. McKiggan said the decision to launch a class-action lawsuit is linked to efforts by the Archdiocese of Halifax-Yarmouth to allow it to divide its assets among dozens of parish corporations. McKiggan said that would possibly leave victims unable to collect on judgments made against the archdiocese as a whole. "It would mean quite possibly that they would have no means of recovering compensation for the harms and losses that they suffered at the hands of sexually abusive priests," he said. McKiggan said the next step is to apply to the Nova Scotia Supreme Court to certify the class-action lawsuit. Archdiocese 'condemns sexual abuse' He said litigation could drag on for years, depending on how the Archdiocese of Halifax-Yarmouth proceeds. The archdiocese learned of the lawsuit on August2 afternoon and told CBC News it is reviewing it with its legal advisers. "The Archdiocese of Halifax-Yarmouth condemns sexual abuse of all forms," John Williams, vicar-general of the archdiocese, said in a statement on August 2. "The archdiocese has an established process in place to address claims brought for any historic sexual abuse. The archdiocese makes a sincere attempt to do the right thing by way of the victims and achieve an appropriate and fair settlement for established claims." He said the bill to reorganize the archdiocese, which was withdrawn, was not an attempt to avoid financial responsibility for victims of sexual abuse. He called such claims "false, misleading and irresponsible." Williams said he could not speak about the specific allegations while the matter was before the courts.[GN] HALSTED FINANCIAL: Faces Coleman Suit in N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Halsted Financial Services, LLC. The case is captioned as Malaika Coleman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Halsted Financial Services, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-05323 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 3, 2018). Halsted Financial Services is a leading global financial services firm, providing consumer and commercial solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. HEALTH NET: Barkan Suit Moved to Central District of California --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Ohad Barkan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Health Net of California, Inc., Health Net Life Insurance Company, Health Net, Inc., and CENTENE CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No. BC711987, was removed from the U.S. District Court for Los Angeles County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Los Angeles) on Aug. 3, 2018. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-06691 to the proceeding. Health Net provides health insurance coverage for individuals, families, small business, large groups and Medicare Advantage recipients.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. HEGEWISCH DEVELOPMENT: White Sues Over Storage of Biometric Data ---------------------------------------------------------------- FALLON WHITE, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HEGEWISCH DEVELOPMENT CORP., EAST SIDE CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER, LLC, NEAR THE PIER DEVELOPMENT CENTER, INC., PILL HILL DEVELOPMENT CENTER, INC., WEST AUSTIN DEVELOPMENT CENTER, INC., TAMERA FAIR, and MARKETSTAFF, INC., Case No. 2018CH09599 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., July 30, 2018), seeks to redress and curtail the Defendants' alleged unlawful collection, use, storage, and disclosure of the Plaintiff's sensitive biometric data, in violation of the Biometric Information Privacy Act. Hegewisch is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Illinois with its principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois. East Side is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the state of Illinois with its principal place of business in Chicago. Near the Pier is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Illinois with its principal place of business in Chicago. Pill Hill is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Illinois with its principal place of business in Chicago. West Austin is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Illinois with its principal place of business in Chicago. Hegewisch, East Side, Near the Pier, Pill Hill, and West Austin are early childhood education centers operating under the collective banner of The Premier Childcare Centers. Premier is owned and operated by Tamera Fair. Marketstaff, Inc., is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Illinois with its principal place of business in Chicago. Marketstaff provides human resources support to the Premier Childcare Centers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. James B. Zouras, Esq. Haley R. Jenkins, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 233-1550 Facsimile: (312) 233-1560 E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com jzouras@stephanzouras.com hjenkins@stephanzouras.com HOHLA & WYSS: Court Approves Notice of Collective Action -------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled Ray Arp, On behalf of himself and those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Hohla & Wyss Enterprises, LLC, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00119-WHR (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Walter H. Rice entered an order on Aug. 1, 2018, granting a joint motion to approve stipulated form of notice of collective action. As reported by the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff asked the Court for an order approving a notice of collective action to: "all current and former delivery drivers employed by any Defendant at any Jimmy John's location". Attorneys for Plaintiff: Andrew Kimble, Esq. Andrew R. Biller, Esq. Philip J. Krzeski, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO LLC 3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650 Cincinnati, OH 45209 Telephone: (513) 651 3700 Facsimile: (513) 665 0219 E-mail: abiller@msdlegal.com akimble@msdlegal.com pkrzeski@msdlegal.com www.msdlegal.com Attorneys for Defendant: Timothy G. Pepper, Esq. Robert T. Dunlevey, Esq. TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP 40 North Main Street, Suite 1700 Dayton, Ohio 45423 Telephone: (937) 228 2838 Facsimile: (937) 228 2816 E-mail: pepper@taftlaw.com rdunlevey@taftlaw.com ILLINOIS: DOC Settles Deaf Prisoners' Class Action -------------------------------------------------- Windy City Times reports that a groundbreaking settlement has been reached in a class action that will fundamentally improve the lives of Illinois prisoners who are deaf and hard of hearing. The class action was filed May 4, 2011 and alleged, among other things, that the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC ) systematically failed to provide American Sign Language interpreters and other alternate forms of communication. Without these accommodations, deaf and hard of hearing prisoners have been endangered and deprived of meaningful access to religious services, healthcare, educational and vocational programs, telephones, televisions, library services, disciplinary proceedings, grievances, and pre-release programs. A fairness hearing, in which a judge must find that a class action settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate, was set to be held in Chicago on July 26, at 10:30 before the Honorable Judge Marvin E. Aspen, 219 S. Dearborn Street, Courtroom 2568. The lawsuit was filed by the law firm Winston & Strawn LLP, serving as lead counsel and providing representation on a pro bono basis; two Illinois non-profit legal advocacy organizations, Equip for Equality and Uptown People's Law Center; and the National Association of the Deaf. Terms under the far-reaching settlement include: Hearing Tests: IDOC will provide enhanced screening to identify which prisoners are deaf and hard of hearing. Communication Specialists. IDOC will use specialists to test the communication skills of deaf and hard of hearing prisoners, identify necessary accommodations and develop a communication plan. Hearing Aids: IDOC will provide hearing aids when recommended by an audiologist and provide timely replacement batteries and repairs. Sign Language Interpreters: For prisoners who communicate in American Sign Language ( ASL ), IDOC will provide sign language interpreters for important programs. Video Phones, TTYs, and Amplified Phones: Every Illinois prison with a deaf or hard of hearing prisoner must have at least one videophone, two TTYs, and two amplified telephones. Communication Alerts: Every Illinois prison that has a deaf or hard of hearing prisoner must have a safe way to provide accessible notifications about fires, emergencies, evacuations, meals, showers, yard time, doctor or counselor appointments, and visitors. VRI: Illinois prisons must provide Video Remote Interpreting ( VRI ) for doctor appointments when no sign language interpreter can come to the prison for doctor appointments. "It is fitting that the fairness hearing will take place on the anniversary of the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act," said Barry C. Taylor, vice president for Civil Rights and Systemic Litigation, Equip for Equality. "One of the tenets of the ADA is to provide effective communication for people with disabilities. This settlement agreement will go a long way to ensure that the ADA's promise becomes a reality for deaf and hard of hearing prisoners." "Our goal in this case was to ensure that significant steps would be taken within IDOC to enable deaf and hard of hearing prisoners in Illinois to communicate effectively while in IDOC custody," said Robert Michels, a partner with Winston & Strawn. "Allowing deaf and hard of hearing prisoners to communicate effectively is critically important for a variety of reasons, including so that they are safe, they are able receive proper medical care, they are able to participate in the programs and services available to them while in custody, and they are not treated unfairly as a result of their hearing impairment. We are glad that this settlement allows substantial improvements to be made within IDOC that, if properly implemented, should result in achieving our goal." "Being in prison is an awful experience for anyone; being in prison when you can't hear is terrifying. This settlement, when fully implemented, ensures that no one will ever be left alone in silence in Illinois prisons. These changes are vital—the Americans with Disabilities Act applies to everyone in the United States, including people in prison," said Alan Mills, executive director of Uptown People's Law Center. "On the 28th anniversary of the ADA and 45 years after passage of the Rehabilitation Act, this fairness hearing is one step closer to ensuring that deaf and hard of hearing people in Illinois prisons have equal rights, particularly for communication and telecommunication purposes," said Howard A., Rosenblum, CEO of the National Association of the Deaf. "Although such basic rights are overdue, there should be no further delay to ensuring that deaf and hard of hearing prisoners have equal access to calling their families and lawyers, and to being able to communicate with prison staff for all programs and services." Reference: U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois Holmes et al. v. Godinez et al. 11 C 2961 Organizations representing the plaintiffs: Winston & Strawn LLP is an international law firm with nearly 1,000 attorneys among 16 offices across North America, Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. Formed in 1853, the firm not only represents Fortune 500 companies and other clients on major business-related matters, it also has a strong commitment to providing pro bono representation, including in matters involving civil rights, community economic development, criminal defense, First Amendment/free speech, contested guardianship, landlord/tenant, not-for-profit corporate organization, political asylum, post-conviction relief in death penalty cases, and public assistance. Equip for Equality is a private, not-for-profit entity designated in 1985 by the Governor of Illinois to administer the federally mandated protection and advocacy system for safeguarding the rights of people with physical and mental disabilities in Illinois. Uptown People's Law Center is a nonprofit legal services organization specializing in prisoners' rights, Social Security disability, and tenants' rights and eviction defense. UPLC currently has seven class action lawsuits regarding jail and prison conditions. National Association of the Deaf, established in 1880, is the nation's premier organization safeguarding the civil, human and linguistics rights of deaf and hard of hearing individuals in the USA. [GN] INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Faces Shareholder Class Action -------------------------------------------------- Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a hyper-aggressive campaign by Insys Therapeutics directors to get doctors to push Subsys, a fentanyl sublingual spray, for off-label uses, caused the share price to plummet by 75 percent, shareholders say in a federal class action. INTERSTATE REALTY: Brenda Jones Sues over Lease Contract -------------------------------------------------------- BRENDA JONES, Individually and on behalf all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. INTERSTATE REALTY MANAGEMENT COMPANY, THE MICHAELS ORGANIZATION, and BRINSHORE DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C., the Defendants, Case No. 2018CH09886 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., Aug. 3, 2018), alleges that Defendants violated the City of Chicago Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance, Municipal Code Title 5, Chapter 12, et seq., by failing to disclose the name and address of the financial institution into which Plaintiff's and the class's security deposits were deposited in the manner required by 5-12-080(a)(3) of the RLTO; giving the Plaintiff and the class a security deposit receipt in the manner provided by Section 5-12-080(b) of the RLTO at the time of receiving a security deposit payment; and attaching to Plaintiffs and the class's leases the then current RLTO summary prepared by the City of Chicago, including the separate summary describing the respective rights, obligations, and remedies of landlords and tenants with respect to security deposits required by Section 5-12-170 the RLTO.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Sobek, Esq. JS Law 29 E. Madison Street, Suite 1000 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone (312) 756 1330 E-mail: jeffs@jsslawoffices.com INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Agreement in Principle Reached in Calif. Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Intuitive Surgical, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 20, 2018, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the Company has reached an agreement in principle to enter into a settlement agreement which stipulates a payment of $42.5 million. On April 26, 2013, a purported class action lawsuit entitled Abrams v. Intuitive Surgical, et al., No. 5-13-cv-1920, was filed against a number of the Company's current and former officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. A substantially identical complaint, entitled Adel v. Intuitive Surgical, et al., No. 5:13-cv-02365, was filed in the same court against the same defendants on May 24, 2013. The Adel case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on August 20, 2013. On October 15, 2013, plaintiffs in the Abrams matter filed an amended complaint. The case has since been retitled In re Intuitive Surgical Securities Litigation, No. 5:13-cv-1920. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between February 6, 2012, and July 18, 2013. The amended complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by allegedly making false and misleading statements and omitting certain material facts in certain public statements and in the Company's filings with the SEC. On November 18, 2013, the court appointed the Employees' Retirement System of the State of Hawaii as lead plaintiff and appointed lead counsel. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on December 16, 2013, which was granted in part and denied in part on August 21, 2014. The plaintiffs elected not to further amend their complaint at that time. The plaintiffs moved for class certification on September 1, 2015, and following opposition and reply briefing, the court held a hearing on the motion on January 21, 2016. On November 2, 2016, Labaton Sucharow LLP filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint. On December 22, 2016, the court entered an order granting plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On January 25, 2017, the court entered anorder granting plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the complaint. On February 9, 2017, the Company moved to dismiss the amended complaint. Following opposition and reply briefing, the matter was fully submitted to the court on March 2, 2017. The court denied the motion on September 29, 2017. On July 13, 2017, the parties filed a stipulation vacating the case schedule, which the court entered on July 14, 2017. On November 8, 2017, the court entered a new case schedule, with trial set to begin on October 30, 2018. On December 6, 2017, plaintiffs moved for approval of a proposed notice to the class members; the Company partially opposed that motion. The court held a hearing regarding the motion on March 8, 2018, and ordered the parties to edit the proposed notice and submit it to the court for approval. On March 9, 2018, the parties submitted a joint proposed notice, which the court approved on March 12, 2018. On February 9, 2018, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment, which plaintiffs opposed on March 23, 2018. On June 11, 2018, the Company reached an agreement in principle to enter into a settlement agreement which stipulates a payment of $42.5 million by the Company, subject to approval by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The agreement in principle is subject to certain conditions, including court approval of a final settlement agreement. Intuitive Surgical said "There can be no assurance that the parties will enter into a final settlement agreement or that such agreement will be approved by the court. During the three and six months ended June 30, 2018, the Company recorded a pre-tax charge of $42.5 million for this matter." Intuitive Surgical, Inc. designs, manufactures, and markets da Vinci surgical systems, and related instruments and accessories. The company was founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Sunnyvale, California. JESSICA HOLDING: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Ning Says ----------------------------------------------------------- JUN NING, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. JESSICA HOLDING INC. d/b/a COTS Travel d/b/a Kingly Tour, CHINA OVERSEAS TRAVEL SERVICE (U.S.A.), INC. d/b/a COTS Travel, ANITA YIM KING LAI, BIANA NG, JESSICA WONG a/k/a Jessica Astrup, and RONGHAI GAO a/k/a Billy Gao, the Defendants, Case No. 712081/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Aug. 3, 2018), alleges that Defendants failed to pay minimum wage, overtime and spread of hours pay and tips; failed to provide meal periods; and failed to provide time and hire notices and pay stubs, pursuant to the New York Labor Law.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Troy, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 119 Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762 1324 JFK MEDICAL: Mendez et al. Amend Bid to Certify 2 Classes --------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled SANDRA LOIS MENDEZ, AMY R. BRAZEE, SETH GATES, and LORI R SINGER f/k/a Lori R. Kogan, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. JFK MEDICAL CENTER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP d/b/a JFK Medical Center, NPAS, INC., HCA HOLDINGS, INC., PALMS WEST SURGERY CENTER, LTD. d/b/a Palms West Surgicenter, UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, LTD. d/b/a University Hospital & Medical Center, and MIAMI BEACH HEALTHCARE GROUP, LTD. d/b/a Aventura Hospital and Medical Center, the Defendant, Case No. 9:17-cv-80866-KAM (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order granting Plaintiffs' amended motion for class certification, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(2) and/or, alternatively 23(b)(3), and allow the Plaintiffs to pursue the claims alleged in the second amended class action complaint as Class Representatives on behalf of all those similarly situated. Class I - for the period from four years preceding the filing of this action through the date of the entry of judgment: "all patients for whom JFK or NPAS billed or collected for amounts in excess of that authorized under the PIP Statute"; and Class II - for the period from four years preceding the filing of the Second Amended Complaint through the date of the entry of judgment: "all patients for whom HCA's Florida Providers (excluding JFK) billed or collected for amounts in excess of that authorized under the PIP Statute". Attorneys for Plaintiff: William J. Cornwell, Esq. Seth A. Kolton, Esq. WEISS, HANDLER & CORNWELL, P.A. One Boca Place, Suite 218-A 2255 Glades Road Boca Raton, Florida 33431 Telephone: (561) 997 9995 Facsimile: (561) 997 5280 E-mail: wjc@whcfla.com filings@whcfla.com sak@whcfla.com jh@whcfla.com - and - Bruce F. Silver, Esq. SILVER & SILVER, P.A. 6100 Glades Road, Suite 201 Boca Raton, FL 33434 Telephone: (561) 488 3344 Facsimile: (561) 488 5899 E-mail: brucesilver@silverlawoffices.com JIM GOLDEN: Schnaidt Suit Asserts TCPA Violation ------------------------------------------------ LOREN SCHNAIDT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. JIM GOLDEN FORD-LINCOLN LLC a/k/a JIM GOLDEN FORD-LINCOLN, Case No. 3:18-cv-04602 (N.D. Cal., July 30, 2018), accuses the Defendant of negligently, knowingly and willfully contacting the Plaintiff and class members on their telephones using an automatic telephone dialing system without their prior express written consent within the meaning of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Jim Golden Ford-Lincoln LLC, also known as Jim Golden Ford-Lincoln, is an Arkansas Limited Liability Company with a principal place of business in Camden, Arkansas. The Company sells new and pre-owned cars and also provides car services from oil changes to transmission replacements.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com - and - Scott A. Bursor, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 989-9113 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: scott@bursor.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Suits Over Talcum Powder Cancer Link ------------------------------------------------------------- Sheryl Ubelacker, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that baby powder maker Johnson & Johnson has been the subject of a string of lawsuits, including two pending class-action cases in Canada, over allegations its product caused ovarian cancer in thousands of women who used the sweet-smelling, moisture-reducing agent for feminine hygiene. While some suits already heard in the U.S. have resulted in juries awarding massive amounts in compensation, studies on talcum powder's potential link to the gynecological cancer have produced often contrary conclusions, leaving women to wonder: is it safe to use baby powder or not? "The evidence that we have is mixed and has to be taken with a little bit of skepticism," said Dr. James Bentley, a gynecological oncologist at Dalhousie University in Halifax. Though some studies have found what appears to be a link, others have found no association, depending in part on their design, he said. There's also the issue of the way talc molecules interact with the body, which researchers don't have a good handle on, said Bentley. "This is chronic irritation of the ovary, and we do know that chronic irritation is associated with some carcinomas," he said. "Do we have really good evidence for that? The literature goes back and forth on this all the time." Dr. Daniel Cramer, a professor of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive biology at Brigham and Women's Hospital, was the first to sound alarm bells with a 1982 study that drew a link between long-term talc use on the genitals and the development of ovarian cancer. Then a 2016 study he led suggested women who routinely sprinkled their vaginal area -- known medically as the perineum -- with talcum powder had a one-third higher risk of getting ovarian tumours than women who hadn't been longtime users of the product. "I'm persuaded by the evidence that talc used in the genital area will reach the ovaries and lymph nodes, and it creates an inflammatory environment that could contribute to the development of cancer," Dr. Cramer said from Boston. "I've always felt the data was sufficient to warn women about using talc in their feminine hygiene." Baby powder is made from talc, a mined mineral that contains three primary ingredients: magnesium, silicon, and oxygen. But talc can be naturally contaminated with asbestos, which is known to cause the deadly cancer mesothelioma. The lawsuits brought against Johnson & Johnson have contended the health and cosmetic giant -- along with the company that bought the talc-based Shower to Shower from J & J in 2012, Valeant Pharmaceuticals -- should have put warning labels on the powders. The most recent judgment against Johnson & Johnson occurred earlier in July, when a St. Louis jury awarded almost US$4.7 billion to 22 women, based on claims that decades of using talcum powder for feminine hygiene caused their ovarian cancer. But the company denies its baby powder, which has been on the market since 1894, causes either mesothelioma or ovarian cancer. "Johnson & Johnson remains confident that its products do not contain asbestos and do not cause ovarian cancer and intends to pursue all available appellate remedies," the company said in statement in the wake of the St. Louis case. "Every verdict against Johnson & Johnson . . . that has gone through the appeals process has been reversed and the multiple errors present in this trial were worse than those in the prior trials." Rhonda Dobson isn't convinced. She was just 23 when she developed ovarian cancer in 2004 -- a disease for which there was no family history -- after lifelong use of talcum powder that began with her mother using it on her as a baby. "That was part of my routine because you have a bath and then you put powder on, or you have a shower and you put powder on," said Ms. Dobson, who lives in rural New Brunswick about an hour's drive from Moncton. "I put it everywhere. I loved it. I thought it smelled pretty. It makes your skin silky and soft." While she has been cancer-free since 2009, the single 37-year-old said she continues to pay a price for her cancer, which resulted in the removal of her left ovary and fallopian tube, as well as permanent hair loss from chemotherapy. "Everybody who has suffered through this . . . if they used baby powder the way I did and they got sick from it, Johnson & Johnson needs to help us," she said. "We trusted them and we believed in their product." An estimated 2,800 Canadian women were diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2017 and about 1,800 died that year from the disease, says the Canadian Cancer Society. Some cases arise because of an inherited genetic mutation, while others occur for reasons that aren't fully understood. There is no early-warning screening test and symptoms -- which can mimic more benign conditions -- often don't appear until a tumour is well advanced. Mary Krpan, 60, of Hamilton was diagnosed with late-stage ovarian cancer in 2014. Despite aggressive treatment, including a complete hysterectomy and chemotherapy, the disease has now spread to her lungs. The mother of two daughters started using Johnson & Johnson baby powder after the birth of her eldest child, who is now 31. "So I used to use it on her, bathing her and putting powder on her. It was always in my bathroom, so I used it," she said, adding that she "flung it wherever," including on her genital area, a few times a week. "I'm a brand person. When I go in a store, I don't get the knock-off . . . I always go for something that's a famous sort of reliable product," said Ms. Krpan, who viewed the brand-name talc as safe because it was intended for babies. Both Ms. Dobson and Ms. Krpan are part of a yet-to-be-certified national class-action lawsuit, filed by the Toronto law firms Rochon-Genova and Howie, Sachs and Henry, which alleges their cancers were caused by long-term use of talcum powder. In May, a Quebec court gave the go-ahead for a class-action suit filed by the Merchant Law Group, covering women in the province with ovarian cancer who had long used Johnson & Johnson baby powder or Valeant's Shower to Shower for personal hygiene; Merchant has filed a second class-action in B.C. on behalf of women elsewhere in Canada, which is awaiting certification. Despite all the court cases and ongoing debate over the safety of talcum powder, Bentley of Dalhousie doesn't think women who have habitually dusted themselves with the product should panic, especially given the inconsistency of research results. "But should you use talc? Probably not," he said. "It would seem to make sense that it isn't something people should be putting on the perineum on a regular basis." [GN] KITOV PHARMA: Settles Shareholder Class Action for $2-Mil. ---------------------------------------------------------- Kitov Pharma Ltd. (Nasdaq: KTOV; TASE: KTOV.TA), an innovative biopharmaceutical company, on July 30 disclosed that it has entered into a Stipulation of Settlement with respect to the shareholder class action lawsuits pending against it in Cohen v. Kitov Pharmaceuticals Holdings, Ltd., et al., Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-00917-LGS (District Court for the Southern District of New York), and Ng, v. Kitov Pharmaceuticals Holdings, Ltd., et al., Case No. 17CIV00620 and Zulch v. Kitov Pharmaceuticals Holdings, Ltd., et al., Case No. 17CIV01173 (both in Superior Court for the State of California) (collectively, the "Actions"). As previously disclosed, these lawsuits were filed against the Company alleging violations of U.S. federal securities laws. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the classes in all of the Actions will receive aggregate consideration of $2.0 million. The settlement consideration, as well as ancillary expenses, is expected to be funded by Kitov's insurance carriers. The Company expects that the proposed settlement will have no impact on the Company's Statement of Operations. The proposed settlement contains no admission of wrongdoing, and reiterates that Kitov has always maintained, and continues to believe, that it did not engage in any wrongdoing or otherwise commit any violation of federal or state securities laws or other laws, including, vigorous denials that the Company's public statements were misleading; that it failed to disclose any material information from investors; or that it acted in any deceitful manner. Kitov has agreed to the proposed settlement on the basis of the advice and recommendations of its insurance carriers who are indemnifying Kitov for the expenses of conducting a defense in the Actions, as well as paying judgments which may be assessed as a result of the Actions. As such, Kitov believes that further litigation of the Actions would be protracted, burdensome, and expensive for Kitov as well as its insurers, and that it is desirable and beneficial that the claims asserted in the Actions be fully and finally settled and terminated in the manner of the proposed settlement, with no additional costs to Kitov. "We are pleased to have reached this settlement, which we believe is beneficial to the Company and its shareholders, as it concludes this matter expeditiously," said Isaac Israel, Kitov's Chief Executive Officer. "Kitov is focused on maximizing the global commercial potential of CONSENSI™, which was recently approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the simultaneous treatment of osteoarthritis pain and hypertension. In addition, we continue to advance our exciting investigational new drug candidate, NT219, a first-in-class small molecule currently in development for various oncology indications." When the proposed settlement becomes effective, the Company and its directors and officers will be released from the claims that were asserted or could have been asserted in the Actions by class members participating in the settlement. The proposed settlement is subject to the completion of final documentation, preliminary and final Court approval by the District Court for the Southern District of New York and dismissal by the plaintiffs with prejudice of the Actions before the Superior Court for the State of California, funding of the $2.0 million in cash by the Company's insurance carriers, and other customary closing conditions. About Kitov Pharmaceuticals Kitov Pharma (Kitov Pharma Ltd.; NASDAQ/TASE: KTOV) is an innovative biopharmaceutical drug development company. Leveraging deep regulatory and clinical-trial expertise, Kitov's veteran team of healthcare and business professionals maintains a proven track record in streamlined end-to-end drug development and approval. Kitov's flagship combination drug, Consensi™ achieved the primary efficacy endpoints for its Phase III and Phase III/IV clinical trials, and was approved by the FDA for patients suffering from osteoarthritis pain and hypertension. NT219, which is developed by its majority-owned subsidiary, TyrNovo Ltd., is a novel patented small molecule designed to overcome cancer drug resistance that is currently in pre-clinical development. By lowering development risk and cost through fast-track regulatory approval of novel late-stage therapeutics, Kitov plans to deliver rapid ROI and long-term potential to investors, while making a meaningful impact on people's lives. [GN] KOPPERSTON, WV: PSD Sued Over Failure to Monitor Water Quality -------------------------------------------------------------- Matt Combs, writing for Register-Herald, reports that after users of the Kopperston Public Service District (PSD) were notified in early June by a state-required letter that the PSD had failed to monitor for harmful elements in the water that it distributed, a class action lawsuit has been brought against the PSD. According to court documents, the suit was filed in Wyoming County Circuit Court on July 27 with Rodney Kirkendoll as the named plaintiff. The suit alleges that consumers of the PSD were exposed to an increased risk of illness including kidney and liver disease, failure and cancer, adding that Kirkendoll had himself developed cancer. The suit seeks damages, punitive costs, attorney's fees, other relief and the establishment of a medical monitoring program for PSD users. The core of the suit is based upon the failure of the PSD between 2012 and 2017 to complete corrective actions by the state and to monitor for haloacetic acids, trihalomethanes, lead and copper. The plaintiffs are seeking a trial by jury. [GN] LAWRENCE LIVERMORE: Appeals Court Rules in Favor of Retirees ------------------------------------------------------------ Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a California appeals court found it improper on Aug. 1 that a judge decertified a class of Lawrence Livermore Laboratory retirees who claim the Regents of the University of California cheated them of university-sponsored group health insurance. LEGACY BULK TRUCKING: Dispatchers Seek to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Laura Dennis and Michelle Garrett, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Legacy Bulk Trucking Co., LLC, John P. Plemon and Lora Plemons, individually, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-01962 (N.D. Tex., July 30, 2018), seeks to recover their unpaid overtime wages as well as other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiffs are dispatchers who worked for Defendants' truck dispatching and coordinating services and regularly worked well in excess of 40 hours per workweek. Instead of paying overtime as required, Defendants paid these workers primarily on an hourly basis and improperly treated them as "exempt," notes the complaint. Plaintiff is represented by: Shane McGuire THE MCGUIRE FIRM, PC 102 N. College St., Suite 1030 Tyler, TX 75702 Phone: 903-630-7154 Fax: 903-630-7173 Email: shane@mcguirefirm.com - and - Jesse Forester, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC 1701 N. Market Street #201 Dallas, TX 75202 Phone: (214) 210-2100 Email: jay@foresterhaynie.com MARBLECAST OF MICHIGAN: Garner Properties Seeks to Certify Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled GARNER PROPERTIES & MANAGEMENT, LLC, a Michigan limited liability company, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. MARBLECAST OF MICHIGAN, INC., and AMERICAN WOODMARK CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-11439-VAR-MKM (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order certifying a class of: "all persons who were successfully sent one or more facsimiles promoting "Marblecast Kitchens & Baths" and "Waypoint Cabinetry" between November 2, 2015 and May 4, 2017." Attorneys for Plaintiff: Phillip A. Bock, Esq. David M. Oppenheim, Esq. Tod A. Lewis, Esq. BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC 134 N. La Salle St., Ste. 1000 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 658 5500 Facsimile: (312) 658 5555 - and - Mark K. Wasvary, Esq. MARK K. WASVARY, P.C. 2401 W. Big Beaver Rd., Ste 100 Troy, MI 48084 Telephone: (248) 649 5667 - and - Aaron D. Cox, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF AARON D. COX, PLLC 23380 Goddard Rd. Taylor, MI 48180 Telephone: (734) 287 3664 MARTIN COUNTY, FL: Randolph et al. Seek to Certify Employees Class ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit styled DIANA RANDOLPH, DANA LIBERANTE and LISA EWELL, and all other similarly-situated individuals, the Plaintiffs, v. WILLIAM D. SNYDER, in his official capacity as SHERIFF OF MARTIN COUNTY, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-14120-RLR (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order: 1. conditionally certifying a class of: "all current and former employees of Defendant who, at any time from January 1, 2018 to the present, worked as "officers" at MCSO and were not paid overtime for all hours worked over forty-three per week; 2. authorizing notice to Class members; 3. requiring Defendant to provide an expedited basis the names, last known addresses and social security number of all members of the certified class; and 4. awarding other relief as is just and appropriate under the circumstances. Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Cathleen Scott, Esq. SCOTT WAGNER & ASSOCIATES, P.A. www.ScottWagnerLaw.com Jupiter Gardens 250 South Central Boulevard, Suite 104-A Jupiter, FL 33458 Telephone: (561) 653-0008 Facsimile: (561) 653-0020 E-mail: CScott@scottwagnerlaw.com mail@scottwagnerlaw.com Attorneys for Defendant: Luke Savage, Esq. York Flik, Esq. ALLEN, NORTON & BLUE, P.A. 121 Majorca Avenue, Suite 300 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 445 7801 Facsimile: (305) 442 1578 E-mail: lsavage@anblaw.com yflik@anblaw.com MEDIMETRIKS PHARMACEUTICALS: Cooper Seeks to Certify Class ---------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled RUTH ANN COOPER, D.P.M., individually and as the representatives of a class of similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. MEDIMETRIKS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-11987-JLL-JAD (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order certifying a class, appointing Plaintiff as class representative, and appointing Plaintiff's attorneys as class counsel. The class is defined as: "all persons who (1) on or after four years prior to the filing of this action, (2) were sent telephone facsimile messages of material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services by or on behalf of Defendants, (3) from whom Defendants did not obtain "prior express invitation or permission" to send fax advertisements, or (4) with whom Defendants did not have an established business relationship, and/or (5) where the fax advertisements did not include an opt-out notice compliant with 47 C.F.R. section 64.1200(a)(4)(iii)" and "all New Jersey residents who (1) on or after four years prior to the filing of this action, (2) were sent telephone facsimile messages of material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services by or on behalf of Defendants, (3) from whom Defendants did not obtain "prior express invitation or permission" to send fax advertisements, or (4) with whom Defendants did not have an established business relationship, and/or (5) where the fax advertisements did not include an opt-out notice compliant with 47 C.F.R. Attorneys for Plaintiff: Matthew N. Fiorovanti, Esq. GIORDANO, HALLERAN & CIESLA 125 Half Mile Road, Suite 300 Red Bank, NJ 07701-6777 Telephone: 732 741 3900 Facsimile: 732 224 6599 E-mail: mcanning@ghclaw.com mfiorovanti@ghclaw.com - and - Ryan M. Kelly, Esq. ANDERSON + WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 368 1500 Facsimile: (847) 368 1501 E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com rkelly@andersonwanca.com - and - Matthew Stubbs, Esq. MONTGOMERY, RENNIE & JONSON 36 E. Seventh Street, Suite 2100 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 241 4722 Facsimile: (513) 241 8775 E-mail: mstubbs@mrjlaw.com MERCK CANADA: Quebec Court Approves Class Suit Over Propecia ------------------------------------------------------------ CTV News Montreal reports that Quebec's highest court has authorized a class-action suit on behalf of men who took medication for hair loss and then allegedly suffered various problems, including erectile dysfunction. The Quebec Court of Appeal gave the go-ahead on July 26, reversing a lower court decision. It covers Quebec men who took one of two drugs before Nov. 18, 2011, and then allegedly developed problems, including erectile dysfunction, lower libido levels, ejaculation issues, shrinkage of the genitals, and difficulty in having an orgasm. The defendants are Merck Canada and Merck Frosst Canada, which sold the Propecia and Proscar prescription drugs. Propecia is used mainly to treat baldness, while Proscar is used primarily for hypertrophy -- the enlargement of an organ or tissue. Quebec Superior Court turned down the request for the lawsuit in 2016.[GN] MICHIGAN STATE: Insurers Fail to Reimburse Settlement Costs ----------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that Michigan State University claims in Ingham County court that none of its insurers have reimbursed it for costs in connection with the $500 million settlement it agreed to pay hundreds of women and girls sexually abused by former university and USA Gymnastics doctor Larry Nassar. MID SOUTH WAFFLES: Goodman Seeks to Recover Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ ALVIN GOODMAN, on behalf of himself and similarly situated employees v. MID SOUTH WAFFLES, INC., Case No. 3:18-cv-00705 (M.D. Tenn., July 30, 2018), seeks to recover from the Defendant alleged unpaid wages for the legally required amount of overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek, actual and liquidated damages, and any other required employment taxes, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and disbursements of the action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mid South Waffles, Inc., is a corporate entity registered to do business in Tennessee and maintaining a principal place of business in Norcross, Georgia. The Company is a Waffle House restaurant franchise that operates at least 125 Waffle House locations in Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee and Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jerry E. Martin, Esq. David Garrison, Esq. Joshua A. Frank, Esq. BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON LLC 414 Union Street, Suite 900 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 244-2202 Facsimile: (615) 252-3798 E-mail: jmartin@barrettjohnston.com dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com jfrank@barrettjohnston.com - and - Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. Jason S. Rathod, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 412 H St., NE, Suite 302 Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 470-3520 Facsimile: (202) 800-2730 E-mail: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com jrathod@classlawdc.com - and - Peter Winebrake, Esq. R. Andrew Santillo, Esq. Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC 715 Twining Road, Suite 211 Dresher, PA 19025 Telephone: (215) 884-2491 Facsimile: (215) 884-2492 E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com asantillo@winebrakelaw.com mgottesfeld@winebrakelaw.com MITEL NETWORKS: Faces "Cuddihey"and "Witmer" Suits in New York -------------------------------------------------------------- Mitel Networks Corporation said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on June 29, 2018, that the company is facing the cases captioned as, Cuddihey v. Mitel Networks Corporation., et al., and Witmer v. Mitel Networks Corporation, et al., respectively. On June 8, 2018, Mitel filed and commenced mailing its definitive proxy statement on Schedule 14A. Following the filing of the Proxy Statement, on June 21, 2018, purported shareholders of Mitel filed putative class action lawsuits against Mitel and members of the Mitel board of directors (the "Board") in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Cuddihey v. Mitel Networks Corporation., et al., Case 1:18-cv-05561-LAP (S.D.N.Y.) and Witmer v. Mitel Networks Corporation, et al., No 1:18-cv-05672 (S.D.N.Y.), respectively. The complaints are substantially identical and allege that the defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, because the Proxy Statement allegedly omitted material information with respect to the arrangement, thus rendering the Proxy Statement false and misleading. The complaints seek, among other things, injunctive relief preventing the consummation of the arrangement and costs of the applicable action, including reasonable allowance for plaintiff attorneys' and experts' fees. Mitel Networks Corporation provides cloud and on-site business communications and collaboration software, services, and solutions. It operates in two segments, Enterprise and Cloud. The company is based in Ontario, Canada. MONSANTO CO: Farmers Sue in Missouri Over Ruined Crops ------------------------------------------------------ Sam Knef, writing for St. Louis Record, reports that Monsanto and BASF Corp. face a federal class action lawsuit alleging their products have caused crop losses on millions of acres of farmland across the U.S. Several farmers filed the suit July 18 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri claiming the companies conspired to "set in motion" a chain of events that has destroyed crops in Scott, Stoddard, Cape Girardeau and Bollinger counties. According to the complaint, Monsanto released its Xtend brand cotton seeds in 2015 and Xtend soybeans in 2016 without an effective and safe herbicide to use for those crops. In 2017, BASF released their dicamba-based herbicides that are prone to drift. The suit further claims that crops grown using Xtend seeds are somewhat dicamba-tolerant, but crops from non-dicamba-tolerant seeds are vulnerable to damage caused by the herbicide. "Defendant Monsanto knew farmers would purchase and use other dicamba herbicides to spray on its Xtend crops and defendants encouraged farmers to do so, even though such spraying was not legal," the complaint states. The farmers allege off-label dicamba spraying over Xtend seeds increased sales of the seeds and herbicides, creating a "modern-day agricultural protection racket." The plaintiffs say thousands of farmers could be affected. They are represented by attorneys at Gray, Ritter and Graham in St. Louis. [GN] MONSANTO CO: Wildy Suit Transferred to E.D. Mo. ----------------------------------------------- The case captioned David Wildy, individually and as representative of David Wildy Farms Partnership, Patty Wildy, individually and as representative of David Wildy Farms Partnership, Tab Wildy, individually and as representative of David Wildy Farms Partnership, Bethany Harris, individually and as representative of David Wildy Farms Partnership, Paul Harris, individually and as representative of David Wildy Farms Partnership, Justin Wildy, individually and as representative of David Wildy Farms Partnersidp And As Representative of Justin Wildy Farms Partnership, Kristi Wildy, individually and as representative of David Wildy Farms partnership and as representative of Justin Wildy Farms Partnership, David Wildy Farms Partnership, Justin Wildy Farms Partnership, Earl H. Wildy Inc., Wildy Farms North, Inc., Wildy Farms South, Inc., Wildy Farms East, LLC, Wildy Land Company, LLC, v. Monsanto Company, BASF SE, BASF Corporation and John Doe Companies A-Z, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00127 (E.D. Ark., July 13, 2017), was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (Cape Girardeau) on July 31, 2018, under Case No. 18-cv-00188. Plaintiffs seeks compensatory and punitive damages, costs, expert fees, disbursements and attorneys' fees incurred in prosecuting this action, disgorgement of profits, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate and such other relief resulting from unjust enrichment, negligence, fraud, fraudulent concealment, breach of implied warranty of merchantability and violation of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The Monsanto Company developed and released genetically modified soybeans designed to combat problematic weeds that have become resistant to certain herbicides over time where its most popular herbicide are Roundup and Dicamba. Monsanto partnered with BASF, a German chemical company, a joint licensing agreement to accelerate the development of dicamba-based weed control products. Monsanto insists that dicamba-resistant seeds and the dicamba-based herbicides should be used in tandem. However, Monsanto sold the seeds before approval by the Environmental Protection Agency of its partner herbicide. The farmers can no longer use the old herbicide because of volatility issues, says the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Don M. Downing, Esq. Gretchen Garrison, Esq. Jack A. Downing, Esq. Jason D. Sapp, Esq. GRAY AND RITTER, P.C. 701 Market Street, Suite 800 St. Louis, MO 63101-1826 Tel: (314) 241-5620 Fax: (314) 241-4140 Email: ddowning@grgpc.com ggarrison@grgpc.com jdowning@grgpc.com jsapp@grgpc.com - and - John Paul Byrd, Esq. Joseph D. Gates, Esq. PAUL BYRD LAW FIRM, PLLC 415 N. McKinley St., Suite 210 Little Rock, AR 72205 Tel: (501) 420-3050 Fax: (501) 420-3128 Email: paul@paulbyrdlawfirm.com joseph@paulbyrdlawfirm.com - and - Kaitlin Ann Bridges, Esq. GRAY, RITTER & GRAHAM PC 701 Market Street, Suite 800 St. Louis, MO 63101 Tel: (314) 241-5620 Email: kbridges@grgpc.com MONSANTO CO: Wiseman Files Suit Over Roundup Exposure ----------------------------------------------------- Patricia Wiseman, Plaintiff, v. Monsanto Company, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-01265 (E.D. Mo., July 27, 2018), seeks compensatory and punitive damages, costs, expert fees, disbursements and attorneys' fees incurred in prosecuting this action, disgorgement of profits, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate and such other relief resulting from negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. Wiseman claims she was exposed to glyphosate and surfactant POEA while mixing and spraying Roundup and developed Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma in 2015. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Email: sethw@getbc.com Tel: (314) 222-2222 Fax: (314) 421-0359 MONSANTO COMPANY: Jons' Product Liability Suit Transferred to Mo. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Kay Don Jons, Plaintiff, v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 18-cv-03010 (D. S.D., July 11, 2018), was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (Cape Girardeau) on July 31, 2018, under Case No. 18-cv-00192. According to the complaint, Monsanto marketed its genetically modified cotton and soybean Xtend seeds without a corollary EPA-approved herbicide (together known as a "system"). Defendant's premature commercialization of its defective cotton and soybean Xtend seed system and its purchasers' inevitable and foreseeable use of the alternative herbicide, dicamba, a drift-prone herbicide, has wiped out crops on hundreds of thousands of acres of farmland in the United States. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Shannon R. Falon, Esq. Steven M. Johnson, Esq. JOHNSON, JANKLOW, ABDALLAH & REITER, LLP 101 South Main Avenue, Suite 100 PO Box 2348 Sioux Falls, SD 57104-5933 Tel: (605) 338-4304 Fax: (605) 338-4162 Email: shannon@janklowabdallah.com steve@janklowabdallah.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Young Sues Over Roundup(R)-Related Injuries -------------------------------------------------------------- SARAH MAE YOUNG, and CHARLES W. YOUNG v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Case No. 3:18-cv-00502-RGJ (W.D. Ky., July 30, 2018), is brought for damages over injuries allegedly suffered by the Plaintiffs as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling and sale of the herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup(R) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiffs contend that their injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. Monsanto Company is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located in St. Louis, Missouri. Monsanto is a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation and is the world's leading producer of glyphosate.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jennifer A. Moore, Esq. Ashton Rose Smith, Esq. GROSSMAN & MOORE, PLLC One Riverfront Plaza 401 West Main Street, Suite 1810 Louisville, KY 40202 Telephone: (502) 657-7100 Facsimile: (502) 657-7111 E-mail: jmoore@gminjurylaw.com asmith@gminjurylaw.com MORTGAGE CONTRACTING: Weinstein Seeks Final Settlement Approval --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned LAWRENCE WEINSTEIN, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MORTGAGE CONTRACTING SERVICES, LLC and DOES 1-50, the Defendants, Case No. 5:14-cv-02521-JGB-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on August 20, 2018, for an order approving final approval of class settlement. Defendant agreed to pay up to $4,000,000 in consideration for the settlement and the releases provided therein. The court preliminarily approved the settlement by Order dated February 8, 2018. Attorneys for Plaintiff: Dennis F. Moss, Esq. MOSS BOLLINGER LLP 15300 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 207 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (310) 773 0323 Facsimile: (818) 963 5954 E-mail: dennis@dennismosslaw.com - and - Samuel S. Deskin (SBN 216974) DESKIN LAW FIRM 16944 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 8 Encino, CA 91316 Telephone: (818) 709 8978 Facsimile: (818) 709 8971 NATIONAL ENTERPRISE: Carcamo Hits Illegal Debt Collection --------------------------------------------------------- Nelsy Carcamo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. National Enterprise Systems, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-04362 (E.D. N.Y., August 1, 2018), seeks redress for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Act. National Enterprise Systems is a debt collection agency in Solon, Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. NCAA: Poppy Livers Has 2nd Chance to Pursue Wage Suit ----------------------------------------------------- P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligence, reports that after fumbling in the first round of litigation, former Villanova University football wide receiver Lawrence "Poppy" Livers has scored a second chance to pursue his lawsuit against the NCAA and dozens of colleges claiming he should have been paid for his time as a scholarship athlete. On July 27, U.S. District Judge Michael Baylson of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, who previously dismissed Livers' first complaint for lack of standing, denied the NCAA and Villanova's request to dismiss his refined lawsuit. Baylson said that this time around, Livers made allegations plausible enough that he could proceed under the Fair Labor Standards Act. In his amended complaint, Livers added the argument that NCAA athletes are no different from work-study students, except that the athletes do more arduous and time-consuming labor. "These allegations permit the plausible inferences that scholarship athletes, like their work study counterparts, fall within employee status under the FLSA," Baylson wrote in his July 25 opinion, "and that defendants Villanova and the NCAA were aware of this when they chose not to pay them, suggesting reckless disregard of the alleged duty." The NCAA was quick to point out that Baylson's ruling did not spell victory for Livers just yet. "Today's limited ruling did not find student-athletes are employees," the NCAA's chief legal officer, Donald Remy, said in an email on July 27. "Rather, it guided the NCAA to file a new motion in 75 days, allowing the plaintiff time to gather any evidence to support his claim," Remy continued. "As we previously have stated, we are confident there is neither a legal nor factual basis to support the idea that college athletics participation makes a student a university employee." Livers' lawyer, Paul I. McDonald,Esq.--pmcdonald@bernsteinshur.com--did not respond to multiple requests for comment. Baylson had previously dismissed the case because at that time, Livers did not show that the NCAA or Villanova exhibited "willful disregard." "Plaintiff does not allege any facts regarding any school or the NCAA having knowledge of any potential duty to compensate plaintiff, or even disregarding such a duty," Baylson said in his May 17 opinion. "Unless plaintiff can allege facts that if true would be sufficient to establish that the defendants acted intentionally or with reckless disregard to their obligations under the FLSA, then his claim must be dismissed as time barred" under the statute of limitations. In response to Livers' amended complaint, Villanova and the NCAA repeated the argument that the time limit to file the case had expired. But this time Baylson disagreed, because showing that a wage violation was "willfully" committed provides a time extension to file claims, as Livers did in his most recent complaint. [GN] NEW DOMINION: Central Oklahoma Residents Won't Get Sept. Trial -------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah Terry-Cobo, writing for The Journal Record, reports that Central Oklahoma residents won't get a trial in September in a case against an oil company that allegedly triggered earthquakes, damaging homes and buildings. A Cleveland County judge outlined the rules for the class-action case brought by Jennifer Lin Cooper against New Dominion LLC. Judge Lori Walkley issued a journal entry on the limited class certification on July 13, allowing the defendant to begin the appeal process. Surface and mineral owner attorney Terry Stowers, who is not affiliated with the case, said it's a big deal any time a class is certified at trial court level. It shows the plaintiffs' attorney Scott Poynter can establish liability against New Dominion and carry the burden of proof, Mr. Stowers said. "A bunch of certified classes often settle because of the risk of liability and the risk of exposure," he said. Ms. Cooper's house rattled and shook in early November 2011, as a swarm of strong earthquakes swept through nine counties over three days. The strongest was a magnitude 5.7 temblor with its epicenter in Prague, affecting 174 homes and destroying four. That temblor series was the first sign of what would become a regular occurrence in a state not previously familiar with earthquakes. Ms. Cooper alleged New Dominion, Spess Oil and 25 John Does injected oil-field wastewater into underground disposal wells, causing the Prague temblor swarm. New Dominion's wastewater disposal activities are ultra-hazardous and come with strict liability, court documents alleged. Disposing of wastewater and triggering quakes is a private nuisance that interferes with residents' ability to enjoy their homes, businesses and land, according to her petition. "Whether or not plaintiff 'has the science' to prove her case is a question of fact for the jury," Judge Walkley wrote in a summary order on May 18. But if the jury agrees with New Dominion in the case's first phase, then the trial is over, Mr. Stowers said. If they side with the plaintiffs, then individual plaintiffs can proceed with damage cases in a series of mini-trials. That's fairly common procedure, he said. "You've got a common set of facts that can be resolved for the class as a whole easily," Mr. Stowers said. "But the other issues can be resolved either on a class-wide or individual claims procedures. There are a variety of different mechanisms the court can employ." Mr. Poynter negotiated a settlement with Spess Oil and several John Does before the class was certified. A representative from Spess Oil was not available for comment. New Dominion attorney Fred Buxton said he will appeal the certification, but otherwise declined to comment. Oklahoma oil and gas operators rely on wastewater disposal wells as part of hydrocarbon production. Extremely salty water resides underground with oil and gas and is brought to the surface when those commodities are produced. Injecting that briny, toxic substance into deep disposal wells helps reduce the risk that the fluid will contaminate surface water or underground aquifers. Scientists established in the early 1970s that injecting fluid into underground faults could lubricate those structures and trigger an earthquake. A series of strong temblors outside Denver in the late 1960s were the result of a Department of Defense project that injected waste chemicals into the Rocky Mountain Arsenal well. Former Oklahoma Geological Survey scientist Austin Holland said in a 2017 deposition in the Cooper case that the cause of the Prague swarm was the result of wastewater disposal in the region. New Dominion operated high-volume disposal wells in the area. Oklahoma Corporation Commission staff members have directed changes since then, and the majority of the company's wells in the area have been shut down or the approved injection volumes were lowered. A trial in her case was initially scheduled for September. Mr. Poynter told Judge Walkley in a hearing earlier this year that he would agree to remove the trial from the court's calendar if it was certified. In his last case, the appeal took nine months. He said he expected to finish the settlement agreement documents with Spess Oil and the other defendants soon. Mr. Stowers is the executive director of the Coalition of Oklahoma Surface and Mineral Owners and has settled class-action lawsuits on royalty payment issues. His last class certification appeal lasted nearly two years. He said the plaintiffs are likely to keep the case certified, despite New Dominion's expected appeal. "Both sides should want it certified for that purpose, so if the defendant doesn't believe they caused the earthquakes, you want to resolve it all at once," he said. "But it likely won't settle any time soon. That's a typical response to settle in more than a year." [GN] NEWELL BRANDS: Levi & Korsinsky Files Class Action -------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, disclosed that class action lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the court and further details about the cases can be found at the links provided. There is no cost or obligation to you. Newell Brands Inc. (NYSE:NWL) Class Period: February 6, 2017 - January 24, 2018 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 20, 2018 Join the action: http://www.zlk.com/pslra-d/newell-brands-inc?wire=3 The lawsuit alleges: Newell Brands Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company's retail channel was loaded with extremely high levels of unsold Newell product; (ii) contrary to defendants' representations, the build-up of Newell inventory in the retail channel was due to Company-specific rather than macroeconomic reasons; (iii) as a result of the unusually high levels of unsold inventory in the retail channel, Newell was exposed to a heightened risk that it would experience slower sales growth in future periods; and (iv) undisclosed managerial and cultural differences in the legacy Newell and Jarden businesses had created significant discord that was having a material adverse effect on the Company's operating performance. To learn more about the NWL class action contact jlevi@levikorsinsky.com. You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request the court appoint as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Levi & Korsinsky, LLP 30 Broad Street - 24th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Toll Free: (877) 363-5972 Fax: (212) 363-7171 Website: www.zlk.com Email: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com [GN] NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Unit Continues to Defend Class Suit in Virginia ----------------------------------------------------------------- Northrop Grumman Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 25, 2018, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that Orbital ATK, Inc. continues to defend a putative class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. On August 12, 2016, a putative class action complaint, naming Orbital ATK and two of its then-officers as defendants, Steven Knurr, et al. v. Orbital ATK, Inc., No. 16-cv-01031 (TSE-MSN), was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The complaint asserts claims on behalf of purchasers of Orbital ATK securities for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, allegedly arising out of false and misleading statements and the failure to disclose that: (i) Orbital ATK lacked effective control over financial reporting; and (ii) as a result, it failed to record an anticipated loss on a long-term contract with the U.S. Army to manufacture and supply small caliber ammunition at the U.S. Army's Lake City Army Ammunition Plant. On April 24, 2017 and October 10, 2017, the plaintiffs filed amended complaints naming additional defendants and asserting claims for alleged violations of additional sections of the Exchange Act and alleged false and misleading statements in Orbital ATK's Form S-4 filed in connection with the Orbital-ATK Merger. The complaint seeks damages, reasonable costs and expenses at trial, including counsel and expert fees, and such other relief as deemed appropriate by the Court. Northrop Grumman said "Although the ultimate outcome of this matter, including any possible loss, cannot be predicted or reasonably estimated at this time, the company intends vigorously to defend the matter." Northrop Grumman Corporation operates as a security company for government and commercial customers worldwide. It provides products, systems, and solutions in autonomous systems; cyber; command, control, communications and computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (C4ISR); strike; and logistics and modernization. Northrop Grumman Corporation was founded in 1939 and is based in Falls Church, Virginia. NOVATO HEALTHCARE: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Understaffing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Halstead, writing for Marin Independent Journal, reports that two Marin nursing homes in San Rafael and Novato are among 15 statewide that have been hit by class action lawsuits alleging that their owner systematically understaffed them to increase his profits. "The elderly and infirm are one of the most important and yet vulnerable segments of our society," said Stephen Garcia, one of the attorneys representing the complainants. "To knowingly understaff these facilities in violation of promised resident rights so as to unlawfully maximize profit, victimizes our important resource of elders and needs to end." The Marin skilled nursing sites included in the suit are the 181-bed Novato Healthcare Center, the county's largest nursing home, and San Rafael Healthcare and Wellness Center, which has 54 beds. The suits allege that the owner of the centers concealed the fact that the sites were not adequately staffed to meet the needs of its residents during the admission process in violation of the state Patients' Bill of Rights. The suits, which were filed in Marin Superior Court and other California courts in July, name Shlomo Rechnitz and a number of other entities — Brius Management, ASRU, Rockport Administrative Services, Novato Healthcare Center and San Rafael Wellness — as defendants. However, all of the entities named in the suits are effectively controlled by Rechnitz, according to the two law firms that filed the suits — Garcia, Artigliere & Medby and the Arns Law Firm. Jill Basinger, a spokeswoman for Rechnitz, responded to the suits in an email. "As opposed to Mr. Garcia's serious allegations, these nursing facilities not only maintain the state required 3.2 nursing hours per patient day, they even exceed them," Ms. Basinger wrote. "There is nothing new here. All of these lawsuits are completely duplicative of an existing 4-year-old class action which Mr. Garcia is desperately concerned he will lose. It is noteworthy that none of these 'class action' lawsuits allege any harm to any resident in any facility. It is evident that Mr. Garcia is using the court system to attempt to harass, vex and annoy Mr. Rechnitz." STATE AUDIT FINDINGS Last year, at the request of Marin's representative in the state Senate, Mike McGuire, D-Healdsburg, and state Assemblyman Jim Wood, D-Healdsburg, the California State Auditor looked into allegations that Brius Healthcare Services, which Rechnitz controls, was inflating prices to profit from Medi-Cal reimbursements. At the time, the legislators said there was evidence that Brius nursing homes were paying inflated prices to some of their related businesses, with some prices exceeding 200 percent of the local market average. The auditor's report, released on May 1, looked at two other nursing home companies in addition to Brius: Longwood Management Corp., and Plum Healthcare Group. The three are the largest private operators of nursing home companies in the state. The report said, "All three companies made less than $10 million in net income in 2006, but by 2015 their net incomes had increased to between $35.2 million and $53.8 million." The report, however, said the largest increases in the companies' revenue during this period were Medicare and managed care. The report said Medi-Cal likely did not contribute significantly to the companies' net incomes because it does not fully cover nursing facilities' costs per Medi-Cal patient. EXTRA REVENUE The report went on to say that the owners of all three companies were able to earn income — separate from the revenue its nursing facilities earned from Medicare, Medi-Cal, or managed care — when its nursing facilities obtained goods and services from related parties, or other businesses that they or their family members owned or controlled. The report stated, however, "We found that related-party transactions are common in the industry and are legally allowable. Medi-Cal takes several measures to limit the possibility that it might pay for profits from related-party transactions." The auditors report also found that state agencies doing too little to maintain quality of care at nursing homes. According to the report, from 2006 through 2015, the number of substandard care deficiencies that nursing facilities received increased by 31 percent, while at the same time, the number of state citations from the Department of Public Health decreased by 34 percent. The audit found that Brius Healthcare had the most serious quality of care deficiencies out of the three audited companies — more than twice as high as the rate of all facilities in the industry. Medicare.gov, the government website for Medicare, ranks both Novato Healthcare Center and San Rafael Healthcare and Wellness Center below average for every category it issues rankings: health inspections, quality of care, staffing, fire safety and penalties. In June 2015, the Sacramento Bee reported that between October 2014 and January 2015, three of Brius' facilities were decertified by the federal government, preventing them from receiving Medicare and Medi-Cal funding. [GN] OCLARO INC: Lumentum Merger Deal Triggers Several Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------- Oclaro, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on June 29, 2018, that the company is facing several putative class action suits in connection with the company's announcement of its merger agreement with Lumentum. Following Oclaro's and Lumentum's announcement of the execution of the Merger Agreement on March 12, 2018, seven lawsuits have been filed by purported stockholders of Oclaro challenging the Merger. The first suit, a putative class action styled as Nicholas Neinast v. Oclaro, Inc., et al., No. 3:18-cv-03112-VC, was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on May 24, 2018, and is against Oclaro, its directors, Lumentum, Merger Sub, and Merger Sub LLC (the "Neinast Lawsuit"). Five additional suits, styled as Gerald F. Wordehoff v. Oclaro, Inc., et al., No. 5:18-cv-03148-NC (the "Wordehoff Lawsuit"), Walter Ryan v. Oclaro, Inc., et al., No. 3:18-cv-03174-VC (the "Ryan Lawsuit"), and Jayme Walker v. Oclaro, Inc., et al., No. 3:18-cv-03203 (the "Walker Lawsuit"), Kevin Garcia v. Oclaro, Inc., et al., No. 5:18-cv-03262-VKD (the "Garcia Lawsuit"), and Saisravan Bharadwaj Karri v. Oclaro, Inc., et al., No. 3:18-cv-03435-JD (the "Karri Lawsuit") were also filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on, respectively, May 25, 2018, May 29, 2018, May 30, 2018, May 31, 2018 and June 9, 2018. Each of the lawsuits name Oclaro and its directors as defendants. The Ryan Lawsuit and the Karri Lawsuit, like the Neinast Lawsuit, are putative class actions. A seventh suit, a putative class action styled as Adam Franchi v. Oclaro, Inc., et al., Case 1:18-cv-00817-GMS, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware on May 30, 2018, and is against Oclaro, its directors, Lumentum, Merger Sub, and Merger Sub LLC (the "Franchi Lawsuit" and, with the Neinast Lawsuit, the Wordehoff Lawsuit, the Ryan Lawsuit, the Walker Lawsuit, the Garcia Lawsuit, and the Karri Lawsuit, the "Lawsuits"). The Lawsuits allege that Oclaro and its directors violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder because the Proxy Statement/Prospectus was incomplete and misleading. The Lawsuits further allege that Oclaro's directors violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by failing to exercise proper control over the person(s) who violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act. The Neinast Lawsuit additionally alleges that Oclaro's directors breached fiduciary duties by entering into the Merger, and also names Lumentum, Merger Sub, and Merger Sub LLC as violators of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder. The Franchi Lawsuit additionally names Lumentum, Merger Sub, and Merger Sub LLC as violators of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Oclaro believes that the claims asserted in the Lawsuits are without merit and believes that the Proxy Statement/Prospectus disclosed all material information concerning the Merger and no supplemental disclosure is required under applicable law. However, in order to avoid the risk of the Lawsuits delaying or adversely affecting the Merger and to minimize the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, Oclaro has determined to voluntarily supplement the Proxy Statement/Prospectus. To the contrary, Oclaro specifically denies all allegations in the Lawsuits that any additional disclosure was or is required. A copy of the supplemental proxy statement/prospectus is available at https://goo.gl/7rj3gc. Oclaro, Inc. designs, manufactures, and markets optical components, modules, and subsystems for the long-haul, metro, and data center markets worldwide. The company’s products generate, detect, combine, and separate light signals in optical communications networks. The company is based in San Jose, California. PARAGONCOINS: Rapper Among Defendants in Weed Cryptocurrency Case ----------------------------------------------------------------- Victoria Johnson, writing for Complex.com, reports that Viacom is coming for The Game's pockets. After winning a $20 million lawsuit against him, Viacom wants the rapper to pay for the legal fees they had to shell out for the case, according to court documents obtained by The Blast. Viacom's legal bill is reportedly $35,729.50, and they're looking to get reimbursed. The original lawsuit happened when The Game sued the television giant for negligence in bringing a woman with a criminal background to join the cast for his VH1 dating show, She Got Game. The woman, identified as Priscilla Rainey, later accused The Game of sexual assault and won a $7.1 million in a lawsuit against him. The Game later sued Viacom for the $7.1 million and an additional $20 million for damages and negligence mentioned above. However, the case was dismissed and now Viacom is adding insult to injury by asking him to pay for his loss. These aren't the only legal troubles The Game is having lately either. He's also being sued for promoting a cryptocurrency company accused of failing to live up to the promise of revolutionizing the weed industry. The multi-million-dollar class-action lawsuit was filed against the rapper and the crypto business, ParagonCoins. The company reportedly promised to "track every stage of cannabis cultivation, from the purchasing of seeds all the way down the line to the dispensary selling the final product to consumers" but failed to live up to the hype. Unfortunately for The Game, he used his social media platform to promote the company. And now he may have to pay for that as well. [GN] PERDUE FOODS: Drew Seeks to Certify Class of Clerks --------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned WILL DREW, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PERDUE FOODS LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00147-RBS-RJK (E.D. Va.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. conditionally certifying a collective class defined as: "all individuals who work or have worked for Perdue Foods LLC at its facility in Accomack, Virginia, as clerks or backup clerks within three years of the date of the filing of this stipulation, or July 6, 2018, and from whom Perdue Foods LLC possibly took deductions from their pay in connection with meal periods in which these individuals continued to perform work"; 2. approving the form and substance of an agreed-upon notice of collective action lawsuit; and 3. directing Defendant to provide name, last known mailing address, personal email address (if known), telephone number, and dates of employment for each putative collective class member in Microsoft Office Excel format to Plaintiff's Counsel no later than 14 days from the date this Stipulation is approved by the Court. Attorneys for Plaintiff: Philip Justus Dean, Esq. Craig Juraj Curwood, Esq. CURWOOD LAW FIRM 530 E. Main Street, Suite 710 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 788 0808 Facsimile: (804) 767 6777 E-mail: pdean@curwoodlaw.com ccurwood@curwoodlaw.com - and - Joshua L. Jewett, Esq. Brittany M. Wrigley, Esq. ERVIN JEWETT, P.C. 2400 Dominion Tower 999 Waterside Drive Norfolk, VA 23510 Telephone: (757) 624 9323 Facsimile: (757) 624 8414 Attorneys for Defendant: Kristina H. Vaquera, Esq. Milena Radovic, Esq. Keith D. Hudolin, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS PC Main St., Ste. 800 Norfolk, VA 23510 Telephone: (757) 648 1448 Facsimile: (757) 648 1418 E-mail: Kristina.Vaquera@jacksonlewis.com Milena.Radovic@jacksonlewis.com keith.hudolin@jacksonlewis.com PINNACLE ENTERTAINMENT: Allen Bid to Certify Class Okayed in Part ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned RICHARD L. ALLEN, et al., the Plaintiffs, v. PINNACLE ENTERTAINMENT, INC., et al., the Defendant, Case No. 17-00374-CV-W-GAF (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Gary A. Fenner entered an order: 1. granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' motion for conditional class certification; and 2. granting Defendants' motion to strike declarations in part and denying in part. The Court approves the proposed Notice and Consent to Join Form with the following changes: 1. Delete all references to the Nationwide Tip Credit Notification Policy Collective and the Nationwide Table Games Supervisor Collective. This includes, but is not limited to, statements such as "you were a tipped employee"; "you were a Table Games Supervisor"; 'failing to properly inform tipped employees of the federal tip credit requirements"; "misclassifying Table Games Supervisors as exempt, and not paying overtime wages"; "you are or were an hourly, tipped employee who worked at Pinnacle or one of its subsidiary casinos in the United States at any time from three years prior to DATE, and were paid a direct hourly wage that was less than the federal minimum wage at that time"; "you are or were a Table Games Supervisor who worked at Pinnacle or one of its subsidiary casinos in the United States at any time from three years prior to DATE, and were classified as exempt and denied compensation at a rate of one and one-half times your regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of forty in a workweek"; "Pinnacle's records may have also show that you are or were a tipped employee"; Pinnacle's records may also have shown that you were a Table Games Supervisor"; "for tipped employees, Plaintiffs contend that Pinnacle and its subsidiary casinos violated the Fair Labor Standards act by not correctly notifying tipped employees that they were claiming part of the employees' tips as credits against their obligations to pay minimum wage"; and "for Table Games Supervisors, Plaintiffs contend that Pinnacle misclassified them as exempt employees, and as a result, failed to compensate them for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek." 2. The length of the collective period shall be from three years prior to the date of this Order until July 22, 2016. 3. The length of the notice period shall be 60 days and shall commence with the mailing of the Notice, as described further below. 4. The collective definition shall not include individuals who have released the same or similar claims as a result of any other litigation, including the Astarita case, and shall be altered accordingly. 5. Edit Section 9 to read: "No. It is a violation of federal law for Pinnacle or its subsidiary casinos to retaliate against you for joining this case." 6. Delete the following statement from the Consent to Join: "If this case does not proceed collectively, I also consent to join any subsequent action against Defendants for unpaid wages and/or overtime." The Defendants shall produce the following information for each putative collective member in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet or other format mutually agreed-to by the parties within 14 days of the date of this Order: (a) full name; (b) last known address; (c) last known email address; (d) date(s) of employment; (e) location(s) of employment; and (f) job title(s) held during their employment. Notice shall be disseminated through first class mail and email to putative collective members within 45 days of the date of this Order. Notice shall also be posted in conspicuous locations at Pinnacle's subsidiary casinos and properties where putative collective members are employed during the opt-in period. No reminder mailing or email is necessary or allowed, the Court said. PROLOGIS INC: Faces Class Suits Challenging DCT Merger ------------------------------------------------------ Prologis, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2018, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company is facing several putative class action suits related to the merger with DCT Industrial Trust Inc. ("DCT") and DCT Industrial Operating Partnership LP ("DCT OP"). On April 29, 2018, the company entered into a definitive agreement with DCT Industrial Trust Inc. ("DCT") and DCT Industrial Operating Partnership LP ("DCT OP"), pursuant to which, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement, (i) DCT will merge with and into Prologis, with Prologis surviving the merger (the "Company Merger") and (ii) immediately prior to the effective time of the Company Merger, DCT OP will merge with and into the OP, with the OP surviving the merger. In connection with the Mergers, on July 2, 2018, DCT, DCT OP, DCT's board of directors (the "DCT Board"), Prologis, and the OP were sued in a putative class action lawsuit, the Rosenblatt Action, filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, in connection with DCT's proposed merger with Prologis and the related Form S-4. The complaint in the Rosenblatt Action alleges that DCT, DCT OP, the DCT Board, Prologis, and Prologis OP violated federal securities laws by omitting material information from the Form S-4, rendering the Form S-4 materially deficient. On July 10, 2018, DCT and the DCT Board were sued in another putative class action lawsuit, the Bushansky Action, also filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, and also in connection with DCT's proposed merger with Prologis and the related Form S-4. On July 13, 2018, DCT, DCT OP and the DCT Board were sued in a third putative class action lawsuit, the Aiken Action, filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, also in connection with DCT's proposed merger with Prologis and the related Form S-4. The complaints in the Bushansky Action and the Aiken Action allege that DCT and the DCT Board violated federal securities laws by omitting from the Form S-4, and/or misrepresenting in the Form S-4, material information, rendering the Form S-4 materially deficient. In all three actions, the plaintiffs seek, among other things, (i) to enjoin the transaction (or rescind it to the extent it is completed), and (ii) attorneys' fees and costs in connection with these lawsuits. Prologis said "Although the ultimate outcome of litigation cannot be predicted with certainty, we believe that these lawsuits are without merit and intend to defend against these actions vigorously." Prologis, Inc. is the global leader in logistics real estate with a focus on high-barrier, high-growth markets. The company is based in San Francisco, California. QUALITY BEVERAGE: Teixeira Labor Suit Removed to Mass. Dist. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Chad Teixeira, for himself and for others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Quality Beverage LP, Defendant, Case No. 1873-cv-00407 filed in the Bristol County Superior Court in Massachusetts, was removed to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Boston) on July 30, 2018, under Case No. 18-cv-11589. Quality Beverage -- http://www.qblp.com-- is an independent beer wholesaler in Taunton, MA where Teixeira worked as a driver and warehouse worker. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Alyssa M. Jankowski, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD RAFFERTY PC 238 Shrewsbury Street Worcester, MA 01604 Tel: (508) 795-1601 Email: ajankowski@edenrafferty.com - and - Gregory P. Benoit, Esq. Richard J. Rafferty, Jr., Esq. EDEN RAFFERTY TETREAU & ERLICH 238 Shrewsbury Street Worcester, MA 01604 Tel: (508) 795-1601 Email: gbenoit@edenrafferty.com rrafferty@edenrafferty.com Quality Beverage LP is represented by: Geoffrey P. Wermuth, Esq. MURPHY, HESSE, TOOMEY & LEHANE, LLP 300 Crown Colony Drive, Suite 400 Quincy, MA 02169 Tel: (617) 691-1979 Fax: (617) 479-6469 Email: gwermuth@mhtl.com RED ROBIN: Outlaw Sues Over Unfair Labor Practices -------------------------------------------------- Eric Outlaw, individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Red Robin International, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-04357, (E.D. N.Y., August 2, 2018), seeks redress for violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. Red Robin International operates as Red Robin Gourmet Burgers and Brews, or simply Red Robin, a chain of casual dining restaurants. [BN] Plaintiff appears pro se. ROCKWELL MEDICAL: Bernstein Liebhard Files Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law firm, has filed a securities class action lawsuit on behalf of those who purchased or acquired the securities of Rockwell Medical, Inc. ("Rockwell" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:RMTI) between March 16, 2018 and June 26, 2018, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover Rockwell shareholders' investment losses. According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Rockwell was aware that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services will not pursue Rockwell's proposal for separate reimbursement for Triferic; (2) the estimated reserves in Rockwell's Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2018 are misstated; (3) there was a material weakness in Rockwell's internal control over financial reporting; (4) consequently, Rockwell's internal control over financial reporting was ineffective during the Class Period; (5) Robert L. Chioini, former Chief Executive Officer of Rockwell, withheld material information regarding Triferic from Rockwell's auditor, corporate counsel and five independent directors of Rockwell's Board; and (6) as a result, Defendants' statements about Rockwell's business, operations and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked reasonable bases at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. The class action is pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, under docket number 1:18-cv-04253. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September 25, 2018. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action, you may remain an absent class member. To join the Rockwell class action, and/or to discuss your legal rights and options, please visit https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/rockwell-medical-inc-rmti-class-action-lawsuit-72/ Daniel Sadeh, Esq. Bernstein Liebhard LLP 10 East 40th Street, New York New York 10016 Email: dsadeh@bernlieb.com [GN] SENIOR CARE CENTERS: Ward Wins Conditional Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned JOSEPH WARD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SENIOR CARE CENTERS, LLC, a foreign corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 5:17-cv-00422-FB-HJB (W.D. Tex.), the Court granted in part Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification. Notice shall be issued to this putative class: "all hourly-paid Direct-Care Staff who worked at the Mesa Visa Inn Health Center in San Antonio, Texas, during the period from May 11, 2014 to the present. SERENITY TRANSPORTATION: Motion for Class Certification Granted --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned CURTIS JOHNSON, et al., the Plaintiffs, v. SERENITY TRANSPORTATION, INC., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-02004-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley entered an order on August 1, 2018: 1. granting Plaintiffs' motion for class certification as to all of Plaintiffs' claims against Serenity; and 2. denying motion to certify claims against the SCI Defendants. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification as to the Serenity Defendants, including David Friedel, is granted on the issues of (1) misclassification, (2) whether on-call time is compensable, (3) the expense reimbursement claim, and (4) and the wage statement, waiting time penalty and unfair competition claims to the extent they are derivative of any of these claims/issues. Should the trier of fact find that the on-call time is compensable, the overtime, minimum-wage, and meal and rest break claims (and any derivative claims) may proceed on a class-wide basis as well. If the trier of fact finds that it is not compensable, the drivers may still have valid overtime, minimum-wage and meal and rest break claims, but those claims must proceed on an individual basis, the Court said. SILICON LABORATORIES: "Noyes" Suit Voluntarily Dismissed -------------------------------------------------------- Silicon Laboratories Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 25, 2018, for the quarterly period ended May 31, 2018, that the purported class action suit filed by Ann Noyes was voluntarily dismissed. On March 15, 2018, a purported class action lawsuit was filed by Ann Noyes on behalf of the stockholders of Sigma Designs, Inc. in the United States District Court in the Northern District of California against Sigma Designs, certain current and former Sigma Designs board members and the Company (collectively, the "Defendants"). The lawsuit alleged violations of Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 14a-9 arising out of Sigma Designs' attempt to sell its Z-Wave business to the Company. The lawsuit claimed that the Defendants filed a materially incomplete and misleading preliminary proxy statement in connection with the proposed sale of the Z-Wave business. The lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed on May 17, 2018. Silicon Laboratories Inc., a fabless semiconductor company, designs, develops, and markets mixed-signal integrated circuits (ICs) in the United States, China, and internationally. Silicon Laboratories was founded in 1996 and is headquartered in Austin, Texas. SMILEMAKERS INC: Wainess Files Placeholder Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit entitled P. STEVEN WAINESS, DDS, a Michigan resident, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. SMILEMAKERS, INC., a South Carolina corporation, and BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC., a Delaware corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-12177-AC-APP (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff filed a placeholder motion for class certification in order to prevent against a "buy-off" attempt, a tactic class-action defendants sometimes use to attempt to prevent a case from proceeding to a decision on class certification by attempting to "moot" the named plaintiff's claims by tendering the plaintiff individual (but not classwide) relief. In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016), the Supreme Court held "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case," and "a would-be class representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair opportunity to show that certification is warranted." The Sixth Circuit applied Campbell-Ewald in an unreported opinion in Family Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. MD On-Line Sols., Inc., No. 15-3508, 2016 WL 384823 (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2016). In Wilson v. Gordon, 822 F.3d 934, 949-50 (6th Cir. 2016), the Sixth Circuit held that, even where "[t]he parties [did] not dispute that all eleven named plaintiffs' individual claims became moot before the district court certified the class," the "picking-off" exception applied and allowed the named plaintiffs with moot individual claims to pursue class certification, which would "relate back" to the filing of the complaint, applying Deposit Guar. Nat'l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980). The Sixth Circuit held this ruling was consistent with Campbell-Ewald, 136 S. Ct. at 672, which refused to put defendants "in the driver's seat" on class certification. Attorneys for Plaintiff: Ryan M. Kelly, Esq. Ross M. Good, Esq. ANDERSON + WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 368 1500 Facsimile: (847) 368 1501 E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com rgood@andersonwanca.com SONIC CORP: Consolidated Complaint Filed in Malware-Related Suits ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sonic Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 3, 2018, for the quarterly period ended May 31, 2018, that a consolidated complaint was filed in the Malware Attack-related suits. On October 4, 2017, the Company issued a public statement notifying guests that it had discovered that credit and debit card numbers may have been acquired without authorization as part of a malware attack experienced at certain Sonic Drive-In locations. Sonic said "As we reported in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended August 31, 2017, the Company was named as a defendant in five purported class action complaints." The Company has since been named as a defendant in four additional purported class action complaints filed on October 9, 2017, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, on November 3, 2017, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, on November 13, 2017, in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, and on December 17, 2017, in the Northern District of Illinois. Each of these complaints asserted various claims related to the Company's alleged failure to safeguard customer credit card information, and the plaintiffs sought monetary damages, injunctive and declaratory relief and attorneys' fees and costs. The cases were centralized in the Northern District of Ohio for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings, and a consolidated complaint was filed. Sonic said "The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the litigation and intends to vigorously oppose the claims asserted in the complaint. We cannot reasonably estimate the range of potential losses that may be associated with the litigation because of the early stage of the lawsuit. We also cannot provide assurance that we will not become subject to other inquiries or claims relating to the payment card breach in the future. Although we maintain cyber liability insurance, we currently believe it is possible that the ultimate amount paid by us, if we are unsuccessful in defending the litigation, will be in excess of our cyber liability insurance coverage applicable to claims of this nature. We are unable to estimate the amount of any such excess." Sonic Corp. operates and franchises a chain of quick-service drive-in restaurants in the United States. The company is based in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. SPERIAN ENERGY: Corsale Suit Transferred to W.D. Pa. ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned John Corsale, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Sperian Energy Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-02194 (E.D. Pa., May 25, 2018), was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (Pittsburgh) on July 30, 2018 under Case No. 2:19-cv-00996. Sperian allegedly overpriced Corsale for his electricity consumption from June 2015 to April 2018, and lured him with a low teaser rate and offers of variable rates of electricity based on market fluctuations. Corsale claims that when the market price goes up, Sperian's rate spikes matching the going rate. But when prices go down, its rate remains the same. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Shub, Esq. KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C. One South Broad Street, Suite 2100 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Tel: (215) 238-1700 Fax: (215) 238-1968 Email: jshub@kohnswift.com - and - Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. LEVIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 Facsimile: (215) 592-4663 Email: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com - and - Daniel C. Levin, Esq. LEVIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN 510 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1000 Fax: (215) 592-4663 Email: dlevin@lfsblaw.com - and - Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C. One South Broad Street, Suite 2100 Philadelphia, PA 19107-3304 Tel: (215) 238-1700 Email: klaukaitis@kohnswift.com Sperian Energy Corporation is represented by: Charles A. Fitzpatrick, IV, Esq. Huaou Yan, Esq. Jason A. Snyderman, Esq. BLANK ROME LLP One Logan Square 130 North 18th Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: (215) 569-5608, 569-5449 Fax: (215) 832-5608, 689-3884 Email: fitzpatrick-c@blankrome.com hyan@blankrome.com snyderman@blankrome.com - and - Christopher A. Lewis, Esq. BLANK ROME COMISKY & McCAULEY LLP One Logan Square Philadelphia, PA 19103-6998 Tel: (215) 569-5793 Fax: (215) 569-5555 Email: lewis@blankrome.com STARBUCKS CORP: FLSA De Minimis Doctrine Not in Cal. Statutes ------------------------------------------------------------- Upon a request by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the Supreme Court of California, in the case captioned DOUGLAS TROESTER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. STARBUCKS CORPORATION, Defendant and Respondent, No. S234969 (Cal.), agreed to answer the following question: Does the federal Fair Labor Standards Act's de minimis doctrine, as stated in Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co. (1946) 328 U.S. 680, 692, and Lindow v. United States (9th Cir. 1984) 738 F.2d 1057, 1063, apply to claims for unpaid wages under California Labor Code sections 510, 1194, and 1197? Plaintiff Douglas Troester filed the original complaint in an action in Los Angeles County Superior Court on behalf of himself and a putative class of all non-managerial California employees of defendant Starbucks Corporation (Starbucks) who performed store closing tasks from mid-2009 to October 2010. Troester worked for Starbucks as a shift supervisor. Troester worked for Starbucks as a shift supervisor. Starbucks removed the action to federal district court and moved for summary judgment on the ground that Troester's uncompensated time was so minimal that Starbucks was not required to compensate him. The district court granted Starbucks's motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit recognized that although the de minimis doctrine has long been a part of the FLSA, this court has never addressed whether the doctrine applies to wage claims brought under California law. The court further recognized that in some instances California law has been interpreted to be more protective of employee wage claims than federal law. Against this background, the Ninth Circuit certified the question presented to this court. In Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co. (1946) 328 U.S. 680 (Anderson), the high court considered whether certain types of employee activity constituted compensable work time. The worksite was a pottery plant covering eight acres, and the principal question was whether the employees should be compensated for the time spent walking to and from their workstations and engaging in certain preliminary and postliminary activities. The court held that generally such time is compensable: Since the statutory workweek includes all time during which an employee is necessarily required to be on the employer's premises, on duty or at a prescribed workplace, the time spent in these activities must be accorded appropriate compensation. Subsequently, the Ninth Circuit in Lindow v. U.S. (9th Cir. 1984) 738 F.2d 1057 (Lindow) explained that in determining whether otherwise compensable time is de minimis under the FLSA, the Court will consider (1) the practical administrative difficulty of recording the additional time; (2) the aggregate amount of compensable time; and (3) the regularity of the additional work. According to Starbucks, the de minimis rule is also a principle of California law that is independently applicable to wage and hour cases as a matter of state law. Starbucks argues that even if the relevant Labor Code statutes and wage order have not explicitly adopted the federal de minimis rule, the de minimis principle is part of the established background of legal principles against which the statutes and wage order have been enacted. Troester contends that the fact that the Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) has not adopted an explicit de minimis regulation after it had been incorporated into federal law is a sign that the IWC intended to preclude its application in wage cases. Troester further contends that unlike the California Labor Code, the text of the FLSA does not contain a blanket requirement to pay employees for all hours worked, except in a regulation that postdated and implicitly incorporated Anderson's de minimis rule. In light of the Wage Order's remedial purpose requiring a liberal construction, its directive to compensate employees for all time worked, the evident priority it accorded that mandate notwithstanding customary employment arrangements, and its concern with small amounts of time, we conclude that the de minimis doctrine has no application under the circumstances presented here. An employer that requires its employees to work minutes off the clock on a regular basis or as a regular feature of the job may not evade the obligation to compensate the employee for that time by invoking the de minimis doctrine. As the facts here demonstrate, a few extra minutes of work each day can add up. According to the Ninth Circuit, Troester is seeking payment for 12 hours and 50 minutes of compensable work over a 17-month period, which amounts to $102.67 at a wage of $8 per hour. That is enough to pay a utility bill, buy a week of groceries, or cover a month of bus fares. What Starbucks calls de minimis is not de minimis at all to many ordinary people who work for hourly wages. The Court recognizes that one of the main impetuses behind the de minimis doctrine in wage cases is the practical administrative difficulty of recording small amounts of time for payroll purposes. But employers are in a better position than employees to devise alternatives that would permit the tracking of small amounts of regularly occurring work time. One such alternative, which it appears Starbucks eventually resorted to here, was to restructure the work so that employees would not have to work before or after clocking out. Moreover, technological advances may help with tracking small amounts of time. An employer may be able to customize and adapt available time tracking tools or develop new ones when no off-the-shelf product meets its needs. And even when neither a restructuring of work nor a technological fix is practical, it may be possible to reasonably estimate work time for example, through surveys, time studies, or, as See's Candy suggested, a fair rounding policy and to compensate employees for that time. Under the circumstances of this case, we decline to adopt a rule that would require the employee to bear the entire burden of any difficulty in recording regularly occurring work time. The Court holds that the relevant California statutes and wage order have not incorporated the de minimis doctrine found in the FLSA. The Court further concludes that although California has a de minimis rule that is a background principle of state law, the rule is not applicable here. The relevant statutes and wage order do not allow employers to require employees to routinely work for minutes off-the-clock without compensation. A full-text copy of the state Supreme Court's July 29, 2018 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/yb8jw3ao from Leagle.com. Setareh Law Group, Shaun Setareh -shaun@setarehlaw.com -- Thomas Segal -- thomas@setarehlaw.com -- H. Scott Leviant -- scott@setarehlaw.com -- The Spivak Law Firm, David Spivak -- david@spivaklaw.com -- Law Offices of Louis Benowitz, Louis Benowitz ; Marlin & Saltzman and Stanley D. Saltzman for Plaintiff and Appellant. Anna Kirsch -- akirsch@ggu.edu -- and Hina Shah for Women's Employment Rights Clinic of Golden Gate University School of Law, Bet Tzedek, Centro Legal de la Raza, National Employment Law Project and Legal Aid at Work as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant. The Kralowec Law Group, Kimberly A. Kralowec -- kkralowec@kraloweclaw.com -- Kingsley & Kingsley and Ari J. Stiller -- ari@kingsleykingsley.com -- for Consumer Attorneys of California and California Employment Lawyers Association as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant. Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, Rex S. Heinke -- rheinke@akingump.com -- Gregory W. Knopp -- gknopp@akingump.com -- Mark R. Curiel -- mcuriel@akingump.com -- and Jonathan P. Slowik -- jpslowik@akingump.com -- for Defendant and Respondent. Sidley Austin, David R. Carpenter -- DRCARPENTER@SIDLEY.COM -- and Sonia A. Vucetic -- SVUCETIC@SIDLEY.COM -- for California Retailers Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent. Horvitz & Levy, Robert H. Wright -- rwright@horvitzlevy.com -- Felix Shafir -- fshafir@horvitzlevy.com -- and Lacey L. Esudillo -- lestudillo@horvitzlevy.com -- for Association of Southern California Defense Counsel as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent. STARBUCKS CORP: Squire Pattons Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------- Kinal Patel, Esq., Karen E. Wentzel, Esq., and Michael W. Kelly, Esq., of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, wrote that on July 26, 2018, the California Supreme Court ruled in Troester v. Starbucks Corporation that the federal de minimisdoctrine does not apply to a California employee's class action wage claims. This ruling will have widespread impact, particularly on those employers with large numbers of non-exempt employees such as retailers and food service providers, as employers are now required to pay employees for even the small amounts of time spent on incidental work that occurs prior to clocking in or after clocking out. The employee in Troester, a non-exempt Starbucks supervisor, argued that Starbucks should pay him for the roughly 4 to 10 minutes each day he spent on tasks related to closing the store after clocking out. These tasks included activating the alarm, exiting the store, locking the front door, walking coworkers to their cars pursuant to Starbucks' safety policy, and other occasional tasks such as letting an employee back into the store to retrieve a forgotten item. The Court noted that over the 17 month period of employment, Troester's time spent performing these unpaid tasks totaled approximately 12 hours and 50 minutes or about $102.67 in lost wages. Starbucks argued that the federal Fair Labor Standards Act's de minimis doctrine applied to this case and excused Starbucks' nonpayment of wages for these small amounts of otherwise compensable time. The Court first rejected Starbucks' argument, finding that the Labor Code and the Industrial Welfare Commission's (IWC) wage orders had not adopted the federal de minimis doctrine. In support of its findings, the Court pointed to the language contained in these statutes and regulations which emphasize that hours worked includes "all the time the employee is suffered or permitted to work." By emphasizing that it includes "all" time, the Court found that California law is more protective than federal law when it comes to payment of wages. Second, the Court rejected Starbucks' argument that the Court should recognize the de minimis rule in light of the fact that it is part of the "established background of legal principles" upon which the Labor Code and IWC wage orders have been enacted. In its ruling, the Court found that the Labor Code and the IWC wage orders are clearly concerned with small amounts of time given that employees receive 10 minute rest breaks. Along with this observation, the Court noted that it implicitly rejected a de minimum intrusion of such time in Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc. The Court also found support for its holding because the IWC wage orders amended its language demonstrating an intent to depart from the federal standard for waiting time and other forms of travel time. The federal Portal-to-Portal Act relieves employers from paying minimum wages or overtime for certain activities such as walking to the actual place of performing the principal activity for the employer and other preliminary or postliminary activities. In response, the IWC amended its wage orders such that hours worked included these activities. In doing so, the Court found that the IWC intended for employers to pay employees for these small amounts of time. Finally, the Court noted that the modern availability of class action lawsuits and technology advances in employer timekeeping methods both undermine the de minimis doctrine. This case will spark a new wave of California class action lawsuits focusing on those previously uncounted minutes and perhaps even seconds of time worked by an employee. With this risk of increased exposure, employers should review their timekeeping policies and procedures. Employers should also analyze each non-exempt employees' duties and responsibilities and minimize the risk of any off-the-clock work. [GN] STEADYMED LTD: "Scarantino" and "Hoover" Suits Balk at Merger Deal ------------------------------------------------------------------ SteadyMed Ltd. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on June 29, 2018, that the company is facing two class action lawsuits related to its proposed merger with Daniel 24043 Acquisition Corp. Ltd. On June 27, 2018, Richard Scarantino and Australia A. Hoover filed separate putative class action lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, each purportedly on behalf of the stockholders of SteadyMed Ltd., against SteadyMed and its directors, alleging, among other things, violations of sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 14a-9 thereunder. The complaints each seek, among other things, to enjoin the defendants from completing the previously announced proposed merger transaction by which Daniel 24043 Acquisition Corp. Ltd. will merge with and into SteadyMed, making SteadyMed a wholly-owned subsidiary of United Therapeutics Corporation. SteadyMed and its directors believe that the suits lack merit and intend to take all appropriate actions to defend against them. SteadyMed said "It is possible that additional similar complaints may be filed in the future. If this does occur, SteadyMed does not intend to announce the filing of any similar complaints." SteadyMed Ltd., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a specialty pharmaceutical company that focuses on the development and commercialization of drug product candidates for the treatment of orphan and high-value diseases with unmet parenteral delivery needs. STEEL & TUBE: More Homeowners Join Suit Following Guilty Pleas -------------------------------------------------------------- Adina Thorn on July 18 disclosed that in November last year, Steel & Tube pleaded guilty to 24 of 29 charges from the Commerce Commission relating to false and misleading representations concerning 500E Earthquake grade steel mesh. A sentencing hearing was held in the District Court in May 2018 and the sentencing judgment is awaited. This has led to further owners from across New Zealand signing up for a proposed Steel Mesh class action against Steel & Tube. Lawyer Adina Thorn says the proposed class action is designed to deliver compensation for the stress and uncertainty for property owners who have ended up with non-compliant steel mesh in their home and driveways. "The mesh is there forever. Everyone wants to know their home is compliant. Steel & Tube cannot give that assurance -- we know the mesh is non-compliant -- what we don't know enough about is performance of that non-complaint mesh in an earthquake. That uncertainty is stressful and unacceptable. We are seeking for owners to be compensated for that". "This mesh was sold between approximately March 2012 and April 2016 and much of it was used in the rebuilding of Canterbury following the earthquakes there. However, the mesh people were buying was supposed to be earthquake-grade, when it wasn't. "The existence of non-complaint steel 500E mesh is just another slap in the face for many Cantabrians who have had their homes rebuilt believing them to be fully compliant, only to learn there are real issues with the mesh which was supposed to be "E" (earthquake) grade. "The 500E steel mesh standard was brought in by the Government directly as a response to the earthquakes. It basically allows movement of buildings in an earthquake, so that the foundations do not break" says Ms Thorn. "Although the District Court Judge is yet to deliver the final judgment on sentencing, the Commerce Commission's successful prosecution of Steel & Tube relates to false and misleading representations that the 500E mesh had been independently tested and certified, when it had not been". "Our registrations of interest are currently running at a high level and we expect that the sentencing itself will encourage more owners to join the proposed class action against Steel & Tube. Details can be found at: www.steelclassaction.co.nz "The proposed action is funded, which means that while funding is in place owners will face no out of pocket costs, as all the legal, technical and Court costs involved in a claim of this scale will be picked up by the funder in return for them receiving a share of any proceeds of success." [GN] SURFSTITCH: Shareholders to Pursue Class Action Against Ex-CEO -------------------------------------------------------------- Sue Mitchell, writing for Australian Financial Review, reports that online retailer SurfStitch may have been "saved" by private equity firm Alceon Group but its co-founder and former chief executive, Justin Cameron, is not out of the woods just yet. Shareholders of the surf wear and action sports e-tailer are pressing ahead with an $85 million class action claim against Mr Cameron, alleging misleading and deceptive conduct over representations to shareholders and information in the company's financial statements before the company's collapse in 2016. Shareholders are pursuing the class action claim despite voting in favour of a deed of company arrangement which saw SurfStitch's Australian business sold to Alceon Group's EziBuy business in April. Gadens, the lawyers representing the class action group, have issued subpoenas seeking access to transcripts of Australian Securities and Investments Commission examinations of Mr Cameron and other SurfStitch executives and directors under Section 19 of the ASIC Act, which compels people to provide information. However, Mr Cameron is fighting the release of the transcripts, claiming privilege under self-incrimination provisions under general law and section 68 of the ASIC Act. Gadens is now challenging Mr Cameron's privilege claim in the NSW Supreme Court. A judgment on the privilege claim is expected to be delivered. Mr Cameron said on July 25 he was "aggressively defending" the claim but declined to comment on the ASIC investigation or the transcripts. Mr Cameron said he was also disappointed by the company's collapse and the sale of SurfStitch to EziBuy. Under the EziBuy DOCA, employee and ordinary creditors will receive a cash dividend between $3.4 million and $4.3 million from SurfStitch's funds and will be issued with a convertible note that will convert to shares in EziBuy in three years. SurfStitch shareholders will also receive a convertible note that converts into shares in EziBuy/SurfStitch upon a liquidity event, such as an IPO or trade sale. SurfStitch's administrators recommended the EziBuy proposal, saying it would deliver the best overall return to creditors and had less execution risk than a rival offer. Frustrated with the outcome The administrators valued EziBuy, which Alceon acquired from Woolworths in 2017 for $10 million, at between $188 million and $293 million, based on sustainable earnings of around $22 million, while SurfStitch was valued about $20 million. "I was completely disappointed and surprised as a shareholder given the valuation the administrators set on EziBuy and SurfStitch as part of the acquisition, given Woolworths sold the Ezibuy business for $10 million six months before," Mr Cameron said. "They have in effect acquired SurfStitch for zero dollars, they haven't paid a single cent for it," he said, as the proceeds came from SurfStitch's cash holdings. "So in fact Alceon haven't spent a cent acquiring SurfStitch, which is just unbelievable and why a large number of shareholders in SurfStitch are frustrated with the outcome of that process." The class action shareholders are now fighting for proceeds from the settlement to fund the claim against Mr Cameron. Shareholders fear the settlement proceeds and funds that may be available from SurfStitch's $15 million directors and officers insurance policies are being whittled away by legal action. Floated in December 2014 at $1 a share, SurfStitch shares reached $2.12 in less than 12 months, valuing the company at more than $500 million, following a spate of acquisitions. Mr Cameron wanted SurfStitch to become the Amazon Prime of the action sports world, using surfing, skiing and music videos to attract shoppers. The music stopped in March 2016, when Mr Cameron resigned unexpectedly, purportedly to pursue a private-equity backed privatisation. After a series of profit downgrades the shares fell to 6.8¢ before the company went into administration in August 2016. [GN] SYNAPSE GROUP: Cruz False Advertising Suit Removed to S.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Cathie Cruz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Synapse Group, Inc. and Synapseconnect, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 37-02018-00032240 (Cal. Super., June 28, 2018), was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on August 1, 2018, under Case No. 18-cv-01775. Cruz filed a complaint alleging false advertising in violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act and California's Unfair Competition Law. Cruz bases her claims on Defendants' alleged violation of California's Automatic Renewal Law. Plaintiff is represented by: Zachariah Paul Dostart, Esq. DOSTART HANNINK COVENEY LLP 4180 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 530 La Jolla, CA 92037 Tel: (858) 623-4200 Fax: (858) 623-4299 Email: zdostart@sdlaw.com Synapse Group is represented by: Thomas David Warren, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP PNC Center-1900 East 9th Street, Suite 3200 Cleveland, OH 44114-3482 Tel: (216) 861-7528 Fax: (216) 696-0740 Email: twarren@bakerlaw.com SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES: Bid to Drop Consolidated Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 2, 2018, for the quarterly period ended May 5, 2018, that the motion to dismiss the consolidated securities class action suit in the District of New Jersey, is still pending. On May 1, 2017, May 2, 2017, June 8, 2017 and June 14, 2017, four putative class actions were filed against the Company and certain of its officers and directors in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. After these cases were consolidated, the court appointed as lead plaintiff Employees' Retirement System of the State of Hawaii, which filed, on November 20, 2017, a consolidated amended complaint purportedly on behalf of purchasers of our common stock between February 3, 2016 and June 13, 2017. The consolidated amended complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and it alleges, among other things, that the defendants made false and misleading statements of material information concerning the Company's financial results, business operations, and prospects. The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, fees, interest, and costs. On February 2, 2018, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint in its entirety, with prejudice, which remains pending. Synchronoss Technologies said, "We believe that the asserted claims lack merit, and we intend to defend against all of the claims vigorously. Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, we cannot predict the outcome of the actions at this time, and we can give no assurance that the asserted claims will not have a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations." Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. is a global software and services company that provides essential technologies for the mobile transformation of business. The Company’s portfolio, which is targeted at the Consumer and Enterprise markets, contains offerings such as personal cloud, secure-mobility, identity management and scalable messaging platforms, products and solutions. The company is based in Bridgewater, New Jersey. SYNCHRONY BANK: McMullen Seeks to Certify Settlement Class ---------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned VALERIE MCMULLEN, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SYNCHRONY BANK, f/k/a GE CAPITAL RETAIL BANK, d/b/a CARECREDIT, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:14-cv-01983-JEB (D. Colo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. preliminarily approving class action settlement; 2. conditionally certifying a settlement class of: "all person who hold of the Synchrony CareCredit accounts identified by Synchrony from reasonably available information and records as having been opened through Bullen Wellness. Washington Chiropractic, Karim Steward and/or Dr. Wayne Bullen, at any time on or after October 31, 2011, through the date of entry of the preliminary approval order. Excluded from the Settlement Class are all persons who validly exclude themselves from the Settlement Class"; and 3. settling a hearing date to consider settlement approval. T ROWE PRICE: Faces Class Suit over 401(k) Plan in Maryland ----------------------------------------------------------- T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 25, 2018, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company faces a putative class suit on 401 (k) Plan in Maryland. On February 14, 2017, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc., T. Rowe Price Trust Company, current and former members of the management committee, and trustees of the T. Rowe Price U.S. Retirement Program were named as defendants in a lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The lawsuit alleges breaches of ERISA's fiduciary duty and prohibited transaction provisions on behalf of a class of all participants and beneficiaries of the T. Rowe Price 401(k) Plan from February 14, 2011, to the time of judgment. The plaintiffs are seeking certification of the complaint as a class action. T. Rowe Price believes the claims are without merit and is vigorously defending the action. T. Rowe Price Group said "This matter is in the early stages of litigation and we cannot predict the eventual outcome or whether it will have a material negative impact on our financial results, or estimate the possible loss or range of loss that may arise from any negative outcome." T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. is a publicly owned investment manager. The firm provides its services to individuals, institutional investors, retirement plans, financial intermediaries, and institutions. T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. was founded in 1937 and is based in Baltimore, Maryland. TACO BELL: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Lunch Break Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Alexandra Deabler, writing for Fox News, reports that California Taco Bell employees may want to start bringing their lunch from home. A recently court-upheld decision allows the fast food chain to ban customers that use their employee discount to purchase food from eating off-site, Inc. reported. The lunchtime restrictions only apply to employees who are using their employee discount. Taco Bell employees that bring food from home or purchase a meal from Taco Bell at full price are allowed to leave and eat wherever they choose. However, employees feel that limits their break time. In a class-action lawsuit, Taco Bell workers argued that being forced to remain in the building during their lunch entitled them to wages, since they would be seen as on-call. Taco Bell denied the claim, stating their employees are relieved of all duties during their lunch break. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Taco Bell and upheld the policy: "The panel held that California law was not violated because Taco Bell relieved their employees of all duties during the meal break period and exercised no control over their activities, where employees were free to use the thirty minutes in any way they wished, subject only to the restriction that if they purchased a discounted meal, they had to eat in the restaurant," Food & Wine reported. According to the company, the policy is used to prevent workers from using their discount to purchase meals for friends and family members. [GN] TAURANGA CITY: More Homeowners Joining Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------- Scott Yeoman, writing for NZ Herald, reports that more Bella Vista homeowners are considering joining a class action against the city council in the wake of the buyout offer. Auckland QC David Heaney, Esq. -- david@wmclaw.co.nz -- an experienced local authority litigation lawyer, filed a class action on behalf of Bella Vista residents in late May. Tauranga City Council was served with the legal proceedings on June 1, and the class-action lawsuit is now due to have its first court conference. So far only two of the 21 Bella Vista households are named in the proceedings. But yesterday Heaney confirmed to the Bay of Plenty Times Weekend that more residents were now considering joining. When asked if there had been any correspondence between him and the other residents or their lawyer about joining the class action in the past week, Heaney said: "Yeah, they're thinking about it, and they're having a meeting . . . I think to make a decision on that." The other 19 Bella Vista homeowners are represented by Tauranga barrister Nathan Smith, Esq. -- Nathan@NathanSmith.co.nz Smith told the Bay of Plenty Times Weekend that there was no update at the moment. He said he was in discussions with his clients. Asked specifically about the class action and the filing of legal proceedings, Smith said: "There will be an update . . . ."[GN] TEZOS: Judge Allows Cryptocurrency Class Action to Proceed ---------------------------------------------------------- Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that in a case involving novel issues of whether digital currency investments are subject to U.S. securities laws, a federal judge on Aug. 7 advanced a class action against a husband and wife team that raised $232 million for a new cryptocurrency. U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg refused to dismiss lead plaintiff Arman Anvari's class action against Tezos virtual currency creators Arthur and Kathleen Brietman, their company Dynamic Ledger Solutions (DLS) and Tezos Stiftung, the Swiss foundation they set up to oversee an initial coin offering in July 2017. After touting Tezos as the "solution" to shortcomings plaguing other digital currencies, the Breitmans organized a "crowdsale" in 2017 to help finance the creation of a new blockchain, or secure network for exchanging Tezos tokens. Four class actions were filed and later consolidated after an internal dispute delayed the launch of the new Tezos blockchain last fall. The defendants say the initial coin offering was merely a fundraiser, not an investment scheme, and that they have no obligation to provide Tezos tokens to contributors. The plaintiffs say the contributions were investments, which means the defendants were required to register with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission before accepting money. The Breitmans argued they could not be liable for the sale of unregistered securities because a separate Swiss entity, Tezos Sitfung, oversaw the initial coin offering. Judge Seeborg rejected that argument, finding the couple and the foundation were "deeply intertwined, if not functionally interchangeable" throughout the process. Judge Seeborg found allegations the Breitmans developed websites and applications used for the initial coin offering, and promoted the fundraiser on popular online forums, adequately support a conclusion that their involvement rose well above the level of "collateral participation." The judge also rejected claims the lawsuit seeks to apply U.S. securities laws to conduct that occurred overseas. Although a Swiss foundation oversaw the initial coin offering, Judge Seeborg found the Breitmans' development of key elements for the project took place in California, and that marketing for the offering almost exclusively targeted U.S. investors. In rejecting the extraterritorial argument, Judge Seeborg also noted the lead plaintiff initiated his investment transaction on a website hosted on a server in Arizona, and that his contribution of the digital currency Ethereum was "validated by a network of global 'nodes' clustered more densely in the United States than in any other country." Judge Seeborg dismissed some defendants with leave to amend, including American venture capitalist Tim Draper. Draper invested $1.5 million in DLS, gaining a board seat and 10 percent ownership stake in the company, and publicly touted Tezos. But Judge Seeborg found Anvari failed to show he relied on anything Draper said when he chose to invest in Tezos. Additionally, Judge Seeborg dismissed the company Bitcoin Suisse as a defendant, finding its role in providing virtual currency conversion services for Tezos investors makes it "not appear to be a key player in this action." Anvari is represented by Hung Ta of New York, who did not return a request for comment by press time. The Breitmans are represented by Brian Klein -- bklein@bakermarquart.com -- of Baker Marquart in Los Angeles, who said he believes his clients will eventually prevail. "Although we are understandably disappointed by the ruling, this was not a decision on the merits of the case," Mr. Klein said. "We believe Kathleen, Arthur, and DLS will ultimately be fully vindicated. They did not violate any laws and Tezos contributors were not harmed." In June, Tezos unveiled a test version of its blockchain, or digital exchange system for Tezos tokens, after months of delay. As of Aug. 7, a single Tezos unit was valued at $1.70, down 4.8 percent and dramatically lower than its all-time high of $10.39 in mid-December 2017. TOLL ROADS LITIG: Motion for Class Certification Partly Granted --------------------------------------------------------------- According to the Civil Minutes dated July 31, 2018, in the lawsuit In re: Toll Roads Litigation, Case No. 8:16-cv-00262-AG-JCG (C.D. Cal.), the Court entered an order: 1. denying, without prejudice, Defendants' motion to exclude; and 2. denying in part and granting in part Plaintiffs' motion for class certification as modified. The Court certifies under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), for the litigation of claims under California Streets and Highways Code section 31490, a class defined as: "all consumers who used California Highway Routes 71, 133, 241, 261 between April 13, 2015 and now, or who used the 91 Express Lanes between June 29, 2015 and now, and: - Who had their travel pattern data (date and time of trip, or plaza and lane numeric identifiers) made available by Defendants to another transportation agency; - Who had the date of their toll transaction or violation sent to the California DMV; - Who had their license plate numbers sent by Defendants to the California DMV for a second inquiry, the Arizona DMV, DataTicket Incorporated, Law Enforcement Systems, LLC (Duncan Solutions); - Who had any personally identifiable information other than the amount of tolls and penalties owed, the violation number, or the violator's account number sent by Defendants to Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson LLP; - Who, without providing express written consent to receive communications about the products or services offered by a transportation agency or a transportation agency contractor, had any personally identifiable information sent by Defendants to Marshall Advertising; or - Who had any personally identifiable information sent by Defendants to a car rental company, LexisNexis, Julinne von KleinSmid, Microbilt, Experian, the California FTB, Rex L. Brady Attorney at Law, Judgment Recovery Assistance, or icontact. The Court said, "Carpenter, Lori Myers, Dan Golka, and James Watkins will serve as class representatives. Class counsel is Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP, Lindemann Law Firm, APC, and Coast Law Group, LLP. Class counsel will ensure that a notice meeting the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2)(B) is mailed, within 60 days of this order, to all class members identified through reasonable efforts, by first class mail with return postage prepaid. The notice will explain that class members have 60 days from receipt of the notice to request in writing their exclusion from the class. Class counsel should provide both a postal and electronic address for exclusion requests. Within 14 days from the end of the opt-out period, class counsel will file a status report with the Court, accompanied by a declaration or affidavit about undeliverable notices and the number of requests for exclusions. The Court sets a status conference in this case to discuss notice and opt-out on Monday, January 28, 2019 at 9 a.m." TOYOTA MOTOR: Class Action Over Rodent-Damaged Wiring Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------ Assembly, citing for Carscoops.com, reports that a U.S. Federal judge has dismissed a class-action lawsuit against Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A over wiring damage caused by rodents. In the lawsuit filed in August 2016, it was claimed that Toyota's decision to use soy-based, rather than petroleum-based, insulation for engine wiring had made the insulation more attractive to rodents. Those behind the suit claimed that damages should be covered under warranty. Toyota, obviously, disagreed. In June, U.S. District Judge Andrew Guilford granted motions to dismiss the lawsuit without leave to amend. In addition, the judge dismissed claims of fraud and consumer protections, asserting that the plaintiffs hadn't provided the necessary specificity to make such claims. The lawsuit was originally filed on behalf of Indiana resident Albert Heber, who was forced to pay roughly $1,500 to fix the wiring on his 2012 Toyota Tundra when it was chewed on three occasions. A host of other owners came forward shortly after with similar complaints. In the order issued by the judge, it was stated that Toyota couldn't have known the soy-based insulation would attract rodents. Toyota said it was gratified with the judge's decision to dismiss the class-action lawsuit [GN] TRUECOVERAGE LLC: Court Strikes Conditional Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled Monique Dudley, et al., the Plaintiffs, v. TrueCoverage LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-03760-PA-AGR (C.D. Cal.), the Court entered an order striking Plaintiffs' motion to certify the case as a class action lawsuit, without prejudice to the motion being re-filed in accordance with the Local Rules and the Court's orders, according to the Civil Minutes. The Court said, "Before the Court is a motion for conditional Certification and Court-authorized notice to potential opt-in Plaintiffs Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) (the "Motion") filed by plaintiffs Monique Dudley and Noreen Costa. The Plaintiffs filed and served the Motion on July 19, 2018, and they noticed a hearing for September 24, 2018. Under this Court's Standing Order, "[n]o motion shall be noticed for hearing for more than 35 days after service of the motion unless otherwise ordered by the Court. Because September 24, 2018 is more than 35 days after service of the Motion, Plaintiffs have violated the Court's Standing Order. The Court therefore strikes Plaintiffs' Motion without prejudice to the Motion being re-filed in accordance with the Local Rules and the Court's orders. Previously, when denying the parties' stipulation to extend the Local Rule 23-3 deadline to file a motion for class certification, the Court inadvertently granted TrueCoverage LLC an extension to respond to the Motion to August 31, 2018. The Court withdraws and strikes that portion of its prior order. If Plaintiff re-files its Motion, the deadline for Defendant's opposition thereto shall be determined in accordance with the Local Rules. TRUGREEN LTD: Notice to Employees of Opt-in Rights Rejected ----------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled GEORGE MORRIS, SHANNON BOYD, RYAN COLEMAN, BARRY DAMICO and KELVIN CARTER, the Plaintiffs, v. TRUGREEN LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, the Defendant, Case No. 6:17-cv-01465-PGB-GJK (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron entered an order on August 1, 2018: 1. adopting, confirming and making part of the order, Magistrate Judge Gregory J. Kelly's Report and Recommendation; 2. overruling Plaintiffs' objections to report and recommendation; 3. denying Plaintiffs' renewed motion for an order permitting court-supervised notice to employees of opt-in rights. UNITED STATES: Faces Class Action Over Immigrant Detentions ----------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that more than 1,000 immigrant detainees have been detained in a medium-security federal prison -- despite never being convicted of any crime -- in near solitary confinement and are deprived of health care and adequate food and water, according to a class action filed on Aug. 1 against the Trump administration. UNITED STATES: Father and Son Reunited Following Court Order ------------------------------------------------------------ Madison Pauly, writing for Mother Jones, reports that after more than 50 days apart, a migrant father known in legal documents as "F.G.," was reunited with his 17-year-old son in Texas on July 25. Guards loaded them onto a bus, where they were told they would be taken to a shelter. But eight minutes down the road, the bus turned around. When they pulled back into the El Paso Service Processing Center, uniformed officials allegedly distributed forms for the parents on the bus to sign that meant they agreed to be deported with their children. When F.G. refused, he was removed from the bus and separated from his son a second time. That's according to a heartbreaking declaration filed by F.G.'s pro-bono lawyer on July 28 as part of the class-action lawsuit overseeing the government's attempt to reunify the more than 2,500 families separated at the border this year. According to the declaration, F.G. was not alone: At least four fathers were reunited briefly with their kids, but were separated again when they refused to sign the forms, which gave them three "choices": agree to be deported with their children, agree to allow their child to stay in the United States if the parent lost their immigration case, or talk to a lawyer before deciding. According to the lawyer, Laila Arand, F.G. and other fathers say the first option on their forms was pre-selected in ink. Dara Lind at Vox got a response to the allegations from a Department of Homeland Security official: "Asking parents in ICE custody, who are subject to a final order of removal, to make a decision about being removed with or without their children, is part of long-standing policy," the official said. "ICE does not interfere in the parent's decision to allow the child to remain in the U.S. to pursue his or her own legal claim." But the July 28 filing offers evidence of ICE agents doing just that. Either all four parents who spoke to the lawyer are lying, or the lawyer's declaration shows that the choice isn't always being freely offered -- and that parents who select the second option are having their children summarily taken from them, with no chance to say goodbye, for the second time in a matter of months. As for F.G., after he was separated from his son for the second time, "he then asked if he could at least go back to the bus to retrieve his belongings from the storage area underneath the bus, and was told he could do so quickly," Ms. Arand wrote. "When he went to the bus to do so, his son attempted to come outside the bus to see him, but was unable to do so…He watched the bus depart with his son on board." According to the declaration, F.G. was kept in El Paso for two nights before being returned to an immigration detention detention center in New Mexico, where he remained as of July 27. [GN] UNITED STATES: Garfield County Joins PILT Program Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Dennis Webb, writing for The Daily Sentinel, reports that Garfield County commissioners have decided to join a class-action lawsuit with the goal of recovering underpayments by the federal government under its Payment in Lieu of Taxes program, while Mesa County is still considering the matter. Garfield's decision means it could recover an estimated $122,000 minus attorney fees potentially amounting to about a third of that amount. The recovery also is still subject to potential appeal by the federal government. Counties have until Sept. 14 to decide whether to join the suit, brought by Kane County, Utah. A U.S. Court of Federal Claims judge ruled in the case that the government is liable for underpayments between 2015-17 in connection with the program, which is intended to help offset the lack of property tax collections involving federal lands. The underpayments resulted from Congress appropriating too little money for the Department of Interior to make full payments under a formula that considers acres and population variables. Mesa County could be due $117,000 in the case, but again that would likely be reduced by attorney fees. The firm handling the suit has said it plans to seek court approval for fees amounting to a third of the recovered amount, plus an expected fraction of a percent to cover expenses. Mesa County Administrator Frank Whidden said on July 27 that he believes Mesa commissioners "are still assessing what other counties are going to do." "We all hate to lose 33 percent or more in attorneys' fees," he said. According to the website of Smith, Currie & Hancock LLP, the firm handling the suit, 14 counties in Colorado are now among the counties nationwide that have joined the suit. That's up from nine counties in Colorado as of a few weeks ago. Colorado Counties Inc. has said it doesn't think counties can recover underpayments more cheaply than by joining the suit, given the amount of underpayments involved. Garfield County Attorney Tari Williams told Garfield commissioners that while there have been other options discussed by counties, "none of them seem to gain you anything, and (they) possibly create additional hurdles and take longer." Garfield commissioners had worried that joining the suit could cause political backlash. Garfield Commissioner John Martin was able to meet with representatives from Kane County and some other participants in the suit and was assured there would be no adverse effects. "They say you're entitled to it, accept it, go on from there," he said. Garfield commissioners directed their staff to write Kane County a letter of thanks for its leadership in the case. The PILT program was fully funded this year, and under its formula Mesa County received the largest payment of any government in Colorado -- nearly $3.6 million, involving more than 1.5 million acres of land. Garfield County received $3.2 million for nearly 1.2 million acres, the second-highest amount statewide. [GN] UNITED STATES: Luna County May Join PILT Program Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Deming Headlight, writing for Deming Headlight, reports that this year Luna County will be seeing approximately two-million dollar signs from the Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program administered by the Department of Interior. The program will be fully funding New Mexico counties $42.6 million for over 22 million acres of nontaxable federal land. Luna County will be receiving $1,999,158 to compensate it's 788,622 acres within its county limits. A difference of nearly $38,000 since last year's PILT payment. For the past three years, PILT has failed to fully fund counties across the U.S. Now, local governments are taking action against the Federal government to get the rest of their money. "Which opens up a new cans of worms," said Luna County Manager Ira Pearson. Counties in New Mexico are contemplating to partake in a class action lawsuit against the federal government to recover the full amount of past funds since 2015. State counties across the country have decided to participate in the lawsuit this year after following the precedent case of Kane County, Utah v. United States. Luna County will have to opt in the class action lawsuit by Sept. 14, 2018. The Luna County Board of Commissioners will make their decision on Aug. 9 during a regular meeting. "The laws, as they're written, require them to fully fund PILT. And they didn't follow the rules -- they didn't follow laws," Pearson said. "If they owe it to us, then they owe it to us." It has been decided the payment will be included in this year's $10.5 million general budget for essential operations such as county government operations, administration, emergency dispatch, public safety and public education. But at some point, Ms. Pearson would like to use some of the funds for the public. "Ideally, if we can run county government off of not including that money, then we can use that PILT for big capital projects." Luna County isn't there yet, but if New Mexico counties decide to opt in the class action lawsuit, Luna County could be receiving approximately $60,000 to $70,000 before attorney fees. "I'd say, if we recoup money like that, then we would probably ask the commission to look at something specific so that it doesn't get absorbed and put in there (budget)," Ms. Pearson said. "I would take it before the commission and ask them to put it aside for a community project." Sens. Martin Heinrich (D-NM) and Tom Udall (D-NM) released a statement in June based on the importance of PILT funds. Udall is a on Senate Appropriations Subcommittee in Interior, Environment and Related Agencies. "Rural communities across New Mexico rely on PILT funds to provide for emergency response, maintaining roads, and bridges and local jobs," Sen. Heinrich said. "We currently fund PILT year by year, but that isn't good enough," Mr. Udall said. "As a senior member of the Senate of Appropriations committee, I'll continue to work for full, permanent funding to ensure local communities have the economic security they need." [GN] UNITED STATES: Migrant Fathers Sue After Separation w/ Children --------------------------------------------------------------- Emily Birnbaum, writing for The Hill, reports that a court filing on July 28 alleges at least four migrant fathers were separated from their children again after being reunited with them briefly. The declaration, which was obtained by Mother Jones, was filed as part of the class-action lawsuit on behalf of migrant parents who wish to be reunited with their children. It alleges that the four fathers were given three choices when the government reunited them with their children: First, to be deported with their children; second, agree for the children to stay in the U.S. if the parent loses the immigration case; or third, to speak to a lawyer before making the decision. The fathers are claiming the first option was already selected for them. The allegation comes days after the government failed to meet a court-ordered deadline to reunite families it separated at the southern border. The government reported that it has reunited 1,442 children ages 5 and older with their parents who were detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and 378 have been "discharged in other appropriate circumstances," including to a sponsor or to their parents in Department of Homeland Security custody. But more than 2,500 children were separated from their parents at the border as part of the Trump administration's "zero tolerance" immigration policy. Though President Trump in June signed an executive order ending the policy, the federal government has scrambled to reunite families separated during its enactment. The American Civil Liberties Union on July 26 said as many as 468 separated parents had been deported without their children, and they are demanding the court reunite those families. One migrant father represented in the July 28 court filing, referred to as "F.G.," was allegedly reunited with his son in Texas on July 25. But within hours, immigration officials reportedly distributed the forms with three options. When F.G. refused to agree to be deported with his son, he was removed from the area and separated from his son a second time, Mother Jones reported. The testimony reports that ICE agents yelled at parents who tried to choose the option that would allow their children to stay in the U.S., or told them that they were not actually allowed to select that option. "Asking parents in ICE custody, who are subject to a final order of removal, to make a decision about being removed with or without their children, is part of long-standing policy," an ICE official told Vox. "ICE does not interfere in the parent's decision to allow the child to remain in the U.S. to pursue his or her own legal claim." Reports have emerged that parents who were deported without their children were often misled or lied to by immigration officials. Sometimes, officials presented deportation to parents as the only option and other times, they gave the parents forms in English, a language many of them do not speak. [GN] UNITED STATES: Ordered to Follow Up on Missing Migrant Parents -------------------------------------------------------------- Margaret Hartmann, writing for New York Magazine, reports that after failing to return all of the youngest migrant children separated from their parents at the southern border on July 10, the Trump administration failed to meet a second deadline on July 26. Though the administration claimed success -- and U.S. District Judge Dana Sabraw even said they get "great credit" for reuniting 1,442 children 5 and older with their families -- on July 27 there were 650 separated children still in government custody. "The government is at fault for losing several hundred parents in the process, and that's where we have to go next," said Judge Sabraw. In a ruling on July 27, Judge Sabraw said the government's involvement with the "missing parents" isn't over. NBC News reports that he ordered the Trump administration to provide a detailed list by Aug. 1 of all the parents it had deemed "ineligible" for reunification. The administration said these parents fell into four categories. More than 400 adults were deemed ineligible for reunification because they've already been deported and U.S. officials can't find them. Another 260 parents need "further evaluation," but the administration was unclear on what that meant. Sixty-four parents had a "prohibitive criminal record" so their children would not be released to them. The government claims another 127 waived reunification, but there are allegations that that path isn't being presented fairly. Court documents filed on July 28 in the class-action lawsuit over Trump's family-separation policy allege that at least four fathers in Texas were given forms with three choices -- be deported with children, let child stay in U.S., or talk to a lawyer -- and the first option was already selected for them in pen. Vox reports: According to the testimony, parents who attempted to cross that out and choose the second option -- being deported while allowing their children to pursue their case and stay in the US -- were yelled at by the ICE agents or told they simply were not allowed to select another option. One was told that if he opted to be deported alone, his son would still get deported -- and might be deported first. One father claimed he was briefly reunited with his 17-year-old son on July 25, only to be separated again. Minutes after they were loaded onto a bus they were told was headed to a shelter, it turned around. The father says that after refusing to sign the form agreeing that his son should be deported with him, the bus turned around and he was kicked off. His son was not allowed to get off the bus to say good-bye to him. The government said offering parents a choice is their standard practice, but denied that they're ever coerced into making a certain choice. "Asking parents in ICE custody, who are subject to a final order of removal, to make a decision about being removed with or without their children, is part of long-standing policy," said a Department of Homeland Security official. The ACLU, which brought the suit, said it will provide pro bono attorneys to help track down parents the government said it could not locate. "The judge's order requiring the government to provide us with information about missing or deported parents leaves no doubt that the court expects the remaining reunifications to get done promptly," said ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt. [GN] UNITED STATES: Victorville Detainees File Class Action Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Stephenson Awah Teneng, Marcel Ngwa and Noe Mauricio Granados Aquino, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, Kirstjen Nielsen, Secretary Department of Homeland Security, Ronald D. Vitiello, Acting Director, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, David Marin, Field Office Director, Los Angeles Field Office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, III, U.S. Attorney General, Hugh J. Hurwitz, Acting Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons, David Shinn, Warden, FCI Victorville Medium Security Prison I/II, in their official capacities only, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-01609 (C.D. Cal., August 2, 2018), seeks redress for Defendants' failure to provide minimally adequate health care and adequate nutrition, inhibiting detainees' free exercise of religion by refusing to provide religious services or other adequate opportunities for group prayer, congregate worship, or consultation with clergy, ignoring religious dietary needs, severely impeding the possession and wearing of religious headwear, jewelry and other religious items, denying access to religious texts, restricting detainees' ability to practice their religious beliefs and confining detainees under conditions that are unnecessarily restrictive and punitive in nature while detained at the Victorville Medium Security Prison. Plaintiffs are immigration detainees at Victorville, a medium security prison operated by the Bureau of Prisons. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Margot Knight Mendelson, Esq. Corene Kendrick, Esq. Donald Specter, Esq. PRISON LAW OFFICE 1917 Fifth Street Berkeley, CA 94710 Tel: (510) 280-2621 Fax: (510) 280-2704 Email: mmendelson@prisonlaw.com ckendrick@prisonlaw.com dspecter@prisonlaw.com - and - Heather L. Weaver, Esq. Rekha Elaine Arulanantham, Esq. ACLU Foundation, ACLU National Prison Project 915 15th Street NW Suite 600 Washington, DC 20005 Tel: (202) 548-6603, 548-6607 Fax: (202) 393-4931 Email: hweaver@aclu.org rarulanantham@aclu.org - and - Timothy P. Fox CIVIL RIGHTS EDUCATION AND ENFORCEMENT CENTER 104 Broadway Suite 400 Denver, CO 80203 Tel: (303) 757-7901 Fax: (303) 593-3339 Email: tfox@creeclaw.org UNITED STATES: Wazee Disputes Net Worth Sweep Dividend Payments --------------------------------------------------------------- Wazee Street Opportunities Fund IV LP, Douglas Whitley and Lisa Brown, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. The United States of America, Case No. 18-cv-01124 filed in the United States Court of Federal Claims on August 2, 2018, challenges the imposition of the Net Worth Sweep dividend payments implemented by the Federal Housing Finance Agency. The complaint includes direct and derivative illegal exaction claiming that the Net Worth Sweep was unauthorized because it was adopted by the Federal Housing Finance Agency and it was operating in violation of constitutional separation of powers principles. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Hamish Hume, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP (DC) 1401 New York Avenue, NW, 11th Floor Washington, DC 20005 Tel: (202) 237-2727 Email: hhume@bsfllp.com US PHYSICAL: Bid to Dismiss New York Suit Granted With Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. Physical Therapy, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on July 24, 2018, that the company's motion to dismiss a putative class action suit has been granted by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. On March 31, 2017, an alleged shareholder filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Court") against the Company and certain officers, alleging that the defendants misstated or omitted to state material information concerning the Company's historical accounting for redeemable non-controlling interests of acquired partnerships, in alleged violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. On December 1, 2017, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss and subsequent filings by the parties related to the Motion to Dismiss were completed on February 7, 2018. On July 23, 2018, the Court issued a Memorandum and Order granting the Company's Motion to Dismiss in its entirety, with prejudice. U.S. Physical Therapy, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates outpatient physical therapy clinics that provide pre-and post-operative care and treatment for orthopedic-related disorders, sports-related injuries, preventative care, rehabilitation of injured workers, and neurological-related injuries. The company was founded in 1990 and is based in Houston, Texas. WAL-MART STORES: Mays Seeks to Certify 2 Classes ------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit entitled LERNA MAYS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., a Delaware Corporation and DOE ONE through and including DOE ONE-HUNDRED, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-02318-AB-KK (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order certifying these classes: The Wage Statement Class: "all Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. California workers who received one or more wage payments during the period from Friday, December 16, 2016 to the date on which this Motion may be decided"; and Former Employee Class: "all Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. California workers who received one or more wage payments during the period from December 18, 2014 to the date on which this Motion may be decided whose employ by Defendant terminated on or after December 18, 2014, yet who were provided additional wages or vacation pay after their Statement of Final Wages was issued." Attorneys for Plaintiff: Alan Harris, Esq. Priya Mohan, Esq. HARRIS & RUBLE 655 N. Central Ave., 17th Floor Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (323) 962 3777 Facsimile: (323) 962 3004 E-mail: aharris@harrisandruble.com pmohan@harrisandruble.com WASTE MANAGEMENT: Settles Stony Hollow Landfill Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Chris Stewart, writing for Dayton Daily News, reports that a proposed settlement has been reached between neighbors of the Stony Hollow Landfill and its owners over the alleged emission of foul odors and contaminants dating back years and if you live nearby, you might be owed money. Property owners and renters at any time since Oct. 31, 2012 and living within a roughly 2.5-mile radius of the landfill at 2460 South Gettysburg Rd. have until Sept. 9 to submit a claim. People can exclude themselves, comment or object to the settlement on or before Aug. 25. In a tentative agreement, Stony Hollow, owned by Waste Management, agreed to create a settlement fund of $1,875,000 and put another $1,450,000 by the end of 2022 toward further improvement measures to minimize the the impact of airborne emissions from the landfill. Attorneys' fees could reach up to $795,000 of the settlement fund, according to a court documents. Moraine and Jefferson Twp. residents lodged hundreds of odor complaints against the Dayton landfill, growing more frequent in April 2016 and remaining persistent. Foul odors also spread as far as Dayton, Jackson Twp., Kettering, Miamisburg, Oakwood and West Carrollton. In November 2016, Moraine resident Carly Beck filed the federal class-action suit joined by 100 others. Neither Moraine nor other municipalities were part of the suit. Related documents can be found on the Stony Hollow Settlement page of the Liddle & Dubin, P.C. website. The firm can also be reached by phone at 1-800-536-0045 or by e-mail at info@ldclassaction.com [GN] WITHCOIN: Faces Class Action in Japan Over Misleading Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Gerald Fenech, writing for CoinGeek, reports that Withcoin, a cryptocurrency designed for casinos, has been accused of propagating lies. The virtual currency, which has been listed on the HitBTC exchange since May, used a promotional video that allegedly showed misleading information, according to a class action lawsuit in Japan. An overview on the Enjin Class Action site identified Koichi Matsuyama as the person responsible for spreading the video, which lured investors into buying Withcoin with the sales pitch: "If you buy it today you can become a millionaire." It was later discovered that what Mr. Matsuyama promised was a lie, according to the Enjin overview. In January, 1 Withcoin was valued at JPY0.5 ($0.0045); however, investors were allowed to buy the coins by large chunks of JPY10 million ($90,046). Mr. Matsuyama also inexplicably changed Withcoin's exchange from Binance to HitBTC, and claimed that the coin "can be used in Okada Manila." A representative for Universal Entertainment Corporation, which operates Okada Manila, told news.bitcoin.com that the Philippine-based integrated resort "has never authorized or partnered with anyone regarding the use of Bitcoin or other cryptocurrency." Its white paper described Withcoin as "an innovative money-transfer and automatic foreign-exchange platform to transfer money to land-based and online casinos through cryptocurrency." The team behind the coin promised to "realize a digital currency platform for anyone to easily participate in casinos," by automating operational procedures using Ethereum smart contract functions. Withcoin buyers said they suffered large losses after the coin fell to about 1/10 of the ICO price. Then two weeks after being listed, Withcoin crashed to JPY0.139 (0.0013). In June, 420 victims gathered on Enjin to file a class-action lawsuit seeking damages of over JPY1.3 billion ($12 million). According to the Enjin class action page, because Matsuyama and his company provided false information to sell Withcoin, this invalidated the sales contracts, meaning the victims can claim full refund in Japanese yen at the rate when the coins were sold. [GN] YAYO RESTAURANT: Rodriguez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime ---------------------------------------------------- Romeyra Rodriguez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. Yayo Restaurant Corp., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-04310, (E.D. N.Y., July 30, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum, overtime and spread-of-hours wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. Yayo Restaurant Corp. and Destination Food Corp operates as El Viejo Yayo, a latin restaurant located at 9712 101st Avenue, Ozone Park, NY 11416 where Rodriguez was employed as an assistant to the manager, waitress and cashier. She claims to have worked in excess of forty hours a week without being paid time and a half their regular rate of pay. [BN] Plaintiff appears pro se. YOUNGSTOWN, OH: Speed Enforcement Cameras May Spark Class Actions ----------------------------------------------------------------- WFMJ reports that the signs alerting drivers that speed enforcement cameras could catch them traveling too fast have to be taken down from state roads and highways in the Valley by Aug. 3. The Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) sent out letters to communities including Girard, Howland, Hubbard, Liberty, and Youngstown earlier in July ordering speed enforcement cameras and any mounted cameras on state routes and interstates be removed. Youngstown Police Officers will continue to use handheld cameras without those signs in place. Youngstown Law Director Jeff Limbian joined WFMJ Weekend Today's Press Pass to explain why the city believes its still within the law to use the cameras and how it will move signs to meet guidelines. The city sign department will be told as early as this week to move signs alerting drivers of speed enforcement cameras to roads that lead to state routes and highways like Interstate 680. Mr. Limbian says the way he interprets the law is that as long as people are adequately notified that the city has traffic cameras then moving the signs should be sufficient. But drivers traveling from another highway merging onto 680 won't see those signs since they have to be taken down from all state-maintained roadways. "You know it probably is not fair," Mr. Limbian said. "If you have somebody who is passing through 680 from Akron and maybe heading to somewhere in Western Pennsylvania, they're not going to know and clearly I think we need to work with the state to try to rectify that problem," Mr.Limbian said. Just like the class action traffic ticket case in Girard, Mr. Limbian is expecting a class action lawsuit targeting speed cameras to eventually surface. Mr. Limbian says he's expecting and prepared for possible legal challenges to the city's decision. "I wouldn't be surprised if some thoughtful or aggressive lawyer might do the same thing with Youngstown and we're prepared to fight it, because the safety for the citizens of Youngstown and frankly it's a financial issue too," he said. [GN] [*] Bill Aims to Stop Student Loan Arbitration, Class Action Ban ---------------------------------------------------------------- Public News Service reports that in Missouri, 70 percent of college graduates leave school with debt, and navigating the payback process for their loans isn't easy. That could change with a bill introduced in Congress in July that has gotten support from numerous higher education and consumer groups. The Aim High Act (HR 1772) is intended to make institutions more accountable and transparent to the public. "It's a comprehensive package that seeks to make college more affordable, more accessible, and hold institutions more accountable for the results that they achieve," explains Ashley Harrington, a special assistant to the president of the Center for Responsible Lending. "And so we think that it's a big, strong step in the right direction." The Aim High Act also would prohibit lenders from forcing students to sign agreements at the beginning of their loan that ban them from seeking arbitration or a class action lawsuit if they are harmed in the process of the loan. The average student loan debt per person in Missouri is $26,000, according to LendEDU, an online marketplace for financial products. Nationwide, 44 million consumers owe $1.5 trillion collectively. If passed, the legislation also simplifies the loan repayment system to include one standard plan and one income-based plan that is accessible to all borrowers. Ms. Harrington says the current system is confusing for borrowers. "It's really hard to navigate which ones you qualify for," she states. "You have to re-certify every year for an income-based repayment plan, and if you forget to re-certify you will automatically be transitioned from that income-based repayment play to a standard plan." There also is increased support for minority institutions and others whose enrollment includes a large portion of low-income students. The Aim High Act currently is in a House committee for consideration. [GN] [*] Initial Coin Offering-Related Lawsuits Hit Record High in 2018 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Michael del Castillo, writing for Forbes.com, reports that it's been a record year for federal lawsuits related to initial coin offerings, the new fundraising method that lets entrepreneurs raise capital by selling tokens on a blockchain. While 2017 saw the first five U.S. class action lawsuits related to the technology, according to a report released on July 25 by the Stanford Law School Securities Class Action Clearinghouse and Cornerstone Research, the first six months of 2018 alone had an additional seven filings. But the rise in class action lawsuits around ICOs coincides with a larger, "historic" incidence of class action securities lawsuits since 2016, with more than 750 federal securities class actions having been filed since halfway through that year. That's the most prolific 24-month period since the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 was enacted, according the the report. Report coauthor Joseph Grundfest, a Stanford Law School professor who is a former commissioner of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, described the findings in a statement: "Class action securities fraud litigation continues to affect a large percentage of publicly traded firms." While ICOs aren't typically tied to public firms, they have nevertheless raised $19.4 billion since 2014, according to CoinDesk data, with the total amount raised in 2018 surpassing all of 2017 earlier this year. Six of the seven class actions filed this year are still active, according to data from the Stanford Law School Clearinghouse. Notable ongoing lawsuits include one filed in June against San Francisco-based Ripple Labs alleging that the defendants raised "hundreds of millions of dollars" through the unregistered sale of XRP to retail investors. Another suit, against U.K.-based Bitconnect, alleges that the company "failed to disclose material facts" that caused its value to drop. Further ongoing cases filed this year are against Paragon Coin, Latium Network, DRIP and Cloud With Me. A seventh case, against cryptocurrency mining operation Mining Max, was dismissed in June. In total, 12 ICO class actions are documented in the report, all of which occurred in the past two years. Two of these ICOs have parallel action in California state courts. The new fundraising mechanism has been the target of frequent accusations of abuse due to their perceived lack of accountability and an early disregard for securities law. As a result, the SEC earlier this year named the head of its distributed ledger technology working group, Valerie Szczepanik, as the first senior adviser for digital assets, tasked in part to look into the issue. However, the Cornerstone report is interesting in that it also highlights existing problems related to more traditional securities issuances. While the total number of ICOs is on pace to more than double in 2018, they represent just a tiny fraction of the total class action lawsuits being filed. Grundfest concluded: "If the trends observed in the first half of the year continue to year-end, approximately 8.5 percent of all companies listed on the NYSE and NASDAQ markets will have been sued in these cases." [GN] [*] Securities Class Action Filings Up in First Half of 2018 ------------------------------------------------------------ Hazel Bradford, writing for Pensions & Investments, reports that the number of securities class-action filings and the average case size increased in the first half of 2018, according to a Cornerstone Research report released on July 25. Plaintiffs filed 204 new federal securities class actions, which combined with the previous 18-month figures, add up to 750 actions that represent the most prolific 24-month period since enactment of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, aimed at shifting control to investors with the largest losses, researchers at Cornerstone Research and the Stanford Law School Securities Class Action Clearinghouse found. The 204 class actions are up from 189 in the second half of 2017. One difference over the first six months of 2018 was a return of mega filings, instead of smaller cases in 2017. Core filings -- those alleging stock price drops without merger and acquisition claims -- rose to 111 from 87 in the second half of 2017. "We see persistently high volumes," Sasha Aganin, Cornerstone Research vice president and a report co-author, said in an interview. Average case size, as measured by market capitalization losses, rose to levels not seen since 2002, driven by mega filings involving a dollar loss of at least $5 billion. Nine mega filings in the first half of 2018 made up 69% of all disclosure dollar losses, compared to 36% in the first half of 2017. Those nine mega cases were more than three times higher than the historical semiannual average. The previous year saw an unusual prevalence of midsize cases, which could indicate more market volatility, Mr. Aganin said. "We have seen a very long bull market, and stock indices have not been very volatile, but my suspicion is volatility might be picking up." Alleged dollar losses related to disclosure issues rose to an aggregate $157 billion, 162% higher than the historical semiannual average of $60 billion. Alleged losses totaled $59 billion in the last half of 2017. Other trends noted so far in 2018 were a slight drop in the percentage of core filings against non-U.S. issuers, which fell slightly to 22%, and an increase of filings in the communications sector, particularly internet companies, which increased to 17 from six in the second half of 2017. "If the trends observed in the first half of the year continue to year-end, approximately 8.5% of all companies listed on the NYSE and Nasdaq markets will have been sued in these cases," Stanford Law School Professor Joseph A. Grundfest said in a news release. The report is available on the Cornerstone Research website. [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 ***