/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/180816.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, August 16, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 164 Headlines 447 MARKET INC: Rosales Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay ACCESS RECEIVABLES: Gurto Sues Over Auto-dialed Collection Calls ACRONIS NA: Huckaby to Recover Overtime Pay, Sales Commissions ADAM'S EUROPEAN: $1.97MM Settlement in Wage Suit Has Prelim OK ADVANCED MEDITECH: New Albany Medical Hits Unsolicited Faxed Ads AFFINION GROUP: Calif. Class Suit vs. Webloyalty Still Ongoing AFFINION GROUP: Connecticut Class Suit vs. Webloyalty Underway AK BUILDING: Martinez Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages ALEXION PHARMA: Bid to Dismiss Solaris-Related Suit Still Pending ALKERMES PLC: Bid to Dismiss "Gagnon" Suit Underway ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Goldberger Action Disputes Collection Letter ALLY BANK: Chinitz Files Suit for Unjust Enrichment ALLY FINANCIAL: Faces Randall Suit in Suffolk, Massachusetts AMERICAN AIRLINES: Fails to Pay Proper OT, Kouchi Suit Alleges AMERICAN AIRLINES: Settlement of DC Suit Receives Initial Approval APOLLO ENVIRO: Cond. Certification of Welders Class Recommended ATHENS ORTHOPEDIC: Ga. App. Affirms Dismissal of Data Theft Suit B & C TOWING: N.J. App. Div. Reverses Denial of Class Certification BAY RIDGE HOSPITALITY: Santamaria Action to Recover Unpaid Wages BAYADA HOME: Court Certifies Class of Home Health Workers BIGHAM CABLE: Pettiford Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages BIRCH'S BREWHOUSE: Servers/Bartenders Seek Unpaid Wages, Damages CALIFORNIA: State Judge Salary Increase Ruling Enforcement Upheld CARPACCIO INC: Underpays Food Runners & Servers, Lopez Suit Claims CELGENE CORP: Settlement in Principle Reached in JCAR015 Suit CHSPSC LLC: 6th Circuit Appeal Filed in Sutton FLSA Suit COMMUNITY BANK: Parshall Seeks to Block Sale to CVB Financial CONSUMERS ENERGY: Still Defends Gas Index Price Reporting Suit CONTRACT CALLERS: Certification of Class Sought in Voeks Suit CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Proceedings in Woodward Suit Stayed COPPER THROAT: Guerrero Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages CORECIVIC OF TENNESSEE: Class of Scabies-Infested Inmates Certified CREDIT PROTECTION: Thibodeaux Action Disputes Collection Letter CTA PIZZA: James Call Files Suit to Recover Proper Wages CUISINART INC: Wicklund Injured by Lid Defect, Seeks Damages DARP INC: Court Narrows Claims in M. Fochtman's Slavery Suit DCT INDUSTRIAL: Faces Putative Class Suits over Prologis Merger DIAMOND RESORTS: Gonzales Suit Disputes Overtime Pay Computation DISH NETWORK: Appeal from Krakauer Suit Judgment Still Pending DISTINCTIVE MAINTENANCE: Tanooli Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages DOWDUPONT INC: Subsidiary Defends 38 Lawsuits over PFOA Exposure DOWDUPONT INC: Unit Faces Consolidated Lawsuit over PFC Discharge EAGLE CAPITAL: Gonzalez Files Suit to Recover Unpaid OT Wages EDISON INTERNATIONAL: San Onofre OII Dismissal Order under Appeal EDISON INTERNATIONAL: Still Defends 401(k) Savings Plan Suit EL POLLO LOCO: Appeals Class Status Order in "Turocy, et al." Suit EL POLLO LOCO: Class of Stockholders Certified in Turocy Suit EL POLLO LOCO: Court Certifies 2 Class of Plaintiffs in "Olvera" ENBRIDGE ENERGY: Mesirov Replaces Brinckerhoff in Delaware Lawsuit ENHANCED RECOVERY: Kola Sues Over Illegal Collection ERIE INDEMNITY: 3rd Cir. Denies Petition for Rehearing in "Beltz" EVENTBRITE INC: Wu ADA Suit Says Website not Blind-friendly FACEBOOK INC: Still Defends Class Suits Related to Data Misuse FARMLAND MUTUAL: Court Narrows Claims in S. Mejia's Wage Suit FENIX PARTS: Count I in A. Beezley's Securities Suit Dismissed FIVE GUYS: Oct. 2 Filing Deadline of "Lusk" Class Certification Bid FLOWERS FOODS: Distributors' Suit Seek Unpaid Wages, Damages FOULKE MGMT: Dismissal Order in J. Stollsteimer's Suit Affirmed FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Connecticut Securities Suit Underway FUNKO INC: Court Denies A. Parikh's Bid for Lead Plaintiff GAMESTOP CORP: Horton Sues Over Illegal Personal Info Disclosure GENOCEA BIOSCIENCES: Sept. 25 Hearing for Bid to Drop Class Suit GENPACT SERVICES: Hoffman Disputes Vague Collection Letter GNC HOLDINGS INC: Continues to Defend Pa. Workweek Related Suit GNC HOLDINGS: Court Narrows Class Claims in Naranjo Suit GOLDMAN SACHS: Awaits 2nd Cir. Ruling on Gender Pay Disparity Suit GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Nix Commodities-Related Suit Still Pending GOLDMAN SACHS: Bids to Drop Adeptus Health Class Actions Pending GOLDMAN SACHS: Bids to Drop Securities Lending Suits Still Pending GOLDMAN SACHS: Bids to Drop U.S. Treasury Securities Suit Pending GOLDMAN SACHS: Interest Rate Swap Antitrust Actions Still Ongoing GOLDMAN SACHS: Lawsuit over 2012-2014 Securities Sales Pending GOLDMAN SACHS: Lawsuit over Sale of Valeant Shares Still Ongoing GOLDMAN SACHS: Must Defend Calif. Suit over Snap IPO GOLDMAN SACHS: Plaintiffs in SunEdison Lawsuit Seek Class Status GOLDMAN SACHS: Still Faces Currencies-Related Litigation in N.Y. GOPRO INC: 2018 Shareholder Class Complaints Underway GOPRO INC: Shareholder Lawsuit in N.D. Calif. Still Ongoing HAMILTON COUNTY, OH: Court Approves Settlement of Inmates' Suit HANOVER INSURANCE: Settlement in Principle Reached in Durand Suit HAYNES TRUCKING: Certification of Truck Drivers' Class Upheld HUB GROUP: Claims in Robles Suit Dismissed With Prejudice HUNTER WARFIELD: $21K Deal in FDCPA Suit Has Final Approval IC SYSTEM: Delgado Seeks Certification of Class Under FDCPA ILG INC: Faces Hohman Class Suit over Marriott Vacations Merger ILG INC: Still Awaiting Court Ruling on Bid to Drop Mass Action IMPERVA INC: Settlement in Principle Reached in Calif. Class Suits INVUITY INC: Paciga Securities Class Lawsuit Still Pending JACOB TRANSPORTATION: Settlement in R. Greene's Suit Has Prelim OK JAMES MAYER: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Barry Says JONATHAN KLEIN: Lundi Sues Over Illegal Credit Collection JP MORGAN: $285K in Attys' Fees Awarded in M. Loeza's Wage Suit LAMB WESTON: Kennard Sues Over Under-filled Snack Product LANDMARK CREDIT: $950K Deal in Overdraft Fees Suit Has Prelim OK LEE COUNTY, FL: Court Dismisses H. Gonzalez's Prisoners Suit LJM PARTNERS: Faces Shlifka Suit Over Growth Fund Collapse M CULINARY CONCEPTS: Alejandro Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages MACERICH COMPANY: Murphy Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site MACTANZ INC: Snider Moves to Certify Class of Servers Under FLSA MASTER JANITORIAL: Retina Associates Sues Over Illegal Faxed Ads METROPOLITAN TRANSIT: Randle Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages MIAMI-DADE EXPRESSWAY: Class Cert. in Axle Toll Suit Affirmed MICROSOFT CORP: Antitrust Class Lawsuit in Canada Still Pending MICROSOFT CORP: Canadian Cell Phone Class Action Remains Dormant MISSISSIPPI COUNTY, AR: Bryan Suit Alleges FLSA Violation MRI INT'L: Insurance Policies Liquidation in "Takiguchi" Ordered MTGE INVESTMENT: Faces 4 Civil Actions over Annaly Merger Accord MTGE INVESTMENT: Meyer Suit Seeks to Halt Sale to Annaly MVP WORKFORCE: Smith Alleges Discrimination in Job Placements NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Awaiting Court's Okay of "Jordan" Settlement NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Still Defends Class Suit over Telephone Calls NATURE'S BEST: Arbitration Ruling in Drivers' Suit Reversed NAVIENT CORP: Bid to Drop Lord Abbett Funds Suit Underway NAVIENT CORP: Bid to Nix Consolidated "Pope" Suit Still Pending NETGEAR INC: Klebba Response to Bid to Dismiss Suit Due Aug. 20 NETGEAR INC: Sassine Voluntarily Drops Class Action NETGEAR INC: Still Faces Fischer Suit over WiFi Range Extenders NEW YORK: Filing of 2nd Amended Suit vs. NYPD Partly OK'd NORTH CAROLINA: Drivers File Suit v. DMV Over License Revocation NORTH SHORE BAKING: Bakers File Suit to Recover Unpaid OT Wages OANDA CORP: Suit Over Excessive Forex Spreads Dismissed OCLARO INC: Franchi Challenges Lumentum Merger Deal OCLARO INC: Ryan Files Suit Over Proposed Lumentum Merger OMNICELL INC: Status Conference in Mazya Lawsuit Set for Oct. 4 ONEMAIN HOLDINGS: Securities Class Action in New York Ongoing ONESPAN INC: Still Defends Putative Class Lawsuit in N.D. Illinois PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss Sgarlata Suit Underway POAH COMMUNITIES: Tenants Demand Whereabouts of Security Deposit PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Garcia Appeals D.N.J. Ruling to 3rd Circuit POST HOLDINGS: Unit Settles Indirect Buyers' Antitrust Suit PQ NEW YORK: Murphy Files ADA Suit v. Cafe Chain PROTHENA CORPORATION: Granite Point Sues over Drop in Share Price RATCHFORD LAW: Walch Class Suit Asserts FDCPA Breach RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE: Muszytowski Moves to Certify Class ROSENDIN ELECTRIC: J. Lopez's Labor Suit Remanded to State Court S1 SECURITY GROUP: Suarez Suit to Recover Overtime Pay SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Show Cause Order in "Kerkorian" Suit Entered SCHOOL REFORM COMMISSION: Taxpayers Seek to Rescind Contract SEATTLE GENETICS: Cascadian Acquisition-Related Suits Dismissed SEATTLE GENETICS: Court Dismisses CD33A Class Action SEMPER SOLARIS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Anthony Suit Alleges SIRIUS XM: Still Defend "Buchanan" Suit over Robocalls SOLSTICE MARKETING: Faces Wu Suit in S.D. New York SPACE NK USA LLC: Olsen Says Website not Blind-friendly SSC KERRVILLE: Fails to Pay OT Wages to RNs & LVNs, Passmore Says STRAND BOOK: Murphy Wants Web Site Accessible to Visually-impaired SUPER MICRO: Consolidated Securities Suit Filing Due Sept. 24 SUPERRUAY CORP: Fails to Pay OT to Cooks, Basurto Suit Alleges SUPERVALU INC: Summary Judgment, Class Cert. Bids Still Pending TAKING CARE: Gipson Action Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay THREE SONZ: Branum Suit Seeks Payment of OT, Minimum Wage TUMINO'S TOWING: Jurisdictional Discovery Ordered in "Kiley" Suit ULTA BEAUTY: Levi & Korsinsky to Lead in Securities Fraud Suit UNITED STATES: NY Court Certifies Class of UAC UNITED STATES: Pars Challenges Ban on Muslims From Five Countries UNITED STATES: Retirees File Suit Over Pension Reduction UNIVERSAL FIDELITY: Class Certification Sought in "O'Boyle" Suit US BANK NA: McGovern Sues Over Excessive Bank Fees VICTORY FOR YOUTH: Quinones Seeks Unpaid Wages, Damages VIKING GROUP: Faces Jackson Suit Over Defective Fire Sprinklers VISHARA VIDEO: Silva Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Premium WAUPACA FOUNDRY: Garrett Labor Suit Transferred to E.D. Wisconsin WAUPACA FOUNDRY: Sarrell Labor Suit Transferred to E.D. Wisconsin WELLS FARGO: RMBS Investors' New York Class Suit Still Ongoing WORLEY CLAIMS: Rosell Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages YAHOO INC: Summary Judgment in B. Domiguez's TCPA Suit Affirmed ********* 447 MARKET INC: Rosales Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay ---------------------------------------------------------- David Rosales and Noe Capulin, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiffs, v. 447 Market, Inc. and Kim Boong Yung, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-04798, (S.D. N.Y., May 30, 2018), seeks maximum liquidated damages for late overtime wages and non-payment of minimum wages, recovery of compensation for not receiving notices and statements including not being paid on a weekly basis, and costs and attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, New York Minimum Wage Act and New York Labor Law. Defendants operate Jubilee Marketplace, a deli and grocery business. Plaintiffs worked for Jubilee as food preparers. They worked approximately 54-60 hours a week without overtime pay. Plaintiffs also worked a spread of hours of more than ten hours a day but were not paid an extra hour of pay each such day. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Abdul K. Hassan, Esq. ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC 215-28 Hillside Avenue Queens Village, NY 11427 Tel: (718) 740-1000 Fax: (718) 355-9668 Email: abdul@abdulhassan.com ACCESS RECEIVABLES: Gurto Sues Over Auto-dialed Collection Calls ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kelly Gurto, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Access Receivables Management, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-01565, (D. Md., May 30, 2018), seeks actual and statutory damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys' fees and such further relief under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Defendant used an automatic telephone dialing system to collect a debt allegedly owed by Gurto, notes the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Eric N. Stravitz, Esq. STRAVITZ LAW FIRM, PC 4300 Forbes Boulevard—Suite 100 Lanham, MD 20706 Tel: (240) 467-5741 Fax: (240) 467-5743 Email: eric@stravitzlawfirm.com - and - Aaron D. Radbil, Esq. GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC 106 East Sixth Street, Suite 913 Austin, TX 78701 Phone: (512) 322-3912 Fax: (561) 961-5684 Email: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com ACRONIS NA: Huckaby to Recover Overtime Pay, Sales Commissions -------------------------------------------------------------- Jeremy Huckaby, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Acronis North America Inc., a foreign corporation, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-01650, (D. Ariz., May 31, 2018), seeks unpaid overtime compensation, as well as an additional amount as liquidated damages, costs and reasonable attorneys' fees under the provisions of Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff has worked for Acronis from October 2017 through the present, dialing and receiving calls from potential customers in an effort to sell Acronis's products and services. Acronis did not track the hours worked by Huckaby who routinely worked in excess of forty hours per week. Acronis also continues to withhold certain commissions owed to Plaintiff, says the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Brad A. Denton, Esq. Timothy F. Coons, Esq. DENTON PETERSON, P.C. 1930 N. Arboleda Road, Suite 200 Mesa, AZ 85213 Tel: (480) 325-9900 Fax: (480) 325-9901 Email: Brad@DentonPeterson.com Timothy@DentonPeterson.com ADAM'S EUROPEAN: $1.97MM Settlement in Wage Suit Has Prelim OK -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JANUSZ BOGDAN, MARIAN MASLAG, WIESLAW KONOPKA, and MARIUSZ KONOPKA, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated who were employed by ADAM'S EUROPEAN CONTRACTING, INC., Plaintiffs v. ADAM'S EUROPEAN CONTRACTING, INC., ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY, and JOHN DOE BONDING COMPANIES 1-6 Defendants, Docket No. 654432/12, Motion Seq. No. 005 (N.Y. Sup.), Judge Nancy M. Bannon of the New York County Supreme Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of a settlement of the class action dated Jan. 18, 2018, approval of the forms of notices and claims, the appointment of the Plaintiff's counsel as the class counsel, and the scheduling of a fairness hearing. Bogdan, Maslag, Wieslaw Konopka, and Mariusz Konopka, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, commenced the action against AEC, its insurer, Arch Insurance Co., and several unidentified bonding companies, alleging that, from 2006 through 2011, AEC violated Labor Law Section 650 et seq., Labor Law Section 190 et seq., Labor Law Section 220, et seq., and 12 NYCRR 142-3.2 by failing to pay the required minimum overtime wages and supplemental benefits to its employees, who were engaged in public works projects, and compelling those employees to work longer than the maximum number of daily and weekly hours, as limited by law. The class sought to be certified consists of all individuals employed by AEC who performed construction work and all work incidental thereto from Dec. 19, 2006, through June 21, 2016, excepting clerical, administrative, professional, or supervisory employees. By order dated Sept. 16, 2015, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification on the ground that they failed to appear for oral argument. By order dated Jan. 6, 2016, the Court denied their motion for the same relief as procedurally improper, in as much as the Plaintiffs did not seek to vacate their earlier default before seeking substantive relief. By order dated March 1, 2016, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion to vacate their default in appearing. By order dated June 21, 2016, the Court ultimately granted the Plaintiffs motion under motion to certify the class. The proposed class settlement will require the Defendants to pay the gross sum of $1,970,000 into a settlement fund, of which $475,000 thereof is allocated to pay the fees of the Plaintiff's attorneys. The Defendants agree to allocate payments to class members as 50% as W-2 wages and 50% as liquidated damages under the Labor Law, the latter of which will be reported on IRS form 1099 without withholding. Judge Bannon finds that the lump sum fund set forth in the settlement agreement to properly pay for overtime wages and liquidated damages fairly and adequately compensates the class members for their unpaid overtime wages and liquidated damages, and is in their best interest. The affidavit of the Plaintiff's counsel also describes dozens of class actions that her firm has litigated successfully, which amply demonstrated its experience and skill in class action litigation, and that it will adequately represent the interest of all class members. For these reasons, Judge Bannon granted the Plaintiff's motion. Accordingly, without opposition, she preliminarily approved the settlement agreement and the forms for notices and claims. A fairness hearing will be conducted on Sept. 19, 2018, at 10 a.m. The Decision and Order constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court. A full-text copy of the Court's June 27, 2018 Decision and Order is available at https://is.gd/ZkeYF5 from Leagle.com. ADVANCED MEDITECH: New Albany Medical Hits Unsolicited Faxed Ads ---------------------------------------------------------------- Internal Medicine Rural Health Clinic of New Albany, P.A., doing business as New Albany Medical Group, Plaintiff, v. Advanced Meditech International, Inc., also known as AMI and doing business as VasectomyStore.com, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00125, (D. Md., May 31, 2018), seeks damages and injunctive relief pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 and the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005. New Albany Medical Group operates a facility providing various health care services in Union County, Mississippi. On October 20, 2017, Advanced Meditech faxed an advertisement regarding medical instruments for use in performing vasectomies. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: L.N. Chandler Rogers, Esq. ROGERS LAW GROUP 201 E. Bankhead Street New Albany, MS 38652 Tel: (662) 538-5990 Fax: (662) 538-5997 Email: chandler@rogerslawgroup.com - and - Winston B. Collier, Esq. THE COLLIER FIRM 2090 Old Taylor Road Oxford, MS 38655 Tel: (870) 347-2100 Fax: (870) 347-1164 Email: winston@thecollierfirm.com - and - Gregory M. Zarzaur, Esq. ZARZAUR MUJUMDAR & DEBROSSE-TRIAL LAWYERS 2332 2nd Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203 Tel: (205) 983-7985 Fax: (888) 505-0523 Email: Gregory@zarzaur.com AFFINION GROUP: Calif. Class Suit vs. Webloyalty Still Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------------- Affinion Group Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2018, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the class action suit against Webloyalty in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California is still ongoing. On June 7, 2012, a class action lawsuit was filed against Webloyalty in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. After filing several amended complaints, the plaintiff asserted a variety of claims, including claims under the EFT, the ECPA, California Business and Professional Code § 17200, et seq. (the "CBPC"), CUTPA, various privacy statutes, and common law. The plaintiff seeks to represent a nationwide class of consumers whose credit or debit card information was obtained by Webloyalty via data pass, and had their credit or debit cards charged on or after October 1, 2008. On June 22, 2015, the District Court of S.C. entered judgment dismissing the plaintiff's federal claims with prejudice, and his state claims without prejudice. The plaintiff appealed that judgement to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On March 28, 2017, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's ECPA and privacy-based state law claims, but reversed and remanded the dismissal of other claims, including the plaintiff's claims under the EFT, CBPC, and CUTPA. On September 5, 2017, the plaintiff filed a third amended complaint, which asserts the claims that were remanded by the Ninth Circuit. Webloyalty has answered the complaint and denied all liability. The matter is now in discovery. On June 29, 2018, the plaintiff moved for class certification on his claims for violation of the EFT on behalf of a nationwide class, and on his claims for conversion, and violation of CBPC on behalf of a California class. Webloyalty expects to oppose that motion prior to the due date of August 20, 2018. Affinion Group, Inc. designs, administers, and fulfills loyalty, customer engagement, and insurance programs and solutions. The company operates through four segments: Global Loyalty, Global Customer Engagement, Insurance Solutions, and Legacy Membership and Package. The company is headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut. Affinion Group, Inc. is a subsidiary of Affinion Group Holdings, Inc. AFFINION GROUP: Connecticut Class Suit vs. Webloyalty Underway -------------------------------------------------------------- Affinion Group Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2018, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the putative class action suit against Webloyalty filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, is still ongoing. On August 27, 2010, a former member of Webloyalty's membership programs filed a putative class action lawsuit against Webloyalty, one of its former clients, and one of the credit card associations in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. The plaintiff alleged that Webloyalty's enrollment of the plaintiff using debit card information obtained from a third party via data pass, and not directly from the plaintiff, was deceptive. The Plaintiff seeks to represent a nationwide class of consumers whose credit or debit card data was transferred to Webloyalty via data pass on or after October 1, 2008. The complaint, which was amended several times, asserted, among others, claims for violations of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act ("EFT"), the ECPA, and CUTPA as well as other common law claims. On October 15, 2015, the Connecticut District Court entered judgment dismissing all claims with prejudice. The plaintiff appealed that judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the "Second Circuit"). On December 20, 2016, the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court of Connecticut's dismissal in part, but reversed and remanded the dismissal of claims against Webloyalty and its former client under CUTPA and the EFT. The District Court of Connecticut held a scheduling conference on March 23, 2017, but discovery has not yet commenced. The defendants have answered the complaint and denied any liability. Affinion Group, Inc. designs, administers, and fulfills loyalty, customer engagement, and insurance programs and solutions. The company operates through four segments: Global Loyalty, Global Customer Engagement, Insurance Solutions, and Legacy Membership and Package. The company is headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut. Affinion Group, Inc. is a subsidiary of Affinion Group Holdings, Inc. AK BUILDING: Martinez Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Marta A. Martinez on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AK Building Services Inc. and Ana Castano, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-22144, (S.D. Fla., May 30, 2018), seeks to recover from Defendants minimum and overtime wages, liquidated damages, and costs and reasonable attorney's fees under the provisions of Fair Labor Standards Act. AK Building Services provides janitorial and maintenance services for office buildings, condominiums, medical facilities schools and different commercial accounts throughout Dade County, Broward, Palm Beach, and other areas within Florida. Martinez was a cleaning employee assigned to an office building located at 2999 NE 191 ST, Aventura Florida 33180. She worked more than 40 hours per week but was never properly compensated for overtime hours worked. Plaintiff was misclassified as an independent contractor. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com ALEXION PHARMA: Bid to Dismiss Solaris-Related Suit Still Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2018, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company's bid to dismiss the putative class action suit related to Solaris remains pending. On December 29, 2016, a shareholder filed a putative class action against the Company and certain former employees in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, alleging that defendants made misrepresentations and omissions about Soliris. On April 12, 2017, the court appointed a lead plaintiff. On July 14, 2017, the lead plaintiff filed an amended putative class action complaint against the Company and seven current or former employees. The complaint alleges that defendants made misrepresentations and omissions about Soliris, including alleged misrepresentations regarding sales practices, management changes, and related investigations, between January 30, 2014 and May 26, 2017, and that the Company's stock price dropped upon the purported disclosure of the misrepresentations. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on September 12, 2017. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss on November 13, 2017, and defendants' filed a reply brief in further support of their motion on December 28, 2017. Defendants' motion to dismiss is now fully briefed and pending before the court. Alexion Pharmaceuticals said "Given the early stages of this litigation, an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time." Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, develops and commercializes various therapeutic products. The company was founded in 1992 and is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. ALKERMES PLC: Bid to Dismiss "Gagnon" Suit Underway --------------------------------------------------- Alkermes Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2018, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company's motion to dismiss a purported class action suit by a company stockholder entitled, Gagnon v. Alkermes plc, et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-09178 (S.D.N.Y., November 22, 2017), remains pending. The case was filed against the Company and certain of its officers. This complaint has been amended twice since its initial filing. The second amended complaint was filed on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of Alkermes securities during the period of February 24, 2015 to November 14, 2017, and alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, based on allegedly false or misleading statements and omissions regarding the Company's marketing practices related to VIVITROL. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, unspecified damages for alleged inflation in the price of securities, and reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees. On June 29, 2018, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. Alkermes plc, a biopharmaceutical company, researches, develops, and commercializes pharmaceutical products to address unmet medical needs of patients in various therapeutic areas in the United States, Ireland, and internationally. Alkermes plc was founded in 1987 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland. ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Goldberger Action Disputes Collection Letter --------------------------------------------------------------- Bernard Goldberger, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Alltran Financial Limited Partnership, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-04372 (E.D. N.Y., August 2, 2018), seeks damages and declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act. Alltran Financial, LP is a debt collection company. It violated provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by sending a collection letter containing unclear language regarding applicable interest and fees on a debt, says the complaint. The August 2017 collection letter that sought to collect Goldberger's debt on an American Express credit card failed to indicate the minimum amount owed, the applicable interest rate, the amount of late fees or when they will be added, and other critical information regarding the individual's obligation, adds the complaint. [BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. ALLY BANK: Chinitz Files Suit for Unjust Enrichment --------------------------------------------------- Ronald E. Chinitz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Ally Bank, and Does 1-50, Case No. 5:18-cv-04329 (N.D. Calif., July 17, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Expedited Funds Availability Act and for unjust enrichment. The Defendant's failure to pay interest on funds it receives from standard ACH transfer requests for its customers' benefit starting from the day it receives those funds is unlawful, and forms the basis of this action, says the Plaintiff. Ronald E. Chinitz is an individual, and has been a resident of Santa Cruz County, California. The Defendant Ally Bank is a Utah chartered online bank and an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of Ally Financial, Inc., a bank holding company. Ally became a member of the Federal Reserve System in March 2016. Ally offers a variety of deposit and other banking products in California and nationwide, with total assets of $123.5 billion and deposits of $78.9 billion as of December 31, 2016. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sheri L. Kelly, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF SHERI L. KELLY 31 E. Julian St. San Jose, CA 95112 Tel: (408) 287-7712 Fax: (408) 583-4249 E-mail: slk@sherikellylaw.com ALLY FINANCIAL: Faces Randall Suit in Suffolk, Massachusetts ------------------------------------------------------------ James Randall, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Ally Financial Inc., Defendant, Case No. 182201C (Comm. Mass., Suffolk Cty., July 16, 2018) alleges that the Defendant fails to provide the Plaintiff a with all appropriate repossession notices and information required by Massachusetts law. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff entered into a loan agreement with the Defendant for the purchase of a Jeep Grand Cherokee on March 16, 2017. On October 26, 2017, the Defendants repossessed the vehicle. On April 19, 2018, the Defendant sent the Plaintiff a notice advising him of the repossession and of intent to sell the vehicle. The notice erroneously states that if the money the Defendant get from the sale, after paying the costs, it will reduce the amount the Plaintiff owes to the Defendant and if the Defendant get less money than what the Plaintiff owes, the Plaintiff still owes the Defendant the difference. Ally Financial Inc. provides various financial products and services for consumers, businesses, automotive dealers, and corporate clients in the United States and Canada. The company was formerly known as GMAC Inc. and changed its name to Ally Financial Inc. in May 2010. Ally Financial Inc. was founded in 1919 and is headquartered in Detroit, Michigan. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raven Moeslinger, Esq. Nicholas F. Ortiz, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NICHOLAS F. ORTIZ, P.C. 99 High Street, Suite 304 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 338-9400 E-mail: rm@mass-legal.com AMERICAN AIRLINES: Fails to Pay Proper OT, Kouchi Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- Joshua Kouchi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. American Airlines, Inc., and Does 1 through 50, Defendants, Case No. BC714156 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 16, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods. Mr. Kouchi was employed by the Defendants a hourly non-exempt employee. American Airlines, Inc. operates as a network air carrier. The company provides scheduled air transportation services for passengers and cargo. The company was founded in 1934 and is headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas. American Airlines, Inc. is a subsidiary of American Airlines Group Inc. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Mahoney, Esq. Anna R. Salusky, Esq. George B. Singer, Esq. Shawan I. Pardo, Esq. MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC 249 E. Ocean Blvd., Ste. 814 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 590-5550 Facsimile: (562) 590-8400 AMERICAN AIRLINES: Settlement of DC Suit Receives Initial Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------ American Airlines Group Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2018, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the settlement in the air passenger capacity agreements related suit has received a preliminary approval. In June 2015, the company received a Civil Investigative Demand (CID) from the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) as part of an investigation into whether there have been illegal agreements or coordination of air passenger capacity. The CID seeks documents and other information from the Company, and other airlines have announced that they have received similar requests. The company is cooperating fully with the DOJ investigation. Subsequent to announcement of the delivery of CIDs by the DOJ, the company, along with Delta Air Lines, Inc., Southwest Airlines Co., United Airlines, Inc. and, in the case of litigation filed in Canada, Air Canada, have been named as defendants in approximately 100 putative class action lawsuits alleging unlawful agreements with respect to air passenger capacity. The U.S. lawsuits have been consolidated in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia. On June 15, 2018, the company reached a preliminary settlement agreement with the plaintiffs in the amount of $45 million that, once approved, will resolve all claims in the U.S. lawsuits. That settlement received preliminary approval from the Court on June 18, 2018. American Airlines said "We expect the Court to issue final approval of the settlement later this year." American Airlines Group Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as a network air carrier. It provides scheduled air transportation services for passengers and cargo. American Airlines Group Inc. was founded in 1934 and is headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas. APOLLO ENVIRO: Cond. Certification of Welders Class Recommended --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ABRAHAM DELGADO, Individually and on behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. APOLLO ENVIRONMENTAL STRATEGIES, INC., Defendant, Civil Action No. 4:18-cv-00526 (S.D. Tex.), Magistrate Judge Frances H. Stacy of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, recommended the approval of the Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification Under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Delgado, who filed the FLSA case on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, complains that the Defendant improperly classified welders working for it as independent contractors and then failed to pay them overtime. The Plaintiff seeks certification of the case as a collective action of all current and former Welders classified as independent contractors by Apollo at any time during the last three years. The Declarations of the Opt-in Plaintiffs, Daniel Vargas and Sergio Guzman, are substantially similar to that of Delgado. The Plaintiff argues that the evidence contained within the Declarations is sufficient to meet the low threshold burden for collective action certification. Even though his Motion was filed as "opposed," the Defendant has not, as of the date of the Memorandum and Recommendation, filed a response to the Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification. Magistrate Judge Stacy finds that the Plaintiff has established a representative class, has identified an improper pay practice common to those in the representative class and has provided sufficient evidence that there are other welders who have expressed an interest in participating in the case. As for the proposed notice, while the Defendant has not objected to the form or contents of the proposed notice, the Magistrate Judge holds that it should include the following: the notice should include the style and cause number of the case; state the reason why the notice is being sent along with a class definition; describe the Plaintiff's allegations in the lawsuit and the relief sought; should state (i) that the Court has not yet decided whether Apollo has done anything wrong or whether this case will proceed to trial; (ii) how a potential opt-in may join in the case; (iii) that the opt-in Plaintiffs will be bound by the Court's judgment, whether favorable or unfavorable, and set forth the consequences of opting in; should inform potential the opt-in Plaintiffs that they may contact the Plaintiff's counsel, or any attorney of their choosing to discuss the case; (iv) the costs of opting in; (v) that Apollo may not retaliate against claimants for joining the suit; and (vi) that the Court has not ruled on decided any of these issues, including the merits of the claims or defenses. Based on the foregoing, Magistrate Judge Stacy recommended that (i) the Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification Under the Fair Labor Standards Act be granted; (ii) the Court conditionally certifies a class of all current and former Welders classified as independent contractors by Apollo at any time during the three years before Feb. 22, 2018 up to the present and who were not paid overtime compensation; and (iii) the Notice be sent to the class members by regular U.S. mail, which includes the language/revisions set forth. The Magistrate directed the Clerk to file this instrument and provide a copy to all counsel and unrepresented parties of record. Within 14 days after being served with a copy, any party may file written objections. Failure to file objections within such period will bar an aggrieved party from attacking factual findings on appeal. Moreover, absent plain error, failure to file objections within the 14-day period bars an aggrieved party from attacking conclusions of law on appeal. The original of any written objections will be filed with the United States District Clerk. A full-text copy of the Court's June 27, 2018 Memorandum and Recommendation is available at https://is.gd/jd2GjO from Leagle.com. Abraham Delgado, Plaintiff, represented by Taft L. Foley -- info@foleylaw.com -- The Foley Law Firm. Apollo Environmental Strategies Inc, Defendant, represented by Laura E. De Santos -- ldesantos@grsm.com -- Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani. ATHENS ORTHOPEDIC: Ga. App. Affirms Dismissal of Data Theft Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge William M. Ray, II, of the Court of Appeals of Georgia for the Fifth Division affirmed the trial court's order granting AOC's motion to dismiss the case, COLLINS, et al. v. ATHENS ORTHOPEDIC CLINIC, Case No. A18A0296 (Ga. App.). After an anonymous hacker known as the "Dark Overlord" stole the personally identifiable information ("PII") of approximately 200,000 current and former AOC patients, Collins, Paulette Moreland, and Kathryn Strickland filed a putative class action. The Plaintiffs allege that the hack took place and was discovered by AOC in June 2016, and that AOC notified them of the breach in August 2016. The Dark Overlord apparently gained access to the PII database by using a third-party vendor's log-in credentials, and when AOC refused to pay a ransom for the information, the Dark Overlord offered some of it for sale on the "Dark Web," and made some of it at least temporarily available on Pastebin, a data-storage website designed to facilitate the sharing of large amounts of data online. The Plaintiffs allege that the data breach exposes them to the threat of identity theft and other harm. All of the three Plaintiffs were notified that their information had been compromised, and spent time placing fraud or credit alerts on their credit reports. Only Collins had fraudulent charges made on her credit card and spent time getting them reversed. On Jan. 20, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed a putative class action alleging violation of the Georgia Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("OCGA"), breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and negligence. The Plaintiffs also seek a declaratory judgment and attorney fees. They seek reimbursement for costs incurred and future costs to be incurred for the purchase of credit monitoring and identity theft protection, or the placing of credit freezes on their accounts, as well as injunctive relief. On June 26, 2017, the trial court granted AOC's motion to dismiss. T he Plaintiffs appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by implicitly finding that they failed to state a claim and lacked standing under Article III of the United States Constitution; and by relying on facts outside the four corners of the complaint. While credit monitoring and other precautionary measures are undoubtedly prudent, Judge Ray finds that they are not recoverable damages on the facts before us because the Plaintiffs seek only to recover for an increased risk of harm. He finds that, as in the context of medical monitoring in toxic tort cases, prophylactic measures such as credit monitoring and identity theft protection and their associated costs, which are designed to ward off exposure to future, speculative harm, are insufficient to state a cognizable claim under Georgia law. Because the Plaintiffs have not alleged a legally cognizable claim, their claim for breach of implied contract also must fail. The Judge finds that he tharms alleged in the complaint are too speculative under our law to constitute "damages" and the Plaintiffs seek a prophylactic recovery, for which the law does not provide. As for their declaratory judgement claim, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs cite to no Georgia authority requiring AOC to provide them with credit monitoring or identity theft protection at this juncture, nor does the Court discern any. Further, although the Plaintiffs contend that they need court guidance to protect them from the uncertainty of AOC's inability to safeguard their PII, the pleadings do not actually show any uncertainty which a declaration by a court would resolve. Judge Ray disagrees with the Plaintiffs' argument that the trial court erred in dismissing their claims under the Georgia Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("UDTPA"). He says the Plaintiffs do not allege any future, nonspeculative harm which an injunction would remedy. It is impossible to say whether the Dark Overlord or anyone else with access to the stolen data actually will use that data. To receive relief, at the very minimum, the Plaintiffs must show some causal connection between something AOC has done and their own nonspeculative damages. Because the Plaintiffs did not plead unjust enrichment as an alternate theory of recovery based on a failed contract, their claim for such relief cannot succeed. Finally, the Plaintiffs argue that the trial court erred in dismissing their claim for attorney fees under OCGA Section 13-6-11. However, attorney fees and litigation expenses under OCGA Section 13-6-11 are ancillary and recoverable only where other elements of damage are recoverable on the underlying claims. For these reasons, Judge Ray affirmed. A full-text copy of the Court's June 27, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/B1YJ4a from Leagle.com. David Andrew Bain -- Send Email -- for Appellant. Mark S. Goldman -- mgoldman@labaton.com -- for Appellant. Douglas J. Bench -- bench@lawgsp.com -- for Appellant. John Durand Dalbey -- jddalbey@cclblaw.com -- for Appellee. B & C TOWING: N.J. App. Div. Reverses Denial of Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------------- The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, reversed the District Court's Order denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in the cases captioned ERNICE PISACK, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Respondent, v. B & C TOWING, INC., Defendant-Respondent/Cross-Appellant, and MARIE J. CAVALCHIRE and ALAN ANTHONY YOUNG, Defendants, and B & C TOWING, INC., Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent/Cross-Appellant, v. THE CITY OF NEWARK, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent; EPTISAM PELLEGRINO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NICK'S TOWING SERVICE, INC., Defendant-Respondent, and NICHOLAS TESTA and SUSAN TESTA, Defendants. CHRISTOPHER WALKER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ALL POINTS AUTOMOTIVE & TOWING, INC., Defendant-Respondent, and THOMAS LOCICERO, Defendant, Docket Nos. A-2546-16T4, A-5399-16T3, A-5668-16T3 (N.J. Super. App. Div.). These three appeals involve the non-consensual towing of vehicles and raise questions concerning the Predatory Towing Prevention Act (Towing Act), the Consumer Fraud Act (CFA), and the Truth-In-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act (TCCWNA). Walker Christopher Walker was driving his vehicle in River Edge when he was stopped by a police officer. The officer observed the vehicle was not registered. Thus, the officer issued Walker a summons and directed that the vehicle be towed and held until Walker registered the vehicle. Defendant All Points Automotive & Towing, Inc. (All Points Towing), which had a contract with River Edge, towed Walker's vehicle. Walker filed a complaint on behalf of himself and similarly situated individuals against All Points Towing and its owner. Walker alleged that the Towing Act did not permit an administrative charge for the non-consensual towing of a vehicle that was not involved in an accident. Walker contended that the administrative charge violated the Towing Act, the CFA, and the TCCWNA. Pisack The son of Bernice Pisack illegally parked her car on a public street in Newark. The Newark Police contacted B & C Towing, Inc. (B&C Towing) and directed it to tow Pisack's vehicle to its lot. B&C Towing had a contract with Newark to provide such towing services. Bernice Pisack filed a proposed class action against B&C Towing and its owners, alleging violations of the Towing Act, the CFA, and the TCCWNA. Specifically, Pisack challenged the labor charge and the administrative fee. Pellegrino Eptisam Pellegrino was involved in a motor vehicle accident in East Rutherford. At the direction of the East Rutherford Police, Nick's Towing Service, Inc. (Nick's Towing), towed Pellegrino's vehicle. Three days later, Pellegrino contacted Nick's Towing to inquire about the charges related to the towing and storage services. She was informed that the charges totaled $448.36, and she authorized Nick's Towing to charge her credit card. Pellegrino filed a complaint on behalf of herself and similarly situated individuals against Nick's Towing and its owners. Pellegrino alleged that the yard charge, the credit card surcharge, the administrative charge, and the storage fee violated the Towing Act, the CFA, and the TCCWNA. The Towing Act The Towing Act requires the Director of the Division of Consumer Affairs (Director) to establish, by regulation, a schedule of the services for which a towing company can charge fees in connection with the non-consensual towing of a motor vehicle. The Towing Act also provides that the fees charged "shall be reasonable and not excessive and defines presumptively unreasonable and excessive. A fee is presumed to be unreasonable if it is more than twenty-five percent greater than fees charged to consumers who consent to the tow, or more than fifty percent higher than fees charged by towing companies in the municipality from which the vehicle was towed. The CFA To obtain relief under the CFA, a consumer must prove: "1) unlawful conduct by defendant; 2) an ascertainable loss by plaintiff; and 3) a causal relationship between the unlawful conduct and the ascertainable loss. The TCCWNA A plaintiff bringing a claim under the TCCWNA must establish that he or she is an aggrieved consumer and the defendant violated a clearly established legal right or responsibility. Whether the Towing Act Requires the Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies The Towing Act does not mandate administrative remedies. The Towing Act itself uses only the word "may." Specifically, the provision defining unlawful practice states: "In addition to any penalties or other remedies provided in the CFA, the Director may order a towing company that has billed a consumer for any non-consensual towing or related storage an amount determined by the Director to be unreasonable to reimburse the consumer for the excess cost with interest." That regulatory language does not create administrative remedies that preclude an aggrieved vehicle owner from pursuing a claim in court. The word "shall" is used in connection with the direction that the vehicle owner and towing company use good faith efforts to try to resolve a dispute. There is no mandatory language requiring further administrative dispute resolution efforts. Where a statutory provision contains both the words 'may' and 'shall,' it is presumed that the lawmaker intended to distinguish between them, 'shall' being construed as mandatory and 'may' as permissive. In addition, the statutory provision that gives the Director the permissive "may" authority to order a reimbursement also states that it is an unlawful practice and a violation of the CFA to violate any provision of the Towing Act. That statutory provision further provides that the Director's authority to order a reimbursement is in addition to any penalties or other remedies provided in the CFA. Consequently, the Legislature contemplated that vehicle owners could file their CFA claims in court, and nothing in the Towing Act or its regulations limits that right. Whether Towing Companies Have Derivative Immunity Under the TCA The TCA creates certain limited exceptions to the sovereign immunity enjoyed by governmental entities. Accordingly, the TCA applies to governmental entities and their employees. It expressly excludes independent contractors from the definition of employees. The Legislature did not address sovereign immunity or the TCA in the Towing Act. To accept the argument that towers are protected by sovereign immunity would render the Towing Act inapplicable any time the police directed a vehicle to be towed. Such a construction would be inconsistent with the plain language of the Towing Act and undermine its purpose, and is not required by the TCA. Thus, we hold that there is no derivative immunity under the TCA for alleged violations of the Towing Act committed by a privately-owned towing company. Whether the Towing Act Limits the Types of Services for Which a Towing Company Can Charge a Fee The Towing Act then provides that it is an unlawful practice for any towing company to charge a fee not listed on the schedule of services established by the Director. The regulations also provide that a towing company may charge for tolls it incurs driving to the site from which a motor vehicle will be towed and while towing the motor vehicle from that site to the towing company's storage facility. Finally, the regulations state that a towing company shall not charge any fee for non-consensual towing and related storage services not included in the schedule. In short, if a service is not listed on the Director's schedule, a towing company cannot charge for that service. In addition, any fee for a permitted service must be charged consistent with the requirements and limitations in the Towing Act and its regulations. Whether Plaintiffs Can Pursue Claims Under the TCCWNA A consumer is defined under the TCCWNA as any individual who buys, leases, borrows, or bails any money, property or service which is primarily for personal, family or household purposes. Here, the vehicle owners meet the definition of a consumer. The Legislature defined a vehicle owner under the Towing Act as a consumer. Like the Towing Act, the TCCWNA is remedial legislation intended to protect consumers. It is therefore logical to give a consistent construction to terms used in both statutes. Accordingly, if vehicle owners are consumers under the Towing Act, they also should be considered consumers under the TCCWNA. The inclusion of prohibited charges in the bill deceives a consumer into thinking that they are enforceable. Charges not permitted by the Towing Act violate a clearly established legal right or responsibility. Finally, if the vehicle owner paid for unauthorized services, the owner has suffered an ascertainable loss. Accordingly, towing bills with prohibited charges are the type of deceptive consumer transaction that the Legislature aimed to prevent under the TCCWNA. Whether Plaintiffs Have Asserted Certain Claims That Can Be Pursued As Class Actions Depending on the facts developed after discovery, violations of the Towing Act, as well as the related claims under the CFA and the TCCWNA, may be appropriate for class certification. For example, claims against a towing company that uniformly charges a relatively modest fee for a service or services not permitted under the Towing Act and its regulations, may be well suited for class certification. One consumer may not think it worthwhile to pursue such a claim, but if there are hundreds of such aggrieved consumers, a class may be appropriate. In summary, all three orders on appeal are reversed and the matters are remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. A full-text copy of the Superior Court's June 14, 2018 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybsxg79c from Leagle.com. Andrew R. Wolf -- awolf@wolflawfirm.net -- argued the cause for appellant/cross-respondent in A-2546-16 and appellant in A-5668-16 (The Wolf Law Firm, LLC, and Christopher J. McGinn, attorneys; Matthew S. Oorbeek -- moorbeek@wolflawfirm.net -- on the briefs). Andrew R. Wolf argued the cause for appellant in A-5399-16 (The Wolf Law Firm, LLC, andEdwyn D. Macelus , attorneys; Matthew S. Oorbeek , on the briefs). Gabriel H. Halpern -- ghalpern@pinilishalpern.com -- argued the cause for respondent/cross-appellant in A-2546-16 (Pinilis Halpern, LLP, attorneys; Gabriel H. Halpern, of counsel and on the brief). Steven F. Olivo -- smo.attystfo@snet.net -- Assistant Corporation Counsel, argued the cause for respondent in A-2546-16 (Kenyatta K. Stewart -- Kenyatta.stewart@hunthamlinridley.com -- Corporation Counsel, attorney; Steven F. Olivo, on the brief). Jeremy B. Stein -- jstein@hdrbb.com -- argued the cause for respondent in A-5399-16 (Hartmann Doherty Rosa Berman & Bulbulia, LLC, attorneys; Paul S. Doherty, III -- pdoherty@hdrbb.com -- and Jeremy B. Stein, on the brief). Brian T. Giblin, Sr. , argued the cause for respondent in A-5668-16 (Giblin & Gannaio, attorneys; Brian T. Giblin, Sr., and Brian T. Giblin, Jr. , on the brief). BAY RIDGE HOSPITALITY: Santamaria Action to Recover Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Yonathan Carolyn Javier and Yonathan Santamaria, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Bay Ridge Hospitality, LLC, Carlo D'Ambrosi, Paul DiDonato and John Does 1 through 10, inclusive Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-04395 (E.D. N.Y., August 2, 2018), seeks to recover compensation for wages paid at less than the statutory minimum wage, unpaid wages from defendants for overtime work for which they did not receive overtime premium pay as required by law, and liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. Bay Ridge Hospitality operates as Grotto Italian Table, an Italian restaurant in Brooklyn. Javier was employed as a waitress while Santamaria was employed as busboy, waiter and barback. The Plaintiffs appear pro se. BAYADA HOME: Court Certifies Class of Home Health Workers --------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MICHELE KENNETT, individually and on behalf of the Proposed Colorado Rule 23 Class, Plaintiff, v. BAYADA HOME HEALTH CARE, INC., Defendant, Civil Action No. 14-cv-02005-CMA-MJW (D. Colo.), Judge Christine M. Arguello of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado granted Kennett's Uncontested Motion for Class Certification Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and Stipulation as to Monetary Relief. The Plaintiff initiated the action in 2014 on her own behalf and on behalf of a proposed class of hourly home health care workers employed by the Defendant in Colorado. She alleges the Defendant violated Colorado's wage and hour laws and seeks unpaid overtime wages. The Defendant has long argued that the Plaintiff and members of the proposed class constituted "companions" and were therefore expressly excluded from the minimum wage and overtime obligations of the Colorado Wage Act and related orders, consistent with the Fair Labor Standards Act. Pursuant to the Court's scheduling order, the action has proceeded in two stages. The first phase has focused on the Defendant's companion exemption defense. In February 2015, the parties filed separate Motions for Summary Judgment on the Defendant's companion exemption defense. On Sept. 24, 2015, the Court concluded that the Defendant's companion exemption defense was inapplicable and that the Plaintiff was not barred from overtime pay under Colorado's statutes and regulations. It therefore denied the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. The Defendant subsequently filed and the Court denied its Motion for Reconsideration or, in the Alternative, to Certify the Court's Sept. 24, 2015, Order for Interlocutory Appeal. In February 2016, the Defendant filed a Motion for Certification of a Question of Law to the Colorado Supreme Court, and on May 31, 2016, the Court certified the Defendant's question to the Colorado Supreme Court and stayed the action. The Colorado Supreme Court declined to answer the certified question on June 16, 2016, concluding the first phase of the litigation. The second phase of litigation has focused on the class certification and the damages. The parties engaged in negotiations after the Colorado Supreme Court declined to address the certified question. Because the Defendant asserted its intent to appeal the Court's conclusion as to its companion exemption defense to the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, the parties did not reach a settlement agreement. They did, however, agree to an amended scheduling order in which they would conduct discovery on class certification and damages and then stipulate to class certification and to a judgment on damages. The Plaintiff would then file a motion for attorneys' fees and costs, and the Defendant would file a Notice of Appeal. The Court entered the Amended Scheduling Order on Oct. 25, 2016. Over the course of several months, the parties exchanged information and engaged in good faith discussions to reach a stipulation. The parties have now reached a stipulation concerning the amount of damages owed to the Plaintiff and the members of the putative class, including prejudgment interest. The Plaintiff describes in the Motion presently before the Court that the parties agree that the putative class is owed $282,273.87 of overtime pay for the two-year class period at issue, and prejudgment interest of $109,889.29. The Attorneys' fees will be addressed following the Court's entry of Judgment, as contemplated in the Amended Scheduling Order dated Oct. 25, 2016. The Additional attorneys' fees and post-judgment interest will be addressed, if necessary, after the conclusion of the Defendant's appeal to the Tenth Circuit. In accordance with the parties' agreement, the Plaintiff seeks to certify the class, pursuant to Rule 23, of all individuals who are or have been employed by the Defendant as hourly paid home health care workers in Colorado from July 21, 2012, through Nov. 15, 2015." The Plaintiff also asks the Court to appoint her as the class representative, and Rachhana T. Srey and Robert L. Schug of Nichols Kaster, PLLP as the class counsel, and to approve the parties' proposed notice to the class. The Plaintiff represents that the Defendant does not contest these requests, and it has not responded to the Plaintiff's Motion. Judge Arguello is satisfied that the Plaintiff's proposed class satisfies the four prerequisites of Rule 23(a), as well as the elements of Rule 23(b)(3). Accordingly, she granted the Plaintiff's Uncontested Motion for Class Certification Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and Stipulation as to Monetary Relief. Having found the requirements of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) satisfied, she certified the class, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, of all individuals who are or have been employed by the Defendant as hourly paid home health care workers in Colorado from July 21, 2012, through Nov. 15, 2015. The Judge appointed Rachhana T. Srey and Robert L. Schug of Nichols Kaster, PLLP as the class counsel in the matter. She approved the Plaintiff's stipulated proposed Class Notice. A full-text copy of the Court's June 27, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/bkiU7i from Leagle.com. Michele Kennett, individually and on behalf of the Proposed Colorado Rule 23 Class, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Loren Schug -- schug@nka.com -- Nichols Kaster, PLLP & Rachhana T. Srey -- srey@nka.com -- Nichols Kaster, PLLP. Bayada Home Health Care, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jacob M. Theis -- jtheis@pennstatehealth.psu.edu -- Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, P.C. & Thomas G. Collins -- thomas.collins@bipc.com -- Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, P.C.. BIGHAM CABLE: Pettiford Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Chad Pettiford on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Bigham Cable Construction Inc., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00109, (M.D. Ga., May 29, 2018), seeks compensation for all unpaid and underpaid wages, liquidated damages, litigation costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees and such other and further relief under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. Bigham operates a telecommunication construction business. It primarily installs, repairs, and maintains main telecommunication lines. Plaintiff worked for Defendant as an aerial cable installer. He claims to be denied overtime pay for hours rendered in excess of 40 per work week. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Moore. Esq. Aimee J. Hall, Esq. POPE, MCGLAMRY, KILPATRICK, MORRISON AND NORWOOD P.C. 3391 Peachtree Road, Suite 300 Atlanta, GA 30326 Tel: (404) 523-7706 Fax: (404) 524-1648 Email: michaelmoore@pmkm.com aimeehall@pmkm.com efile@pmkm.com - and - David W. Garrison, Esq. Joshua A. Frank, Esq. BARRET, JOHNSTON, MARTIN & GARRISON LLC 414 Union Street, Suite 900 Nashville, TN 37219 Tel: (615) 244-2202 Fax: (615) 252-3798 Email: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com jfrank@barrettjohnston.com BIRCH'S BREWHOUSE: Servers/Bartenders Seek Unpaid Wages, Damages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Michelle Zajec and Jacalyn Dunham, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated Plaintiffs, v. Birch's Brewhouse, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 27-CV-18-9051, (D. Minn., May 29, 2018), seeks unpaid wages and an equal amount of liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and all other relief under the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act. Birch's Brewhouse employed Plaintiffs as servers and/or bartenders at its restaurant, Birch's on the Lake Brewhouse. Defendant required its employees to pool their gratuities for distribution to other employees, including servers, bartenders and indirect service employees such as bussers and food runners. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: A. L. Brown, Esq. Joshua Williams, Esq. CAPITOL CITY LAW GROUP, LLC 413 Wacouta Street, Suite 140 Saint Paul, MN 55101 Telephone: (651) 705-8580 Facsimile: (651) 705-8581 CALIFORNIA: State Judge Salary Increase Ruling Enforcement Upheld ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, ROBERT MALLANO, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOHN CHIANG et al., Defendants and Appellants, Case No. B285285 (Cal. App.), Judge Victoria M. Chavez of the Court of Appeals of California for the Second District, Division Two, affirmed the trial court's order enforcing the declaratory judgment entered on March 10, 2016, in favor of Mallano, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons. The declaratory judgment states that salary increases for California state judges were mandated as follows: 0.97% for fiscal year 2008-2009, 0.10% for fiscal year 2009-2010, 0.11% for fiscal year 2010-2011, 0.22% for fiscal year 2013-2014, and 2.4% for fiscal year 2015-2016. The judgment also specifies the salary amounts that were to be the bases for payments to class members for each of the specified fiscal years and states that the Plaintiffs are entitled to payments and benefits based on those salary amounts as well as interest at 10% per annum on unpaid sums from the dates on which such sums vested until they are paid. Following entry of the judgment, the trial court awarded the Plaintiffs their attorney fees. The Defendants appealed from the judgment and the award of attorney fees, and the Court in a previous opinion affirmed both the judgment and the fee award. The remittitur was issued on June 14, 2017. Following issuance of the remittitur, the Defendants refused the Plaintiff's request to pay unpaid salaries and benefits in accordance with the amounts set forth in the judgment; and on June 19, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a motion for an order enforcing the judgment. The trial court granted the motion and issued an enforcement order on July 28, 2017. The appeal followed. The Defendants raise the following contentions on appeal: (i) the trial court lacked authority to order payment of back wages and benefits in a declaratory relief action in which no claim for damages was asserted; (ii) the trial court lacked authority to order monetary payments when enforcing a judgment that included no monetary relief; (iii) the trial court improperly denied the Defendants the opportunity to litigate the statute of limitations and other affirmative defenses; (iv) the Government Code provides that the class members may only seek monetary relief against the Defendants by filing and adjudicating individual petitions for writ mandate; and (v) the 10% per annum interest rate specified in the judgment is unlawful. Judge Chavez rejects the Defendants' contention that the trial court lacked authority to order monetary payments when enforcing the declaratory judgment. The trial court's retention of jurisdiction to enforce the terms of that declaratory judgment included the authority to enforce the Plaintiffs' entitlement to payments and benefits. Contrary to what they contend, the Judge finds that the Defendants were not denied the opportunity to litigate the statute of limitations or other affirmative defenses8 that might bar some class members' claims for unpaid salaries. The Defendants did not argue during class certification proceedings that individualized issues concerning the statute of limitations or any other affirmative defense precluded individual class members from adjudicating their entitlement to past salary increases or benefits, nor did they seek to decertify the class on the basis of any such individualized issues. Nothing in the record indicates that the trial court precluded defendants from doing so. As to the Defendants' contention that under Government Code section 965.7, the class members can seek monetary relief against the state only by filing individual petitions for writ of mandate and separately adjudicating their entitlement to past salary increases, the Judge holds that Government Code section 965.7 does not require each of the Plaintiffs to obtain unpaid salaries and benefits by bringing individual petitions for writ of mandate. Finally, the Judge's opinion in the prior appeal affirmed the judgment in its entirety, including the 10% per annum interest rate. Moreover, the Defendants forfeited the issue by failing to raise in the trial court any argument concerning the impact of subdivision (f) of Government Code section 68203 at the time the declaratory judgment was entered, or in opposing the Plaintiff's motion for an order enforcing the judgment. She therefore does not address the issue. For these reasons, Judge Chavez affirmed the order enforcing the judgment, including the provision for pre and post judgment interest thereon at the rate of 10% per annum from the date on which the additional payment should have been paid to the actual date of payment. The Plaintiff is awarded his costs on appeal. A full-text copy of the Court's June 26, 2018 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/bcEAnF from Leagle.com. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Raoul D. Kennedy -- raoul.kennedy@skadden.com -- Jack P. Dicanio -- jack.dicanio@skadden.com -- and William J. Casey -- william.casey@skadden.com -- for Plaintiff and Respondent. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Julie Weng-Gutierrez, Assistant Attorney General, Jennifer M. Kim and Jonathan E. Rich, Deputy Attorneys General for Defendants and Appellants. CARPACCIO INC: Underpays Food Runners & Servers, Lopez Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jeysson D. Lopez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Carpaccio, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 75031546 (Fla. Cir., Miami-Dade Cty., July 16, 2018) is an action against the Defendant to recover unpaid overtime and minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mr. Lopez was employed by the Defendant as a bus boy, food runner, and server from the year 2004 to September 2017. Carpaccio Inc., is Florida Profit corporation, having its main place of business in Miami-Dade County. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Martin Saenz, Esq. SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC 20900 N.E. 30th Avenue, Ste.800 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 503-5131 Facsimile: (888) 270-5549 E-mail: msaenz@saenzaderson.com CELGENE CORP: Settlement in Principle Reached in JCAR015 Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Celgene Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2018, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the parties in JCAR015 related suit agreed to a settlement in principle of the class action for which the parties will be seeking court approval. In July 2016, two putative securities class action complaints (the Veljanoski Complaint and the Wan Complaint) were filed against Juno and its chief executive officer, Hans E. Bishop, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. On September 7, 2016, an additional putative securities class action complaint (the Paradisco Complaint and, together with the Velianoski Complaint and the Wan Complaint, the Complaints) was filed against Juno, Mr. Bishop, and its chief financial officer, Steve Harr, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The Complaints generally allege material misrepresentations and omissions in public statements regarding patient deaths in Juno's Phase II clinical trial of JCAR015 as well as, violations by all named defendants of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act. On October 7, 2016, the Complaints were consolidated into a single action. On December 12, 2016, the court-appointed lead plaintiff and a named plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint (Consolidated Complaint), which includes claims against Juno, Mr. Bishop, Dr. Harr, and Juno's chief medical officer, Dr. Mark J. Gilbert (the Defendants). The Consolidated Complaint includes allegations similar to those in the previous Complaints, as well as additional allegations regarding purported material misrepresentations and omissions in public statements after July 7, 2016 regarding the safety of JCAR015. The parties mediated on May 9, 2018, following which the parties agreed to a settlement in principle of the class action for which the parties will be seeking court approval. Celgene said "The settlement amount was not materially different than the amount we had previously accrued for this matter." Celgene Corporation, a biopharmaceutical company, engages in the discovery, development, and commercialization of therapies for the treatment of cancer and inflammatory diseases worldwide. The company was founded in 1980 and is headquartered in Summit, New Jersey. CHSPSC LLC: 6th Circuit Appeal Filed in Sutton FLSA Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Stephen Sutton filed an appeal from a court ruling in his lawsuit styled Stephen Sutton v. CHSPSC, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-01318, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee at Jackson. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The appellate case is captioned as Stephen Sutton v. CHSPSC, LLC, et al., Case No. 18-5790, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Appellant brief is due on September 10, 2018; and -- Appellee brief is due on October 10, 2018.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant STEPHEN SUTTON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Laura Ann Elizabeth Bailey, Esq. CRONE & MCEVOY PLC 5583 Murray Road, Suite 120 Memphis, TN 38119 Telephone: (901) 737-7740 E-mail: lbailey@thecmfirm.com Defendants-Appellees CHSPSC, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, f/k/a Community Health Systems Professional Services Corporation, a/k/a ) Dyersburg Ambulatory Corp., fka Community Health Systems Professional Services Corporation, aka Dyersburg Ambulatory Corp.; KNOXVILLE HMA HOLDINGS, LLC, a Tennessee limited liability company, d/b/a Tennova Healthcare, LLC, a/k/a Dyersburg Ambulatory Corp,, dba Tennova Healthcare, LLC, aka Dyersburg Ambulatory Corp.; DYERSBURG HOSPITAL CORPORATION, a Tennessee Corporation, a/k/a Tennova Healthcare - Dyersburg Regional, Dyersburg Regional Medical Center, and Ambulance Service of Dyersburg; and AMBULANCE SERVICES OF DYERSBURG, INC., a Tennessee Corporation fka Dyersburg Regional EMS, dba Tennova EMS, are represented by: Charles J. Mataya, Esq. BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS 1600 Division Street, Suite 700 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 244-2582 E-mail: cmataya@babc.com COMMUNITY BANK: Parshall Seeks to Block Sale to CVB Financial ------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Parshall, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Community Bank, Charles E. Cook, Matthew Denmark, Kyle R. Jones, Lyle R. Knight, Robert J. Kushner, Marshall V. Laitsch, Charles D. Mccluer, David R. Misch, Craig H. Stewart and Kristen D. Stovesand, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-04821 (C.D. Cal., May 31, 2018), seeks to enjoin Defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating or closing the acquisition of Community Bank by CVB Financial Corp., or rescinding it in the event defendants consummate the merger. The Plaintiff further seeks rescissory damages, costs of this action, including reasonable allowance for attorneys' and experts' fees and such other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Under the proposed transaction, Community Bank's shareholders will receive fixed consideration consisting of 9.4595 shares of Parent common stock and $56.00 per share in cash for each share of Community Bank common stock they own. However, says the complaint, the merger documents omitted material information regarding CVB Financial and Community Bank's financial projections, as well as the valuation analyses performed by D.A. Davidson & Co. Said disclosure of projected financial information is material because it provides stockholders with a basis to project the future financial performance of a company, and allows stockholders to better understand the financial analyses in support of its fairness opinion. Community Bank is an independent and family-owned Southern California regional community bank, offering full-service commercial and retail banking services primarily in Southern California for small and medium-sized businesses, professionals and retail customers located in Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Schumacher, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 155 Jackson Street, #1903 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 855-8995 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 Email: ms@rl-legal.com - and - RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19803 Tel: (302) 295-5310 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 CONSUMERS ENERGY: Still Defends Gas Index Price Reporting Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Consumers Energy Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2018, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company continues to defend itself in the Gas Index Price Reporting Litigation. CMS Energy, along with CMS MST, CMS Field Services, Cantera Natural Gas, Inc., and Cantera Gas Company, were named as defendants in four class action lawsuits and one individual lawsuit arising as a result of alleged inaccurate natural gas price reporting to publications that report trade information. Allegations include price-fixing conspiracies, restraint of trade, and artificial inflation of natural gas retail prices in Kansas, Missouri, and Wisconsin. In 2016, CMS Energy entities reached a settlement with the plaintiffs in the Kansas and Missouri class action cases for an amount that was not material to CMS Energy. In August 2017, the federal district court approved the settlement. Plaintiffs are making claims for the following: treble damages, full consideration damages, exemplary damages, costs, interest, and/or attorneys' fees. After removal to federal court, all of the cases were transferred to a single federal district court pursuant to the multidistrict litigation process. In 2010 and 2011, all claims against CMS Energy defendants were dismissed by the district court based on FERC preemption. In 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court decision. The appellate court found that FERC preemption does not apply under the facts of these cases. The appellate court affirmed the district court's denial of leave to amend to add federal antitrust claims. The matter was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which in 2015 upheld the Ninth Circuit's decision. The cases were remanded back to the federal district court. In 2016, the federal district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment in the individual lawsuit filed in Kansas based on a release in a prior settlement involving similar allegations; the order of summary judgment was subsequently appealed. In March 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the lower court's ruling and remanded the case back to the federal district court. In March 2017, the federal district court denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the two pending class action cases. The plaintiffs appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which has accepted the matter for hearing. In June 2017, an unaffiliated company that is also a defendant in these cases filed for bankruptcy, which could increase the risk of loss to CMS Energy. Consumers Energy said "These cases involve complex facts, a large number of similarly situated defendants with different factual positions, and multiple jurisdictions. Presently, any estimate of liability would be highly speculative; the amount of CMS Energy's reasonably possible loss would be based on widely varying models previously untested in this context. If the outcome after appeals is unfavorable, these cases could negatively affect CMS Energy's liquidity, financial condition, and results of operations." Consumers Energy Company operates as an electric and gas utility in Michigan. The company operates Electric Utility and Gas Utility segments. The company was founded in 1886 and is based in Jackson, Michigan. Consumers Energy is a subsidiary of CMS Energy Corporation. CONTRACT CALLERS: Certification of Class Sought in Voeks Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Voeks moves the Court to certify the class described in the complaint of the lawsuit styled JULIE VOEKS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. CONTRACT CALLERS INC. and JH PORTFOLIO DEBT EQUITIES LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-01017-NJ (E.D. Wisc.), and further asks that the Court both stay the motion for class certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendants) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the Motion. Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class action complaint could moot a class representative's case by depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a class certification motion, the Plaintiff asserts, citing Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016). To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs."). While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement of a class representative's claims, the same decision cautions that other methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class, the Plaintiff tells the Court, citing Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10839 *9-10 (7th Cir. June 20, 2017). The Plaintiff asserts that one defendant has attempted a similar tactic by sending a certified check to the proposed class representative. Bonin v. CBS Radio, Inc., No. 16-cv-674-CNC (E.D. Wis.); see also Severns v. Eastern Account Systems of Connecticut, Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 24, 2016). The Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiff contends. As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiff asserts. The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative, and for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class counsel. The Plaintiff is represented by: John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Jesse Fruchter, Esq. Ben J. Slatky, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com jfruchter@ademilaw.com bslatky@ademilaw.com CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Proceedings in Woodward Suit Stayed ----------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. William E. Duffin grants the Plaintiff's motion to stay further proceedings in the lawsuit captioned WILLIAM WOODWARD, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING INC., Case No. 2:18-cv-01015-WED (E.D. Wisc.). The parties are relieved from the automatic briefing schedule set forth in Civil Local Rule 7(b) and (c), according to the Order. Moreover, for administrative purposes, Judge Duffin states, it is necessary that the Clerk of Court terminate the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. However, Judge Duffin adds, the Motion will be regarded as pending to serve its protective purpose under Damasco. On July 3, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a class action complaint. At the same time, the Plaintiff filed what the Court commonly refers to as a "protective" motion for class certification. Judge Duffin notes that in Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011), the court suggested that class-action plaintiffs "move to certify the class at the same time that they file their complaint." "The pendency of that motion protects a putative class from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs." Because parties are generally unprepared to proceed with a motion for class certification at the beginning of case, the Damasco court suggested that the parties "ask the district court to delay its ruling to provide time for additional discovery or investigation." The Plaintiff is represented by: John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Jesse Fruchter, Esq. Ben J. Slatky, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com jfruchter@ademilaw.com bslatky@ademilaw.com COPPER THROAT: Guerrero Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------- Florentino Venega Guerrero, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Copper Throat Corp. and Warakorn Siritipakul, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-04835 (S.D. N.Y., May 31, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. Defendants own, operate, or control a Thai restaurant, located at 123 Ludlow Street, New York, NY 10002 under the name "Copper Throat" where Plaintiff was employed as a delivery worker. According to the Plaintiff, he worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate overtime compensation for the hours worked. Defendants also failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and repeatedly failed to pay Plaintiff wages on a timely basis. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Tel: (212) 317-1200 Email: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com CORECIVIC OF TENNESSEE: Class of Scabies-Infested Inmates Certified ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, WENDY SNEAD and EDWARD MOREDOCK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CORECIVIC OF TENNESSEE, LLC, f/k/a CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA, Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-0949 (M.D. Tenn.), Judge Aleta A. Trauger of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. The original Class Action Complaint initiating the lawsuit was filed by Snead on June 16, 2017. Named Plaintiffs Snead and Moredock filed the First Amended Class Action Complaint on Oct. 27, 2017. The Amended Complaint asserts claims against the Defendant, under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, based on the Defendant's alleged deliberate indifference to the serious medical needs of current and former inmates while they were incarcerated at the Metro-Davidson County Detention Facility ("MDCDF") in Davidson County, Tennessee, a facility operated by CoreCivic, in violation of the inmates' rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Based on the factual allegations set forth in the Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs assert three causes of action under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983: (1) a claim based on the Defendant's deliberate indifference to the Plaintiffs' and putative class members' serious medical needs, in violation of the Eighth and/or Fourteenth Amendment (depending upon the inmates' status as pretrial detainees or prisoners); (2) a claim based on the inmates' exposure to, and the Defendant's failure to protect them from, a state-created danger, in violation of their rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; (3) a deliberate indifference claim under the Eighth and/or Fourteenth Amendment, based on theDdefendant's failure to train medical staff to address inmates' obvious need to access adequate medical care and medication or to recognize outbreaks of contagious conditions including scabies, among other matters. The Plaintiffs seek to certify three subclasses, defined in their Motion for Class Certification as follows: i. The Scabies Class: All current and former inmates who had a skin rash consistent with a scabies infestation who were denied treatment, or whose delayed treatment by the Defendant caused the inmate's condition to worsen, since Oct. 1, 2016. ii. The Denied Prescriptions Class: All current and former inmates who were prescribed medication that was not administered as prescribed, or whose prescribed plan of treatment was interrupted or delayed by the Defendant, since Oct. 1, 2016. iii. The Denied Medical Attention Class: All current and former inmates who requested, but were denied medical attention or treatment since Oct. 1, 2016. In support of their bid to bring a class action, among other things, the Plaintiffs assert that (i) the Defendant has acted or refused to act in a manner that applies generally to the class, such that the claims for damages and injunctive relief on behalf of a class as a whole are appropriate; and (ii) the Plaintiffs have been injured by the Defendant's actions in the same way as the other members of the proposed class. For relief, they seek monetary, compensatory, and punitive damages, as well as equitable relief in the form of a permanent injunction enjoining the Defendant, its agents, and employees from continuing to violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and to immediately cease intimidating, threatening, and retaliating against inmates for demanding medical care for their serious medical needs and to immediately provide adequate oral and topical medication sufficient to fully treat all those diagnosed with scabies, and that the Defendant be required to provide a full medical staff adequate to meet the needs of those infested with scabies and capable of dispensing medication and monitoring their treatment until completion. On Sept. 25, 2017, the case was consolidated for all purposes with John Doe v. CoreCivic of Tennessee, LLC, No. 3:17-cv-00958, also pending in the Court, in which the plaintiff purported to bring suit asserting claims on behalf of a putative class defined as inmates and former inmates at MDCDF who contracted scabies and were denied adequate medical attention by the Defendant. John Doe, like Snead and Moredock, had already been released from incarceration by the time he filed his class action. A First Amended Class Action Complaint was filed on Oct. 27, 2017, but it did not include John Doe as a "named" plaintiff. The Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class Certification on Dec. 20, 2017. The motion proposes named Plaintiffs Snead and Moredock as the representatives for all three subclasses and asserts that the proposed class and subclasses meet the numerosity, commonality, and typicality requirements of Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; that Snead and Moredock are adequate class representatives; and that a class should be certified under Rule 23(b)(1), (b)(2) and (b)(3). They filed a Supplemental Memorandum along with a Notice of Filing, to which are attached excerpts from Snead's and Moredock's depositions, along with the affidavits of seven putative class members and one former CoreCivic nurse, and the Declaration of the Plaintiffs' attorney Bryant Kroll, to which are attached two grievances that were filed by a current CoreCivic nurse. CoreCivic has filed a Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, arguing that none of the proposed subclasses meets the requirements for certification under Rule 23(a) or (b). The Plaintiffs filed a Reply in further support of their certification motion. Judge Trauger granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. She denied certification of the "Denied Prescriptions" and "Denied Medical Attention" Subclasses and denied certification of any class under Rule 23(b)(1) or (b)(2), because the named Plaintiffs lack standing to bring claims for injunctive or declaratory relief. She granted the motion insofar as it conditionally certifies a class defined as all former inmates of MDCDF who are not currently incarcerated and who, while still incarcerated at MDCDF, had a skin rash consistent with a scabies infestation and who were denied treatment, or whose delayed treatment caused the condition to worsen, since Oct. 1, 2016. A full-text copy of the Court's June 27, 2018 Memorandum is available at https://is.gd/cgb07q from Leagle.com. Wendy Snead & Edward Moredock, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Bryant B. Kroll -- bkroll@wgaryblackburn.com -- The Blackburn Firm, PLLC, Jeffery S. Roberts -- Jeff@middletninjury.com -- Jeffrey S. Roberts and Associates, PLC, R. Joshua McKee -- rjm@rjmckeelaw.com -- The McKee Law Firm & W. Gary Blackburn -- gblackburn@wgaryblackburn.com -- The Blackburn Firm, PLLC. CoreCivic of Tennessee, LLC, formerly known as, Defendant, represented by Erin Palmer Polly -- erin.polly@butlersnow.com -- Butler Snow LLP. CoreCivic of Tennessee, LLC, formerly known as Corrections Corporation of America, Defendant, represented by Jason W. Callen -- jason.callen@butlersnow.com -- Butler Snow LLP & Joseph F. Welborn, III -- joe.welborn@butlersnow.com -- Butler Snow LLP. CREDIT PROTECTION: Thibodeaux Action Disputes Collection Letter --------------------------------------------------------------- Jason Thibodeaux, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Credit Protection Association, L.P. and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00469 (M.D. N.C., May 31, 2018), seeks damages, attorneys' fees and such other relief for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Defendant was tasked to collect a consumer debt Thibodeaux owes Spectrum (formerly Bright House Networks) for telecommunication services. On or around June 5, 2017 the Plaintiff received a collection letter from Defendant that states "This account has been reported to the national credit reporting agencies and can stay on your account for up to seven years" despite the fact that the said debt can only be reported on a Plaintiff's credit report for seven years from the date of default. Thibodeaux's account was in default well before June 5, 2017. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Asa C. Edwards, Esq. 4801 Glenwood Ave., Suite 310 Raleigh, NC 27612 Tel: (919) 526-0450 Fax: (919) 882-8763 Email: aedwards@maginnislaw.com - and - Yaakov Saks, Esq. YAAKOV SAKS Stein Saks, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Tel: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com CTA PIZZA: James Call Files Suit to Recover Proper Wages -------------------------------------------------------- James Call, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v. CTA Pizza, Inc., Donald L. Smith, Jr., and Paula J. Smith, Case No. 2:18-cv-00696 (S.D. Ohio, July 17, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for failure to compensate with minimum wages required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act. The Plaintiff works for Defendants as a pizza delivery driver at their Gallipolis, Ohio location. The Defendants operate Domino's Pizza franchises in Ohio and West Virginia [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Biller, Esq. Andrew Kimble, Esq. Markovits, Stock & DeMarco, LLC 3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650 Cincinnati, OH 45209 Tel: (513) 651-3700 Fax: (513) 665-0219 E-mail: abiller@msdlegal.com akimble@msdlegal.com CUISINART INC: Wicklund Injured by Lid Defect, Seeks Damages ------------------------------------------------------------ Shelly Wicklund, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Cuisinart, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-01284 (D. Conn., August 2, 2018), seeks restitution and injunctive relief as a result of being scalded by hot chili from her allegedly exploding Cuisinart pressure cooker, and requiring Cuisinart to issue corrective actions. Wicklund purchased the Cuisinart Model Number CPC-600 and claims that the defective lid locking mechanism gives users a false sense of safety since it does appear to lock. However, she was able to remove the lid and suffered severe injuries when the scalding hot contents inside exploded out onto her, says the Plaintiff. Cuisinart, Inc. -- www.cuisinart.com -- manufactures culinary appliances, cookware, and kitchen accessories. Wicklund is represented by: Marisa A. Bellair, Esq. LYNCH, TRAUB, KEEFE & ERRANTE 52 Trumbull St., PO Box 1612 New Haven, CT 06506 Tel: (203) 787-0275 Email: mbellair@ltke.com DARP INC: Court Narrows Claims in M. Fochtman's Slavery Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Timothy L. Brooks of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, Fayetteville Division, granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the case, MARK FOCHTMAN; CORBY SHUMATE; MICHAEL SPEARS; ANDREW DANIEL; FABIAN AGUILAR; and SLOAN SIMMS Individually, and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. DARP, INC.; HENDREN PLASTICS, INC.; and JOHN DOES 1-29, Defendants, Case No. 5:18-CV-5047 (W.D. Ark.). The case is a putative class action, originally filed in Benton County, Arkansas Circuit Court on Oct. 23, 2017, and removed to the Court on Nov. 6, 2017, as Case Number 5:17-CV-05228, Mark Fochtman and Shane O'Neal v. CAAIR, Inc., Simmons Foods, Inc., DARP, Inc., and Hendren Plastics, Inc. ("Fochtman I"). The Court found jurisdiction is proper under the Class Action Fairness Act, and denied the Defendants' motions to remand on Feb. 27, 2018. The instant case was severed from Fochtman I on Feb. 27, 2018. The Plaintiffs filed the instant Complaint on March 9, 2018, and alleged violations of the Minimum Wage Act of the State of Arkansas ("AMWA") (Counts I and II), the Slavery Clause of the Arkansas Constitution (Count III), and the Arkansas Human Trafficking Act of 2013 (Count IV). The claims arise from the Plaintiffs' drug-court ordered participation in DARP's substance abuse recovery program, where DARP required them to work in Defendant Hendren's plastics plant. DARP filed a Motion to Dismiss all counts pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (Doc. 13), and Hendren filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(6) and (7). Regarding the alleged AMWA violations in Counts I and II, both Defendants DARP and Hendren argue that the Plaintiffs fail to state a claim because no employee-employer relationship existed. They assert that the Plaintiffs did not expect to receive compensation for their labor because they were criminal defendants who voluntarily and knowingly chose to participate in DARP where work was an essential program component. In the alternative, Hendren argues that it did not violate the AMWA because it paid DARP directly for the hours the Plaintiffs worked, including overtime. Regarding the allegations of slavery/involuntary servitude and human trafficking in Counts III and IV, first, both Defendants DARP and Hendren argue that the Plaintiffs fail to state valid claims because they entered DARP voluntarily, and they were free to leave the program at any time. Second, they also similarly argue that if the Plaintiffs received any alleged threats of incarceration while living at DARP and working for Hendren, such were permissible reminders about the possible future consequences of quitting the program. Third, both the Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs have not alleged sufficient facts to show that DARP or its agents made statements that constitute coercion, duress, or menace and rise to the level of slavery/involuntary servitude. Fourth, they both argue that the Plaintiffs participated in DARP as part of the punishment for a crime they had committed, and the Arkansas Constitution's Slavery Clause expressly exempts criminal punishment from its proscription on slavery/involuntary servitude. Hendren offers three additional arguments regarding the slavery/involuntary servitude and human trafficking allegations. First, Hendren argues that the Arkansas Constitution does not provide for a private cause of action to remedy a violation of the Slavery Clause. Next, Hendren argues that the Complaint should be dismissed because the States of Arkansas and Oklahoma are indispensable parties under Rule 19, and sovereign immunity prevents their joinder. Finally, it argues that the slavery/involuntary servitude and human trafficking claims should be dismissed because they are impermissible collateral attacks on sentences. Judge Brooks concludes that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that the economic reality of their relationships to the Defendants was one in which they expected at least in-kind compensation for their work and, thus, could be classified as employees under the AMWA. The Plaintiffs claim they were provided with food, shelter, and other benefits and, thus, plausibly worked for the Defendants in contemplation of compensation. The Defendants' request to dismiss the wage and hour causes of action under the AMWA in Counts I and II will, therefore, be denied. In evaluating the facts in Count III of the Complaint, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged a plausible claim of involuntary servitude or slavery. First, the Complaint implies that Defendants had the power to have the Plaintiffs incarcerated immediately if they left DARP, and this is implausible. Second, regardless of whether the Plaintiffs were court-ordered to DARP from pre- or post-adjudication programs, due process requires the state to provide notice and a hearing about any allegations prompting involuntary discharge from a drug-court program before taking further action. Finally, even if they faced the choice between working for the Defendants or going to prison, such a painful choice is not considered involuntary servitude under the law. For all of these reasons, Count III for slavery/involuntary servitude will be dismissed without prejudice. The Judge has evaluated the facts in the Complaint and concludes that the Plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged a plausible claim of human trafficking under the AHTA. First, they've made no allegations of threats of physical injury or restraint, nor have they alleged the taking of any tangible personal or real property. Second, the alleged threats of coercion and compulsion again seem so highly attenuated as to be implausible. For all of these reasons, Count IV will be dismissed without prejudice. Finally, in evaluating Hendren's argument that the States of Arkansas and Oklahoma are required and indispensable parties, the Judge finds that the issue in the case can be resolved by the current parties, and meaningful relief against the Defendants is available, including injunctive, declaratory, and monetary relief, without the states' participation. Second, Arkansas and Oklahoma will not be prejudiced by their non-participation in the litigation. Nowhere in the instant case does an element of a claim require a showing that a state drug court's referral to DARP was improper. Finally, Hendren's argument that Arkansas and Oklahoma have a vested interest in the outcome of the case due to the possible effects that this Court's rulings could have on the drug courts' referral options is insufficient to justify joinder. For the reasons he explained, Judge Brooks granted in part and denied in par Defendants DARP and Hendren's Motions to Dismiss as follows: (1) the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss Counts I (Failure to Pay Minimum Wage) and II (Failure to Pay Overtime) are denied; and (2) the Defendants Motions to Dismiss Counts III (Slavery/Involuntary Servitude) and IV (Arkansas Human Trafficking Act) are granted, and Counts III and IV are dismissed without prejudice. A full-text copy of the Court's June 27, 2018 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/UU6ruf from Leagle.com. Mark Fochtman, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Corby Shumate, individually, and on behalf of all others, Michael Spears, individually and on behalf of all others, Andrew Daniel, individually and on behalf of all others, Fabian Aguilar, individually and on behalf of all others & Sloan Simms, individually and on behalf of all others, Plaintiffs, represented by Jerry D. Garner, Holleman and Associates P.A., John Holleman -- jholleman@johnholleman.net -- Holleman & Associate P.A. & Timothy A. Steadman, Holleman & Associates, P.A. DARP, Inc., Defendant, represented by William B. Putman, Putman Law Office. Hendren Plastics, Inc., Defendant, represented by Laurence M. McCredy, Reece Moore Pendergraft LLP & Timothy Chad Hutchinson, Reece Moore Pendergraft LLP. DCT INDUSTRIAL: Faces Putative Class Suits over Prologis Merger --------------------------------------------------------------- DCT Industrial Trust Inc. and DCT Industrial Operating Partnership LP disclosed in their Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2018, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that they are facing putative class action lawsuits related to the proposed merger with Prologis, Inc. On April 29, 2018, the Company and the Operating Partnership entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Prologis, Inc. ("Prologis") and Prologis, L.P. ("PLDOP"), pursuant to which the Company will be merged with and into Prologis, and the Operating Partnership will be merged into PLDOP. The merger consideration will be approximately US$8.4 billion in a stock-for-stock transaction, including the assumption of debt. Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, DCT stockholders and OP Unitholders will receive 1.02 Prologis shares and limited partnership interests in PLDOP, respectively, for each DCT share or OP Unit they own. On July 2, 2018, DCT, the Operating Partnership, the DCT board of directors, Prologis, and PLDOP 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. On July 10, 2018, DCT and the DCT board of directors 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, the Operating Partnership, the DCT board of directors, Prologis, and PLDOP were sued in another a putative class action lawsuit, the Aiken Action, filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, in connection with DCT's proposed merger with Prologis and the related Form S-4. The complaints in the Rosenblatt, Bushansky and Aiken Actions each allege that DCT and the DCT board of directors 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. Plaintiffs in each of these Actions 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. The Company said, "If additional similar complaints are filed, absent new or different allegations that are material, neither DCT nor Prologis will necessarily announce such additional filings." DCT Industrial is a leading logistics real estate company specializing in the ownership, development, acquisition, leasing and management of bulk-distribution and light-industrial properties in high-demand distribution markets in the United States. DCT's actively-managed portfolio is strategically located near population centers and well-positioned to take advantage of market dynamics. DIAMOND RESORTS: Gonzales Suit Disputes Overtime Pay Computation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Gonzalez and Jeffrey Hughes, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Diamond Resorts International Marketing, Inc., Diamond Resorts International, Inc., Diamond Resorts Corporation and West Maui Resorts Partners, L.P., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00979, (D. Nev., May 29, 2018), seeks all overtime compensation, due under the Hawaii Wage and Hour Law, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and expenses of this action, together with reasonable attorney's fees and such other and further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants own and/or manage over 100 ownership resorts, selling ownership interests in their resort properties to the general public. Plaintiffs worked as non-exempt Sales Representatives who worked on-site at one or more of Defendants' resorts. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs frequently worked more than forty hours in a workweek, but were not properly paid overtime because regular rate of pay was not computed based on their entire compensation for a given workweek, but instead excluded their commission and/or bonus earnings. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Michael N. Feder, Esq. DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC 8363 West Sunset Road, Suite 200 Las Vegas, NV 89113 Telephone: (702) 550-4440 Facsimile: (844) 670-6009 Email: MFeder@dickinson-wright.com - and - Martin D. Holmes, Esq. Peter F. Klett, Esq. Fifth Third Center, Suite 800 424 Church Street Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 244-6538 Facsimile: (844) 670-6009 Email: mdholmes@dickinsonwright.com pklett@dickinsonwright.com DISH NETWORK: Appeal from Krakauer Suit Judgment Still Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- The appeal of DISH Network Corporation's subsidiary in the "Krakauer" suit is still pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018. For example, a portion of the alleged telemarketing violations by an independent third-party retailer at issue in the FTC Action are also the subject of a certified class action filed against DISH Network L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina (the "Krakauer Action"). Following a five-day trial, on January 19, 2017, a jury in a certified class action filed against DISH Network L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina (the "Krakauer Action") found that the independent third-party retailer was acting as DISH Network L.L.C.'s agent when it made the 51,119 calls at issue in that case, and that class members are eligible to recover US$400 in damages for each call made in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. On March 7, 2017, DISH Network L.L.C. filed motions with the Court for judgment as a matter of law and, in the alternative, for a new trial, which the Court denied on May 16, 2017. On May 22, 2017, the Court ruled that the violations were willful and knowing, and trebled the damages award to US$1,200 for each call made in violation of TCPA. On April 5, 2018, the Court entered a US$61 million judgment in favor of the class. On May 4, 2018, DISH Network L.L.C. filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. DISH Network said, "During the second quarter 2017, we recorded US$41 million of "Litigation expense" related to the Krakauer Action on our Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income (Loss). We recorded US$20 million of "Litigation expense" related to the Krakauer Action during the fourth quarter 2016. Our total accrual related to the Krakauer Action at June 30, 2018 was US$61 million and is included in "Other accrued expenses" on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. We intend to vigorously defend these cases. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of these suits." DISH Network Corporation operates satellite television programming and technology services in the United States. It offers HD/DVR technology; international channels; Internet and phone services; and DISH Anywhere, an online video site that allows users to watch TV shows, movies, and clips on computer. The company is based in Englewood, Colorado. DISTINCTIVE MAINTENANCE: Tanooli Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Haroon Tanooli, on behalf of himself and all other Plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiff, v. Distinctive Maintenance Company Inc., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-04689, (S.D. N.Y., May 28, 2018), seeks maximum liquidated damages for late overtime wages and non-payment of minimum wages, recovery of compensation for not receiving notices and statements including not being paid on a weekly basis, and costs and attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, New York Minimum Wage Act and New York Labor Law. Distinctive Maintenance was engaged in the business of providing building maintenance and repair services. Tanooli was employed by Defendants as a maintenance worker/porter at Hotel Q, multi-story hotel located at 76-01 Queens Blvd, Elmhurst, NY 11373 from in or around December 2014 to April 19, 2018. He worked approximately 45-56 hours a week without overtime pay. Plaintiff also worked a spread of hours of more than ten hours a day during his employment but was not paid an extra hour of pay each such day, says the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Abdul K. Hassan, Esq. ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC 215-28 Hillside Avenue Queens Village, NY 11427 Tel: (718) 740-1000 Fax: (718) 355-9668 Email: abdul@abdulhassan.com DOWDUPONT INC: Subsidiary Defends 38 Lawsuits over PFOA Exposure ---------------------------------------------------------------- DowDuPont Inc.'s subsidiary, E. I. du Pont de Nemours ("DuPont"), is defending itself against a total of 38 lawsuits related to alleged personal injury due to exposure to PFOA (collectively, perfluorooctanoic acids and its salts, including the ammonium salt), according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018. Specifically, about 35 lawsuits were filed against DuPont in West Virginia and Ohio at June 30, 2018, and three lawsuits are pending in federal court in New York. In August 2001, a class action, captioned Leach v. DuPont, was filed in West Virginia state court alleging that residents living near the Washington Works facility had suffered, or may suffer, deleterious health effects from exposure to PFOA in drinking water. A settlement was reached in 2004 that binds approximately 80,000 residents, (the "Leach Settlement"). In addition to paying US$23 million to plaintiff's attorneys for fees and expenses and US$70 million to fund a community health project, DuPont is obligated to fund up to US$235 million for a medical monitoring program for eligible class members and to pay administrative costs and fees associated with the program. Since the establishment in 2012 of an escrow account to fund medical monitoring as required by the settlement agreement, approximately US$2 million has been contributed to the account and approximately US$1 million has been disbursed from the account. DuPont also must continue to provide water treatment designed to reduce the level of PFOA in water to six area water districts, including the Little Hocking Water Association, and private well users. While it is probable that DuPont will incur liabilities related to funding the medical monitoring program and providing water treatment, DuPont does not expect any such liabilities to be material. Under the Leach Settlement, DuPont funded a series of health studies which were completed in October 2012 by an independent science panel of experts (the "C8 Science Panel"). The C8 Science Panel found probable links, as defined in the Leach Settlement, between exposure to PFOA and pregnancy-induced hypertension, including preeclampsia; kidney cancer; testicular cancer; thyroid disease; ulcerative colitis; and diagnosed high cholesterol. Leach class members may pursue personal injury claims against DuPont only for the six human diseases for which the C8 Science Panel determined a probable link exists. Following the Leach Settlement, approximately 3,550 lawsuits alleging personal injury claims were filed in various federal and state courts in Ohio and West Virginia. These lawsuits were consolidated in multi-district litigation ("MDL") in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. In the first quarter of 2017, the MDL was settled for US$671 million in cash (the "MDL Settlement"), half of which was paid by Chemours and half paid by DuPont. At December 31, 2017, all payments under the settlement agreement were made by both companies. DuPont's payment was not subject to indemnification or reimbursement by Chemours. In exchange for that payment, DuPont and Chemours are receiving releases of all claims by the settling plaintiffs. The MDL Settlement was entered into solely by way of compromise and settlement and is not in any way an admission of liability or fault by DuPont or Chemours. All of the MDL plaintiffs participated and resolved their claims within the MDL Settlement. The MDL Settlement did not resolve claims of plaintiffs who did not have claims in the MDL or whose claims are based on diseases first diagnosed after February 11, 2017. At June 30, 2018, about 35 lawsuits alleging personal injury, including kidney and testicular cancer, from exposure to PFOA in drinking water had been filed against DuPont in West Virginia and Ohio. In addition, three lawsuits are pending in federal court in New York on behalf of five individuals who are residents of Hoosick Falls, New York. The plaintiffs claim personal injuries, including kidney cancer, thyroid disease and ulcerative colitis, from alleged exposure to PFOA discharged into the air and water from nearby manufacturing facilities owned and operated by defendant third parties. Plaintiffs claim that PFOA used at the facilities was purchased from or manufactured by DuPont and co-defendant, 3M Company. DowDuPont Inc., through its subsidiaries, engages in agriculture, materials science, and specialty products businesses worldwide. The Company was founded in 1897 and is headquartered in Midland, Michigan. DOWDUPONT INC: Unit Faces Consolidated Lawsuit over PFC Discharge ----------------------------------------------------------------- DowDuPont Inc.'s subsidiary, E. I. du Pont de Nemours ("DuPont"), is facing a consolidated purported class action related to alleged discharges of perfluorinated chemicals and compounds ("PFCs") at the Fayetteville Works facility, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018. At June 30, 2018, several actions are pending in federal court against Chemours and DuPont. These actions have been consolidated into a single purported class action, on behalf of putative classes of property owners and residents in areas near or who draw drinking water from the Cape Fear River. These actions relate to the alleged discharge of certain PFCs into the river from the operations and wastewater treatment at the Fayetteville Works facility and seek various relief including medical monitoring, property damages and injunctive relief. Separate actions filed by the various North Carolina water authorities including Cape Fear Public Utility Authority and Brunswick County, North Carolina, have been consolidated into one action for purposes of litigation and seek actual and punitive damages as well as injunctive relief. In addition, an action remains pending in North Carolina state court on behalf of about 100 plaintiffs who own property near the Fayetteville Works facility. The plaintiffs seek damages for nuisance allegedly caused by releases of certain PFCs from the site. Management believes the probability of loss with respect to these actions is remote. DuPont has an indemnification claim against Chemours with respect to current and future inquiries and claims, including lawsuits, related to the foregoing. At June 30, 2018, Chemours is defending and indemnifying DuPont in the pending civil actions. DowDuPont Inc., through its subsidiaries, engages in agriculture, materials science, and specialty products businesses worldwide. The Company was founded in 1897 and is headquartered in Midland, Michigan. EAGLE CAPITAL: Gonzalez Files Suit to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Juan Carlos Gonzalez, and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff(s), v. Eagle Capital Investment Corp. and Patrick Aguila a/k/a Patricio Aguila, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-22128, (S.D. Fla., May 30, 2018), seeks unpaid overtime compensation, as well as an additional amount as liquidated damages, costs and reasonable attorneys' fees under the provisions of Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff was employed as a maintenance person, working in excess of 40 hours per week without overtime compensation, notes the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: R. Martin Saenz, Esq. SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC 20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 503-5131 Facsimile: (888) 270-5549 Email: msaenz@saenzanderson.com EDISON INTERNATIONAL: San Onofre OII Dismissal Order under Appeal ----------------------------------------------------------------- Edison International said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2018, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the plaintiffs appealed the order of dismissal in the San Onofre OII related suit. In July 2015, a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in federal court against Edison International, its then Chief Executive Officer and its then Chief Financial Officer. The complaint was later amended to include SCE's former President as a defendant. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants violated the securities laws by failing to disclose that Edison International had ex parte contacts with CPUC decision-makers regarding the San Onofre OII that were either unreported or more extensive than initially reported. The initial complaint purports to be filed on behalf of a class of persons who acquired Edison International common stock between March 21, 2014 and June 24, 2015 (the "Class Period"). In September 2016, the federal court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint, with an opportunity for plaintiff to amend the complaint. Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint in October 2016, which the federal court dismissed again with an opportunity for the plaintiff to amend the complaint. Plaintiff filed a third amended complaint in May 2017. In March 2018, the federal court dismissed the third amended complaint with prejudice and entered judgment in defendants' favor. Plaintiffs' have appealed the dismissal. Edison International, through its subsidiaries, engages in the generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity in the United States. It generates electricity through hydroelectric, diesel/liquid petroleum gas, natural gas, nuclear, and photovoltaic sources. Edison International was founded in 1886 and is based in Rosemead, California. EDISON INTERNATIONAL: Still Defends 401(k) Savings Plan Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Edison International said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2018, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company continues to defend a purported class action suit involving the Edison 401(k) Savings Plan. In November 2015, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in federal court against Edison International, its then Chief Executive Officer and its Treasurer by an Edison International employee, alleging claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The complaint purports to be filed on behalf of a class of Edison International employees who were participants in the Edison 401(k) Savings Plan and invested in the Edison International Stock Fund between March 27, 2014 and June 24, 2015. The complaint alleges that defendants breached their fiduciary duties because they knew or should have known that investment in the Edison International Stock Fund was imprudent because the price of Edison International common stock was artificially inflated due to Edison International's alleged failure to disclose certain ex parte communications with CPUC decision-makers related to the San Onofre OII. In July 2016, the federal court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit with an opportunity for the plaintiff to amend her complaint. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint in July 2016, that dismissed Edison International as a named defendant and the remaining defendants filed a motion to dismiss in August 2016. In June 2017, the federal court again granted defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit with an opportunity for the plaintiff to amend her complaint. Plaintiff filed another amended complaint in July 2017. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint and, in May 2018, the federal court again granted defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit with an opportunity for the plaintiff to amend her complaint. Plaintiff elected not to amend her complaint and will have an opportunity to file an appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals after the lower court enters a final judgment. Edison International, through its subsidiaries, engages in the generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity in the United States. It generates electricity through hydroelectric, diesel/liquid petroleum gas, natural gas, nuclear, and photovoltaic sources. Edison International was founded in 1886 and is based in Rosemead, California. EL POLLO LOCO: Appeals Class Status Order in "Turocy, et al." Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc., among other defendants, is seeking appellate review of a portion of the Court's July 3, 2018 class certification order in the consolidated case of Daniel Turocy, Ron Huston, et al., according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 27, 2018. Daniel Turocy, et al. v. El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc., et al. (Case No. 8:15-cv-01343) was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on August 24, 2015, and Ron Huston, et al. v. El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc., et al. (Case No. 8:15-cv-01710) was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on October 22, 2015. The two lawsuits have been consolidated, with co-lead plaintiffs and class counsel. A consolidated complaint was filed on January 29, 2016, on behalf of co-lead plaintiffs and others similarly situated, alleging violations of federal securities laws in connection with Holdings common stock purchased or otherwise acquired and the purchase of call options or the sale of put options, between May 1, 2015 and August 13, 2015 (the "Class Period"). The named defendants are Holdings; Stephen J. Sather, Laurance Roberts, and Edward J. Valle (collectively, the "Individual Defendants"); and Trimaran Pollo Partners, LLC., Trimaran Capital Partners, and Freeman Spogli & Co. (collectively, the "Controlling Shareholder Defendants"). Among other things, Plaintiffs allege that, in 2014 and early 2015, Holdings suffered losses due to rising labor costs in California and, in an attempt to mitigate the effects of such rising costs, removed a US$5 value option from the Company's menu, which resulted in a decrease in traffic from value-conscious consumers. Plaintiffs further allege that during the Class Period, Holdings and the Individual Defendants made a series of materially false and misleading statements that concealed the effect that these factors were having on store sales growth, resulting in Holdings stock continuing to be traded at artificially inflated prices. As a result, Plaintiffs and other members of the putative class allegedly suffered damages in connection with their purchase of Holdings' stock during the Class Period. In addition, Plaintiffs allege that the Individual Defendants and Controlling Shareholder Defendants had direct involvement in, and responsibility over, the operations of Holdings, and are presumed to have had, among other things, the power to control or influence the transactions giving rise to the alleged securities law violations. In both cases, Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages, as well as costs and expenses (including attorneys' fees). On July 25, 2016, the Court issued an order granting, without prejudice, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim. Plaintiffs were granted leave to amend their complaint, and filed an amended complaint on August 22, 2016. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, and on March 20, 2017, the Court dismissed the amended complaint and granted Plaintiffs leave to file another amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed another amended complaint on April 17, 2017. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on or about May 17, 2017. The Court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss the third amended complaint on August 4, 2017. On December 8, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification and on July 3, 2018, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion and certified a class as to all of Plaintiffs' claims. Defendants are currently seeking appellate review of a portion of the Court's July 3, 2018 class certification order. Defendants intend to continue to defend against the claims asserted. El Pollo Loco is a differentiated and growing restaurant concept that specializes in fire-grilling citrus-marinated chicken and operates in the limited service restaurant ("LSR") segment. EL POLLO LOCO: Class of Stockholders Certified in Turocy Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. David O. Carter grants the Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class in the lawsuit styled DANIEL TUROCY, et al. v. EL POLLO LOCO HOLDINGS, INC., et al., Case No. 8:15-cv-01343-DOC-KES (C.D. Cal.). The Court certifies this class as to the Plaintiffs' three claims under Sections 10(b), 20(a) and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934: All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc. ("El Pollo Loco" or the "Company") common stock or exchange-traded call options, or who sold exchange-traded El Pollo Loco put options (the "Securities"), between May 15, 2015 and August 13, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and were damaged thereby. Excluded from the Class are Defendants, present or former executive officers of El Pollo Loco and their immediate family members (as defined in 17 C.F.R. Section229.404, Instructions (1)(a)(iii) and (1)(b)(ii)). Judge Carter appoints Peter Kim, Richard J. Levy, Sammy Tanner, and Ron Huston as Class Representatives, and Robbins Geller and Rosen as Class Counsel. The Court denies the Defendants' Motion to Strike, grants the Defendants' Request to File a Sur-Reply, and grants the Plaintiffs' Request to File a Sur-Sur-Reply. El Pollo Loco is a restaurant chain primarily based in California that specializes in Mexican-style grilled chicken, among other food offerings. The case arises from allegations that between May and August 2015, El Pollo Loco -- and certain of its directors, officers, and shareholders -- fraudulently misstated the cause of declining sales trends in order to improve the market perception of El Pollo Loco's value. The case also arises from allegations that insiders sold about $130 million in El Pollo Loco stock at fraud-inflated prices on May 19, 2015, during that same time period, taking advantage of non-public information to obtain millions of dollars in insider trading profits. EL POLLO LOCO: Court Certifies 2 Class of Plaintiffs in "Olvera" ---------------------------------------------------------------- El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2018, for the quarterly period ended June 27, 2018, that the court "recently" certified two class of plaintiffs in the class action initiated by Elliott Olvera. Specifically, one class encompasses restaurant employees who were not provided proper rest breaks because they were not allowed to leave the premises during their breaks and the other class encompasses restaurant employees who were required to wait at the restaurant after they finished working for the night until the manager set the alarm for safety purposes. On or about February 24, 2014, a former employee filed a class action in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange, under the caption Elliott Olvera, et al v. El Pollo Loco, Inc., et al (Case No. 30-2014-00707367-CU-OE-CXC) on behalf of all putative class members (all hourly employees from 2010 to the present) alleging certain violations of California labor laws, including failure to pay overtime compensation, failure to provide meal periods and rest breaks, and failure to provide itemized wage statements. The putative lead plaintiff's requested remedies include compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. No specific amount of damages sought was specified in the complaint. The parties executed a Stipulation of Class Settlement and Release which the court refused to approve on the grounds that it did not provide sufficient compensation for the putative class members. Further settlement discussions were not successful. El Pollo Loco is a differentiated and growing restaurant concept that specializes in fire-grilling citrus-marinated chicken and operates in the limited service restaurant ("LSR") segment. ENBRIDGE ENERGY: Mesirov Replaces Brinckerhoff in Delaware Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Enbridge Energy Management, L.L.C. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2018, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that plaintiff Peter Brinckerhoff has been dismissed as a named Plaintiff in a class action filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. Plaintiff Judy Mesirov filed a Fourth Amended Complaint, which is substantially the same as the Third Amended Complaint except that it substitutes Judy Mesirov in place of Peter Brinckerhoff as the named Plaintiff. Trial for the fourth amended complaint remains scheduled for the second quarter of 2019. On July 20, 2015, plaintiff Peter Brinckerhoff (the Plaintiff), individually and as trustee of the Peter R. Brinckerhoff Trust, filed a Verified Class Action and Derivative Complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the General Partner, Enbridge, Enbridge Energy Partner, LP., Enbridge Pipelines (Alberta Clipper) L.L.C., Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership, the Company, and the following individuals: Jeffrey A. Connelly, Rebecca B. Roberts, Dan A. Westbrook, J. Richard Bird, J. Herbert England, C. Gregory Harper, D. Guy Jarvis, Mark A. Maki, and John K. Whelen, (collectively, the Director Defendants). The initial Complaint asserted both class action claims on behalf of holders of the Partnership's Class A Common Units, as well as derivative claims brought on behalf of the Partnership. The Plaintiff's claims arose out of the January 2, 2015 repurchase by the Partnership of the General Partner's 66.67% interest in the pipeline that runs from the Canadian international border near Neche, North Dakota to Superior, Wisconsin on the Partnership's Lakehead System (Alberta Clipper Pipeline), known as the 2015 Transaction. First, the Plaintiff alleged that the 2015 Transaction improperly amended without Public Unitholder consent the Sixth Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership (the LPA) so as to allocate to the Public Unitholders gross income that should have been allocated to the General Partner (the Special Tax Allocation). Second, the Plaintiff alleged that the Partnership paid an unfair price for the General Partner's 66.67% interest in the Alberta Clipper Pipeline such that the 2015 Transaction breached the LPA because it was not fair and reasonable to the Partnership. The initial Complaint asserted claims for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of residual fiduciary duties, tortious interference, aiding and abetting, and rescission and reformation. On April 29, 2016, the Court of Chancery granted Enbridge's and the Director Defendants' motion to dismiss and dismissed the case in its entirety. On May 26, 2016 the Plaintiff appealed that dismissal to the Delaware Supreme Court. On March 20, 2017, the Delaware Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part the ruling of the Court of Chancery. Specifically, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed that the enactment of the Special Tax Allocation did not breach the LPA, but reversed on the question of whether the Plaintiff had adequately alleged that the price the Partnership paid in the 2015 Transaction, including the Special Tax Allocation component, was fair and reasonable to the Partnership. On November 15, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Verified Second Amended Complaint (the Second Amended Complaint). The Second Amended Complaint added Piper Jaffray & Co. as successor to Simmons & Company International (Simmons) as a direct Defendant. Simmons acted as the financial advisor to the Company's Special Committee in the 2015 Transaction. The Second Amended Complaint also revised many of the allegations against Enbridge and the Director Defendants. On December 18, 2017, all Defendants except Simmons filed their brief in support of their motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. On January 19, 2018, Simmons filed its brief in support of its motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. On February 28, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File a Verified Third Amended Complaint and a Motion to Intervene on behalf of a proposed new plaintiff, Judy Mesirov (subsequently amended). On March 23, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Verified Third Amended Complaint and a Motion for Voluntary Dismissal of Brinckerhoff. On April 3, 2018, all Defendants filed their briefs in support of their motions to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint. Plaintiff Brinckerhoff has now been dismissed as a named Plaintiff. Plaintiff Mesirov filed a Fourth Amended Complaint, which is substantially the same as the Third Amended Complaint except that it substitutes Judy Mesirov in place of Peter Brinckerhoff as the named Plaintiff. The parties have agreed that a ruling on the motions to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint will be binding as to the now-active Fourth Amended Complaint. Oral argument on the motions to dismiss was held on May 30, 2018. The parties are currently in discovery, with trial currently scheduled for the second quarter of 2019. Enbridge Energy Management, L.L.C. is a limited partner of Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P., (the Partnership), through its ownership of i-units, a special class of the Partnership's limited partner interests. ENHANCED RECOVERY: Kola Sues Over Illegal Collection ---------------------------------------------------- Age Kola, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff, v. Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC and John Does l-25, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-06949 (S.D. N.Y., August 2, 2018), seeks redress for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Enhanced Recovery Company -- www.ercbpo.com -- operates a call center that caters to collections. [BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. ERIE INDEMNITY: 3rd Cir. Denies Petition for Rehearing in "Beltz" ----------------------------------------------------------------- Erie Indemnity Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2018, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has denied plaintiffs' petition for rehearing of their appeal. On February 6, 2013, a lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, captioned Erie Insurance Exchange, an unincorporated association, by members Patricia R. Beltz, Joseph S. Sullivan and Anita Sullivan, and Patricia R. Beltz, on behalf of herself and others similarly situate v. Richard L. Stover; J. Ralph Borneman, Jr.; Terrence W. Cavanaugh; Jonathan Hirt Hagen; Susan Hirt Hagen; Thomas B. Hagen; C. Scott Hartz; Claude C. Lilly, III; Lucian L. Morrison; Thomas W. Palmer; Martin P. Sheffield; Elizabeth H. Vorsheck; and Robert C. Wilburn (the "Beltz" lawsuit), by alleged policyholders of Exchange who are also the plaintiffs in the Sullivan lawsuit. The individuals named as defendants in the Beltz lawsuit were the then-current Directors of Indemnity. As subsequently amended, the Beltz lawsuit asserts many of the same allegations and claims for monetary relief as in the Sullivan lawsuit. Plaintiffs purport to sue on behalf of all policyholders of Exchange, or, alternatively, on behalf of Exchange itself. Indemnity filed a motion to intervene as a Party Defendant in the Beltz lawsuit in July 2013, and the Directors filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit in August 2013. On February 10, 2014, the court entered an order granting Indemnity's motion to intervene and permitting Indemnity to join the Directors' motion to dismiss; granting in part the Directors' motion to dismiss; referring the matter to the Department to decide any and all issues within its jurisdiction; denying all other relief sought in the Directors' motion as moot; and dismissing the case without prejudice. To avoid duplicative proceedings and expedite the Department's review, the Parties stipulated that only the Sullivan action would proceed before the Department and any final and non-appealable determinations made by the Department in the Sullivan action will be applied to the Beltz action. On March 7, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Indemnity filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on March 26, 2014. On November 17, 2014, the Third Circuit deferred ruling on Indemnity's motion to dismiss the appeal and instructed the parties to address that motion, as well as the merits of Plaintiffs' appeal, in the parties' briefing. Briefing was completed on April 2, 2015. In light of the Department's April 29, 2015 decision in Sullivan, the Parties then jointly requested that the Beltz appeal be voluntarily dismissed as moot on June 5, 2015. The Third Circuit did not rule on the Parties' request for dismissal and instead held oral argument as scheduled on June 8, 2015. On July 16, 2015, the Third Circuit issued an opinion and judgment dismissing the appeal. The Third Circuit found that it lacked appellate jurisdiction over the appeal, because the District Court's February 10, 2014 order referring the matter to the Department was not a final, appealable order. On July 8, 2016, the Beltz plaintiffs filed a new action labeled as a "Verified Derivative And Class Action Complaint" in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. The action is captioned Patricia R. Beltz, Joseph S. Sullivan, and Anita Sullivan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and derivatively on behalf of Nominal Defendant Erie Insurance Exchange v. Erie Indemnity Company; Kaj Ahlmann; John T. Baily; Samuel P. Black, III; J. Ralph Borneman, Jr.; Terrence W. Cavanaugh; Wilson C. Cooney; LuAnn Datesh; Patricia A. Goldman; Jonathan Hirt Hagen; Thomas B. Hagen; C. Scott Hartz; Samuel P. Katz; Gwendolyn King; Claude C. Lilly, III; Martin J. Lippert; George R. Lucore; Jeffrey A. Ludrof; Edmund J. Mehl; Henry N. Nassau; Thomas W. Palmer; Martin P. Sheffield; Seth E. Schofield; Richard L. Stover; Jan R. Van Gorder; Elizabeth A. Hirt Vorsheck; Harry H. Weil; and Robert C. Wilburn (the "Beltz II" lawsuit). The individual defendants are all present or former Directors of Indemnity (the "Directors"). The allegations of the Beltz II lawsuit arise from the same fundamental, underlying claims as the Sullivan and prior Beltz litigation, i.e., that Indemnity improperly retained Service Charges and Added Service Charges. The Beltz II lawsuit alleges that the retention of the Service Charges and Added Service Charges was improper because, for among other reasons, that retention constituted a breach of the Subscriber's Agreement and an Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing by Indemnity, breaches of fiduciary duty by Indemnity and the other defendants, conversion by Indemnity, and unjust enrichment by defendants Jonathan Hirt Hagen, Thomas B. Hagen, and Elizabeth A. Hirt Vorsheck, at the expense of Exchange. The Beltz II lawsuit requests, among other things, that a judgment be entered against the Defendants certifying the action as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; declaring Plaintiffs as representatives of the Class and Plaintiffs' counsel as counsel for the Class; declaring the conduct alleged as unlawful, including, but not limited to, Defendants' retention of the Service Charges and Added Service Charges; enjoining Defendants from continuing to retain the Service Charges and Added Service Charges; and awarding compensatory and punitive damages and interest. On September 23, 2016, Indemnity filed a motion to dismiss the Beltz II lawsuit. On September 30, 2016, the Directors filed their own motions to dismiss the Beltz II lawsuit. On July 17, 2017, the Court granted Indemnity's and the Directors’ motions to dismiss the Beltz II lawsuit, dismissing the case in its entirety. The Court ruled that "the Subscriber's Agreement does not govern the separate and additional charges at issue in the Complaint" and, therefore, dismissed the breach of contract claim against Indemnity for failure to state a claim. The Court also ruled that the remaining claims, including the claims for breach of fiduciary duty against Indemnity and the Directors, are barred by the applicable statutes of limitation or fail to state legally cognizable claims. On August 14, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. On May 10, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the Beltz II lawsuit. On May 24, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a petition seeking rehearing of their appeal before the Third Circuit. The Third Circuit denied that petition on June 14, 2018. Erie Indemnity Company operates as a managing attorney-in-fact for the subscribers at the Erie Insurance Exchange in the United States. The company provides sales, underwriting, and policy issuance services for the policyholders on behalf of the Erie Insurance Exchange. Erie Indemnity Company was founded in 1925 and is based in Erie, Pennsylvania. EVENTBRITE INC: Wu ADA Suit Says Website not Blind-friendly ----------------------------------------------------------- Kathy Wu, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Eventbrite, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-04688, (S.D. N.Y., May 28, 2018), seeks preliminary and permanent injunction, compensatory, statutory and punitive damages and fines, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and expenses of this action together with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such other and further relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law. Defendant offers the commercial website www.eventbrite.com which allows consumers to find information about live events, purchase tickets, create an event in the State of New York and throughout the United States and the ability to participate other social interactive experiences and promotions and other important information. Plaintiff is legally blind and claims that Defendant's website cannot be accessed by the visually-impaired. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Tel: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com danalgottlieb@aol.com FACEBOOK INC: Still Defends Class Suits Related to Data Misuse -------------------------------------------------------------- Facebook Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2018, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company continues to defend multiple putative class action suits in connection with the misuse of certain data by a developer. Facebook said "we are currently the subject of multiple putative class action suits in connection with the misuse of certain data by a developer that shared such data with third parties in violation of our terms and policies and related matters. We believe these lawsuits are without merit and are vigorously defending them." Any negative outcome from any such lawsuits could result in payments of substantial monetary damages or fines, or undesirable changes to the company's products or business practices, and accordingly the company's business, financial condition, or results of operations could be materially and adversely affected. Although the results of such lawsuits and claims cannot be predicted with certainty, Facebook do not believe that the final outcome of those matters relating to its products that Facebook currently face will have a material adverse effect on its business, financial condition, or results of operations. Facebook, Inc. provides various products to connect and share through mobile devices, personal computers, and other surfaces worldwide. Facebook, Inc. was founded in 2004 and is headquartered in Menlo Park, California. FARMLAND MUTUAL: Court Narrows Claims in S. Mejia's Wage Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, SCARLETTE MEJIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FARMLAND MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, an Iowa corporation; and NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, an Ohio Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00570-TLN-KJN (E.D. Cal.), Judge Troy L. Nunley of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Strike Plaintiff's Class Allegation. The Plaintiff alleges she was jointly employed by the Defendants from approximately August 2004 until Nov. 18, 2016, as a commercial underwriter. According to her, the Defendants stated the incorrect entity name and address on her paystubs. The Plaintiff alleges the name "Farmland Mutual Insurance Co." and the address of "One Nationwide Plaza 1-01-401, Columbus, OH 4215" is stated on the paystubs. She alleges that Farmland's entity name and address registered with the California Secretary of State is "Farmland Mutual Insurance Company" and "100 Locust Street, Des Moines, IA 50391" respectively. The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants intentionally and knowingly failed to provide an accurate and complete itemized statement showing the requirements set forth in California Labor Code Section 226(a) because the Defendants did not provide the correct name or address of the Plaintiff's employer. Furthermore, she alleges that she suffered injury as a result of (1) the Defendants' failure to provide a wage statement, and (2) the Defendants' failure to provide accurate and complete information as required by any one or more of items (1) to (9), inclusive, of California Labor Code Section 226(a). The Plaintiff also alleges she cannot promptly and easily determine from the wage statement alone the name and address of the employer. The Plaintiff seeks to represent a purported statewide class of employees who worked for the Defendants at any time from Feb. 3, 2016, to the present date who were issued defective paystubs by the Defendants. The Plaintiff alleged to the Labor Commissioner that the Defendants violated California Labor Code Section 226 (Failure to Issue Accurate Wage Statements). She received authorization on behalf of the Labor Commissioner to assess civil penalties against Defendants under the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"). The Plaintiff seeks civil penalties for this violation pursuant to Labor Code Section 2699(f)(2). She seeks these civil penalties on behalf of herself and all other former and current employees of Defendants pursuant to Labor Code Sections 2699(a) and 2699.3. The matter is before the Court pursuant to the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Strike Plaintiff's Class Allegations. The Defendants argue the Court should dismiss both causes of action because Labor Code Section 226(a) does not require the name and address on wage statements to match the name and address registered with the California Secretary of State. Additionally, they argue the Court should strike Plaintiff's class allegations. The Plaintiff opposes the motion. The Defendants also ask the Court to take judicial notice of a copy of the Plaintiff's wage statement and a copy of a minute order from the Superior Court of California in Beach v. Volt Information Sciences, Inc., Case No. 30-2014-00743759-CU-OE-CXC. As the Defendants did not object to the Plaintiff's Request for Judicial Notice, Judge Nunley will take Judicial Notice of all exhibits therein. Similarly, as the Plaintiff did not object to the Defendants' Supplemental Request for Judicial Notice, he granted the Defendants' Supplemental Request for Judicial Notice. After carefully considering the parties' briefing, Judge Nunley granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' Motion. He finds that the Plaintiff's allegations fail to state a claim as a matter of law, as the name on the wage statement need not match the name listed with the California Secretary of State. He also finds that allowing leave to amend would be futile because the Court holds the Defendants' provision of the name "Farmland Mutual Insurance Co." did not violate Section 226 as a matter of law. Accordingly, he granted without leave to amend the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's claim for an intentional and knowing failure to provide accurate wage statements in violation of Labor Code Section 226(a)(8) insofar as the claim relates to the employer name stated on the Plaintiff's paystub. Although the Plaintiff's FAC fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the Judge finds that the Plaintiff may be able to amend her complaint to allege that the address provided by the Defendants does not conform to the plain meaning of "address." He therefore granted with leave to amend the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Cause of Action for an intentional and knowing violation of Labor Code Section 226(a)(8) insofar as it relates to the address provided on the Plaintiff's paystub. As to the Plaintiff's second cause of action under the PAGA, the Judge granted without leave to amend the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff's PAGA claim for an intentional and knowing violation of Labor Code Section 226 with respect to the name provided on the Plaintiff's wage statement. He granted with leave to amend the Plaintiff's PAGA claim with respect to the address provided on her wage statement. Finally, the Judge concludes that the Defendants' brief discussion of a lower evidentiary standard and differing penalties fails to show how the class allegations are redundant, immaterial, and impertinent. Therefore, he declined to strike class allegations at this early stage in the proceedings. The Plaintiff is afforded 30 days from the date the Order is filed to file her Second Amended Complaint. A full-text copy of the Court's June 26, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/CbZ9sD from Leagle.com. Scarlette Mejia, Plaintiff, represented by Galen T. Shimoda -- attorney@shimodalaw.com -- Shimoda Law Corp. & Justin Paul Rodriguez -- justinatlaw@yahoo.com -- Shimoda Law Corp. Farmland Mutual Insurance Company & Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, Defendants, represented by Barbara Allyn Blackburn -- bblackburn@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson & Britney Noelle Torres -- btorres@littler.com – Littler Mendelson, P.C.. FENIX PARTS: Count I in A. Beezley's Securities Suit Dismissed -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, AMANDA BEEZLEY, Individually, and on Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. FENIX PARTS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-7896 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Charles Ronald Norgle of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted the Underwriter Defendants' motion to dismiss Count I of the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. Beezley, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, brings the action against Defendants Fenix, Kent Robertson Scott Pettit, BMO Capital Markets Corp., Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., Inc., BB&T Capital Markets, and Barrington Research Associates, Inc., for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. This is a putative federal securities class action. The Plaintiffs are all persons and entities who purchased shares of Fenix securities: (1) in Fenix's initial public offering on May 15, 2015; and/or (2) on the public market between May 15, 2015 and June 28, 017. Fenix is incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in Westchester, Illinois. Robertson was the CEO and director of the Company and Pettit was the Chief Financial Officer of Fenix. The Underwriter Defendants (BMO Capital, Stifel, BB&T, and Barrington Research) served as underwriters of the Company's IPO -- each received an underwriting discount plus reimbursement for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses. The Plaintiff alleges that in order to raise investor interest in the IPO, Robertson and Pettit misrepresented to potential investors that Fenix would acquire an additional 10 to 15 companies in the next two years, one to three per quarter. To help acquire 10 to 15 companies and continue as a going concern, Fenix entered into an agreement with BMO Harris Bank N.A., for a proposed $35 million senior secured credit facility. The Plaintiff alleges that the value of Fenix's inventory significantly affected Fenix's ability to withdraw under the Credit Facility. Fenix's offering document and registration statement reported that as of Dec. 31, 2014, the consolidated inventories were valued at $42,190,000 and the goodwill was valued at $58,879,000. Fenix allegedly performed goodwill impairment tests annually during the fourth quarter and between annual tests. The Plaintiff alleges that Fenix did not have adequate internal controls or procedures to prepare, document, or review areas of significant judgments and accounting estimates, including: purchase accounting; contingent consideration; potential goodwill impairment; and inventory valuation. She argues that as a result of Fenix's lack of adequate internal controls and procedures, it was unable to make an accurate inventory valuation. The Plaintiff argues that such inability is evidenced by Fenix's disclosure of $14.88 million loss of value in its inventories within a year of the registration statement. Furthermore, despite the alleged substantial decrease in inventory value, Fenix stated that its goodwill value had increased $24.792 million to $83.671 million over the same time period. Subsequently, the Plaintiff alleges that the SEC began an investigation into Fenix's change of auditors, the recent goodwill impairment charge, the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting, and its inventory valuation methodology. She alleges that these events result a violation of Fenix's Credit Facility which created substantial doubt to Fenix's ability to continue as a going concern and on June 29, 2017, Fenix was delisted from NASDAQ. The Plaintiff filed her Amended Complaint Aug. 28, 2017, naming the Underwriter Defendants as defendants under Count I. The Underwriter Defendants now move to dismiss the Plaintiff's claim, arguing that the claim is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Based on the reasoning provided by the majority and Justice Scalia in Merck & Co. v. Reynolds, Judge Norgle finds that the Supreme Court did not intend to extend the actual notice discovery rule to claims arising under the Securities Act. Accordingly, he follows well established Seventh Circuit precedent and uses the inquiry notice standard to determine when the statute of limitations began to run. Inquiry notice means as soon as the plaintiff discovers facts that while not constituting a violation create enough suspicion of one to induce a diligent person to investigate further and by doing so discover it. The Judge also finds that despite multiple admissions by the Plaintiff that Fenix's SEC filings and conference calls began to reveal problems with the projections from the registration statement as early as March 2016, the Plaintiff failed to file her Amended Complaint naming the Underwriter Defendants until Aug. 28, 2017. Under an objective reasonable diligence standard, the only reasonable inference from the Plaintiff's allegations is that she had inquiry notice on or before Aug. 28, 2016. Accordingly, the Judge will grant the Underwriter Defendants' motion to dismiss because the statute of limitations had run on the Plaintiff's claim. In sum, the Plaintiff alleges that she continually discovered facts from as early as March 2016 to Aug. 28, 2016, that would have led a reasonable person to investigate whether she might have a claim. Thus, the Complaint shows that the Plaintiff had inquiry notice of the alleged misrepresentations and omissions prior to Aug. 28, 2016. Accordingly, Judge Norgle granted the Underwriter Defendants' motion to dismiss. A full-text copy of the Court's June 26, 2018 Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/O7dXjk from Leagle.com. Amanda Beezley, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Erica Lauren Stone -- estone@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., Ex Kano S. Sams, II -- esams@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Robert Vincent Prongay -- rprongay@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, pro hac vice & LAURENCE M. ROSEN -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, PA. Thomas Weeks, Douglas Barnard & Keith B. White, Plaintiffs, represented by Ex Kano S. Sams, II, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, James E. Cecchi -- JCecchi@carellabyrne.com -- Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnesso, P.C., Robert Vincent Prongay, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, pro hac vice, Adam M. Apton -- aapton@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, pro hac vice, Adam Christopher McCall -- amccall@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky LLP, pro hac vice, Andrew Charles Murphy -- acm@ditommasolaw.com -- DiTommaso Lubin, P.C., Nicholas Porritt -- nporritt@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky Llp, pro hac vice, Patrick Doyle Austermuehle -- paustermuehle@ditommasolaw.com -- DiTommaso Lubin, P.C., Peter Scott Lubin -- psl@ditommasolaw.com -- DiTommaso Lubin Austermuehle, Vincent Louis DiTommaso -- vdt@ditommasolaw.com -- DiTommaso Lubin, P.C. & EDUARD KORSINSKY -- ek@zlk.com -- LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP. Manny Paulo, Plaintiff, represented by Ex Kano S. Sams, II, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, LAURENCE M. ROSEN, THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, PA & Robert Vincent Prongay, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, pro hac vice. Fenix Parts, Inc., Kent Robertson & Scott Pettit, Defendants, represented by Michael J. Diver -- michael.diver@kattenlaw.com -- Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, Michael James Lohnes -- michael.lohnes@kattenlaw.com -- Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP & Eric Thomas Werlinger -- eric.werlinger@kattenlaw.com -- Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, pro hac vice. BMO Capital Markets Corp., Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated, BB&T Capital Markets & Barrington Research Associates, Inc., Defendants, represented by Amanda B. Protess -- aprotess@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter LLP, pro hac vice, Brian E. Pastuszenski -- bpastuszenski@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter Llp, pro hac vice, Ezekiel L. Hill -- ehill@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter LLP, pro hac vice, Howard L. Teplinsky -- hteplinsky@lgattorneys.com -- Levin Ginsburg & Inez H. Friedman-boyce -- ifriedmanboyce@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter Llp, pro hac vice. FIVE GUYS: Oct. 2 Filing Deadline of "Lusk" Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JEREMY R. LUSK, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiff, v. FIVE GUYS ENTERPRISES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; ENCORE FGBF, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-CV-00762-AWI-EPG (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, Unlimited Jurisdiction, has entered a stipulated order extending the class certification motion deadlines. On May 2, 2017, the Plaintiff filed putative class action in the Kings Superior Court alleging the Defendant's various violations of the Labor Code and the Fair Credit Reporting Act. On June 2, 2017, the Defendants removed the action to the Court. The Court ordered the following briefing schedule for the Plaintiff's anticipated Motion for Class Certification: Motion for Class Certification on Aug. 3, 2018, the Defendant's Opposition to Motion for Class Certification on Sept. 3, 2018, the Plaintiff's Reply to Opposition to Motion for Class Certification on Sept. 18, 2018, and the hearing on the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is not set. Since January of 2018, the Plaintiff has engaged in extensive discovery, serving the Defendants with two sets of Interrogatories, Request for Production of Documents and Request for Admission. On April 25, 2018, the Defendants took the Plaintiff's deposition. On May 17, 2018, they served the Plaintiff with two sets of Interrogatories, Request for Production of Documents and Request for Admission. The Parties previously agreed to participate in private mediation. They've met and conferred and agreed to attend private mediation with Deborah Crandall Saxe of JAMS. Due to the availability of Ms. Saxe as well as various conflicts among the Parties, the first available mediation date that works for Ms. Saxe and the Parties is Aug. 22, 2018. The Parties have scheduled and confirmed Aug. 22, 2018 for the mediation with Ms. Saxe. They've met and conferred and agree that it would be in the interest of justice and preservation of time and resources for the Parties and the Court to complete mediation before the Plaintiff files his motion for class certification. In light of the foregoing, the Parties have agreed to enter into a Stipulation that will seek an Order to extend the deadlines for the anticipated briefing schedule for motion for class certification. They've agreed that, except as otherwise stated, nothing in the Stipulation will operate as a waiver of any rights they may have in the action. Therefore, the Parties, through their respective counsel, stipulated and Magistrate Judge Grosjean granted, to extend the class certification motion deadlines as follows: a. Last Day to File Class Certification Motion - From Aug. 3, 2018 to Oct. 2, 2018 b. Last Day to File Opposition to Class Certification Motion - Sept. 3, 2018 to Nov. 2, 2018 c. Last Day to File Reply in support of Class Certification Motion - Sept. 18, 2018 to Nov. 19, 2018 d. Hearing on Class Certification Motion - (Currently Not Set) A Date Most Convenient for the Court A full-text copy of the Court's June 26, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/HfiBSG from Leagle.com. Jeremy R Lusk, on behalf of himself, all other similarly situated and the general public, Plaintiff, represented by Chaim Shaun Setareh -- shaun@setarehlaw.com -- Law Offices of Shaun Setareh & Howard Scott Leviant -- scott@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law Group. Five Guys Enterprises LLC, a Delaware limited liability company & Encore FGBF, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendants, represented by Kevin V. Koligian -- kkoligian@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C.. FLOWERS FOODS: Distributors' Suit Seek Unpaid Wages, Damages ------------------------------------------------------------ Gregory Lee Martin, Anthony Wayne Edmonds, Gary Rudolph and Richard Lewis Reece, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiffs, v. Flowers Foods, Inc. and Flowers Baking Co. of Jamestown, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00468 (M.D. N.C., May 31, 2018), seeks unpaid wages at overtime rates, penalties, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and such other and further legal and equitable relief under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants distribute bakery and snack food products to retail customers using a centralized network of communication, distribution and warehousing facilities. Plaintiffs worked as distributors for the Defendants, delivering products to customers, distributors, stocking the products on store shelves and assembling promotional displays. They were allegedly misclassified as independent contractors thus denied the rights, obligations, privileges and benefits owed to them as employees. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christopher R. Strianese, Esq. Tamara L. Huckert, Esq. STRIANESE, PLLC 401 North Tryon St., 10th Fl. Charlotte, NC 28202 Tel. (704) 998-2577 Fax. (704) 998-5301 Email: chris@strilaw.com tamara@strilaw.com - and - Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. James L. Holt, Jr., Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. Paula R. Jackson, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Tel: (901) 754-8001 Fax: (901) 759-1745 Email: gjackson@jsyc.com jholt@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com pjackson@jsyc.com - and - Michael L. Weinman, Esq. WEINMAN THOMAS LAW FIRM 112 S. Liberty Street, Suite 321 P.O. Box 266 Jackson, TN 38302 Tel: (731) 423-5565 Email: mike@weinmanthomas.com FOULKE MGMT: Dismissal Order in J. Stollsteimer's Suit Affirmed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JOHN C. STOLLSTEIMER and CHERYL R. STOLLSTEIMER, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. FOULKE MANAGEMENT CORP., d/b/a FOULKE MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, d/b/a CHERRY HILL DODGE CHYRSLER JEEP, d/b/a CHERRY HILL TRIPLEX, Defendant-Respondent, Case No. A-1182-17T3 (N.J. Super. App. Div.), the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, affirmed the Oct. 2, 2017 order dismissing the complaint and compelling arbitration. On Feb. 19, 2014, the Plaintiffs purchased a new motor vehicle from the Defendant. In purchasing the car, they signed a Motor Vehicle Retail Order Agreement ("MVRO"), which included a description of the vehicle and the price. They also signed a retail installment sales contract ("RISC") and an arbitration agreement. The MVRO contained an integration clause, stating any attachments included all terms and conditions. The arbitration agreement was attached to the MVRO. Over a year after purchasing the vehicle, the Plaintiffs experienced trouble with the car. They attempted to have the car repaired. When the issues with the vehicle were not remedied, the Plaintiffs filed a complaint on June 16, 2016. In the complaint, the Plaintiffs alleged the Defendant violated the Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act ("TCCWNA"), N.J.S.A. 56:12-14 to-18. They also sought class certification. On Aug. 3, 2016, the Defendant moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs' complaint and compel arbitration in accordance with the arbitration agreement. The Plaintiffs opposed the motion. On Sept. 20, 2016, the motion judge entered an order enforcing the arbitration agreement. The Plaintiffs appealed. Because that order was entered without oral argument and without any statement of reasons, the Court reversed. It remanded the matter, requesting the motion judge provide findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with Rule 1:7-4(a). After hearing oral argument, the motion judge granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss and compelled the Plaintiffs to arbitrate their claims. The judge issued a nine-page written statement of reasons in support of his Oct. 2, 2017 order. In the statement of reasons appended to the order, the judge found the MVRO, the RISC, and the arbitration agreements were a single, integrated contract. The judge noted the MVRO established the price of the vehicle, the RISC confirmed the payment agreement between plaintiffs and defendant, and the arbitration agreement governed dispute resolution pertaining to the agreement as a whole. In addition, the judge determined all three documents were signed on Feb. ry 19, 2014, the date that the Plaintiffs purchased the vehicle. Further, the judge found the MVRO, the RISC, and the arbitration agreements refer to and acknowledge the existence of the other documents. On appeal, the Plaintiffs contend the motion judge erred because: (1) the arbitration agreement conflicted with the MVRO and the RISC; (2) the arbitration agreement was void for lack of consideration; (3) the arbitration clause failed to satisfy the requirements of Atalese; (4) the arbitration clause was unenforceable as to class action litigation; (5) there were material fact disputes concerning the parties' agreement to arbitrate; and (6) the motion judge failed to consider defendant's application as a motion for summary judgment in accordance with Rule 4:46, as opposed to a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 4:6-2. The Court first considers whether the three sales documents signed by the Plaintiffs formed a single, integrated contract. In reviewing the challenged documents, it agrees with the motion judge that all three documents were executed at the same time and related to the same subject-matter: the Plaintiffs' purchase of the vehicle. Moreover, the arbitration agreement, attached to the MVRO, explains and amplifies the MVRO. The MVRO expressly includes "any attachments." Therefore, the RISC is incorporated by reference into the MVRO. Thus, the Court concurs that the MVRO, RISC, and arbitration agreement signed by the Plaintiffs constitute a single, integrated contract. The Court next considers whether the arbitration agreement is enforceable. It finds that the arbitration agreement and the provisions referring to arbitration in the other sales documents were clear and unambiguous so as to be enforceable. Having concluded the sales documents signed by the Plaintiffs form a single, integrated contract and having determined that the arbitration provisions are enforceable, it holds it needs not resolve the Plaintiffs' arguments regarding the statute of limitations or whether they agreed to forego the right to pursue a class action, because the parties expressly delegated the authority to decide such issues to the arbitrator. The Court next examines the Plaintiffs' argument that the motion judge failed to treat the Defendant's motion as a motion for summary judgment and there were material factual disputes that precluded summary judgment in the case. In reviewing the record, it finds that the judge treated the Defendant's motion as a motion for summary judgment. The judge gave the Plaintiffs an additional opportunity on remand to present evidence of genuinely disputed material facts. While the Plaintiffs raised legal arguments related to the sales contracts, they failed to set forth any disputed facts. The Court holds the motion judge properly considered the undisputed facts in rendering his decision to dismiss the complaint and compel arbitration. Accordingly, the Court affirmed. A full-text copy of the Court's June 26, 2018 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/KuFjmq from Leagle.com. Paul N. DePetris argued the cause for appellants (Paul N. DePetris and Lewis G. Adler -- lewisadler@verizon.net -- of counsel and on the briefs). Laura D. Ruccolo, argued the cause for respondent (Capehart & Scatchard, PA, attorneys; Laura D. Ruccolo, on the brief). FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Connecticut Securities Suit Underway ------------------------------------------------------------- Frontier Communications Corporation is facing consolidated class action complaint in Connecticut over alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018. On April 30, 2018, an amended consolidated class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut on behalf of certain purported stockholders against Frontier, certain of its current and former directors and officers and the underwriters of certain Frontier securities offerings. The complaint is brought on behalf of all persons who (1) acquired Frontier common stock between February 6, 2015 and February 28, 2018, inclusive, and/or (2) acquired Frontier common stock or Mandatory Convertible Preferred Stock either in or traceable to Frontier's offerings of common and preferred stock conducted on or about June 2, 2015 and June 8, 2015. The complaint asserts, among other things, violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, in connection with certain disclosures relating to the 2016 acquisition of properties in California, Texas, and Florida with Verizon (CTF Acquisition), wherein Frontier assumed the CAF Phase II support and related obligations that Verizon had previously accepted with regard to California and Texas. The complaint seeks, among other things, damages and equitable and injunctive relief. The Company said, "We dispute the allegations in the complaint described above and intend to vigorously defend against such claims. Given that this matter is in the early stages of litigation, we are unable to estimate a reasonably possible range of loss, if any, that may result from this matter." Frontier Communications Corporation provides communications services to residential, business, and wholesale customers in the United States. The Company was formerly known as Citizens Communications Company and changed its name to Frontier Communications Corporation in July 2008. Frontier Communications Corporation was founded in 1927 and is based in Norwalk, Connecticut. FUNKO INC: Court Denies A. Parikh's Bid for Lead Plaintiff ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case, SATYANARAYANA KANUGONDA, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. FUNKO, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. C18-812RSM (W.D. Wash.), Judge Ricardo S. Martinez of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, (i) denied A. Parikh's Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Choice of Counsel; and (ii) struck as moot Carl Berkelhammer's motion for leave to file a motion for appointment as the lead Plaintiff. The action, filed on April 2, 2018, arises from Funko's Nov. 1, 2017 initial public offering ("IPO"). The Plaintiff contends that Funko's Form S-1, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, contained untrue statements of fact and omissions with regards to Funko's profits and growth, insulation from adverse industry, sales, and earnings trends, and materially misleading statements regarding Funko's business, operations, and prospects. Funko's stock was initially valued at $12 per share during the IPO. After the untrue statements of fact and omissions came to light, Funko's stock plummeted to $6 per share on Dec. 21, 2017, resulting in significant losses and damages for the Plaintiff and other similarly situated Class members. The Plaintiff asserts claims under Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The matter comes before the Court on A. Parikh's Motion. Purported class member and interested party Berkelhammer has filed a motion for leave to file a motion for appointment as the lead Plaintiff and has opposed A. Parikh's Motion. Judge Martinez finds that the Funko and A. Parikh have not established that they will be prejudiced by providing proper notice of the action and the opportunity for the class members to seek appointment as the lead Plaintiff. First, the lawsuit is in its infancy and the Defendants have not yet been served. Second, the lack of a lead Plaintiff does not leave the lawsuit to flounder without direction as the Plaintiff can continue to provide direction as necessary. Third, even if A. Parikh had been appointed the lead Plaintiff, the passing of the 60 day period does not cement his status. Thus, Funko and A. Parikh will be put in no worse position by being required to comply with the statutory notice period prior to seeking appointment as the lead Plaintiff. Conversely, the PSLRA's intent to appoint the most adequate plaintiff will be furthered. As for Berkelhammer's filings, the Judge finds that Mr. Berkelhammer, a non-party, has never sought to intervene in the matter pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24. While the PSLRA does anticipate non-parties filing motions seeking lead plaintiff status, those motions are not akin to motions to intervene. Nevertheless, the Court has an independent obligation to consider the issue Mr. Berkelhammer raised -- whether notice in the case complied with the PSLRA requirements. The Judge says he does not need to consider Mr. Berkelhammer's filings to determine whether notice was sufficient. Accordingly, he will strike's Mr. Berkelhammer's motion for leave to file a motion for appointment as the lead Plaintiff as moot. Should the Plaintiff reissue proper notice, Mr. Berkelhammer may seek the lead Plaintiff status at the appropriate time. Having reviewed A. Parikh's Motion, along with the remainder of the record, Judge Martinex (i) denied the Motion of A. Parikh for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Choice of Counsel; and (ii) struck as moot the Motion of Carl Berkelhammer for Leave to File a Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Choice of Counsel, or Alternatively to Set a Briefing Schedule for Lead Plaintiff Motions. A full-text copy of the Court's June 27, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/wjf4fA from Leagle.com. Satyanarayana Kanugonda, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Phillip C. Kim -- pkim@rosenlegal.com -- THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, PA, pro hac vice, Spencer Hall, Jr. -- shall@hallgeorge.com -- HALL & GEORGE PLLC & Colin M. George -- cgeorge@hallgeorge.com -- HALL & GEORGE PLLC. GAMESTOP CORP: Horton Sues Over Illegal Personal Info Disclosure ---------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Jeremy Horton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Gamestop Corp., D/B/A Game Informer, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00596, (W.D. Mich., May 29, 2018), seeks an award of actual damages, including disgorgement and restitution, or $5,000.00, whichever is greater, restitution and all other forms of equitable monetary relief, prejudgment interest on all amounts awarded and reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses for violation of Michigan's Video Rental Privacy Act. GameStop is a video game, consumer electronics, and wireless services retailer. It allegedly sold personal reading information to numerous third-party marketing, list-rental and data-mining companies between May 29, 2015 and July 30, 2016, without its subscribers' written consent. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Wedad Ibrahim, Esq. LYNGKLIP & ASSOCIATES CONSUMER LAW CENTER, PLC 24500 Northwestern Highway, Ste. 206 Southfield, MI 48075 Tel: (248) 208-8864 Email: WedadI@MichiganConsumerLaw.Com - and - Frank S. Hedin, Esq. David W. Hall, Esq. HEDIN HALL LLP 1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 900 Miami, FL 33131 Tel: (305) 357-2107 Fax: (305) 200-8801 Email: fhedin@hedinhall.com dhall@hedinhall.com GENOCEA BIOSCIENCES: Sept. 25 Hearing for Bid to Drop Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Oral argument on a motion to dismiss the putative class suit in Massachusetts has been scheduled for September 25, 2018, according to Genocea Biosciences, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018. On October 31, 2017, a putative class action complaint was filed in the District of Massachusetts, naming the Company, Chief Executive Officer William D. Clark, and Chief Financial Officer Jonathan Poole as defendants. The complaint alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 in connection with disclosures made in and subsequent to the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2017, filed with the SEC on May 5, 2017, and the Company's announcement of a strategic shift to immuno-oncology on September 25, 2017. The plaintiff sought to represent a class of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities between May 5, 2017 and September 25, 2017. The complaint sought unspecified damages and costs. On November 3, 2017, another purported Company shareholder filed a substantially identical complaint in the District of Massachusetts. On December 15, 2017, a purported Company shareholder filed a third complaint in the District of Massachusetts, substantially the same as the previous two, but alleging a class period beginning on August 4, 2016 and ending on September 25, 2017. The District of Massachusetts designated all three complaints as related, and entered an order in each action recognizing that the defendants are not obligated to respond to the initial complaint filed in any of the three actions. Per the procedures set forth by federal securities laws, applications for appointment of lead plaintiff(s) and lead counsel in the three actions were due to the Court on January 2, 2018. Three applications for lead plaintiff and lead counsel were submitted to the Court on that date; one of the three movants subsequently withdrew their application. The Court held a hearing on the two remaining motions for lead plaintiff(s) and lead counsel on January 31, 2018. The Court consolidated the three actions into one case, under the docket number Civil Action No. 17-cv-12137-PBS, U.S. District Court (Mass.), and took the motions for lead plaintiff(s) and counsel under advisement. Counsel for both lead plaintiff movants told the Court that they intended to file an amended complaint in the consolidated action, if appointed. On February 12, 2018, the Court appointed the Genocea Investor Group (a group of five purported shareholders) as lead plaintiff, and appointed Scott+Scott LLP, Levi & Korsinsky LLP, and Block & Leviton LLP as lead counsel. On February 20, 2018, the court entered an order establishing a schedule for the lead plaintiffs' amended complaint, and for a motion to dismiss and corresponding briefing in response, with the following deadlines: filing of an amended complaint by the lead plaintiffs and counsel due March 29, 2018; filing of an answer or motion to dismiss by defendants on May 14, 2018; filing of any opposition by plaintiffs to a motion to dismiss on June 28, 2018; and filing of any reply by defendants in support of a motion to dismiss on July 30, 2018. On March 29, 2018, counsel for the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint in the District of Massachusetts that alleges the same causes of action and seeks the same relief as the original complaints. The amended complaint adds Seth V. Hetherington, former Chief Medical Officer, to the original named defendants. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on May 14, 2018. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss on June 28, 2018, as well as a motion to strike exhibits referenced in defendants' motion to dismiss, on June 29, 2018. The Company and the other named defendants filed a reply brief to plaintiffs' opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss, and an opposition brief to plaintiffs' motion to strike, on July 30, 2018. Oral argument on the motion to dismiss has been scheduled for September 25, 2018. Genocea Biosciences, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, discovers and develops novel cancer vaccines. The company uses its proprietary discovery platform AnTigen Lead Acquisition System to design immunotherapies and vaccines that act through T cell immune responses. Its lead product candidate is GEN-003, an investigational immunotherapy that is in Phase III trial for the treatment of genital herpes infections. Genocea Biosciences, Inc. was founded in 2006 and is headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts. GENPACT SERVICES: Hoffman Disputes Vague Collection Letter ---------------------------------------------------------- Kimberly A. Hoffman, Denis Graziano and Jaime Rapuzzi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Genpact Services LLC, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-04371, (E.D. N.Y., August 2, 2018), seeks damages and declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act. Plaintiffs claim they each received collection notices from Genpact, a collection agency, that failed to accurately state their debt balances. [BN] The Plaintiffs appear pro se. GNC HOLDINGS INC: Continues to Defend Pa. Workweek Related Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- GNC Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2018, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company continues to defend Pennsylvania Fluctuating Workweek related suit. On September 18, 2013, Tawny Chevalier and Andrew Hiller commenced a class action in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Plaintiff asserted a claim against the Company for a purported violation of the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act ("PMWA"), challenging the Company's utilization of the "fluctuating workweek" method to calculate overtime compensation, on behalf of all employees who worked for the Company in Pennsylvania and who were paid according to the fluctuating workweek method. In October 2014, the Court entered an order holding that the use of the fluctuating workweek method violated the PMWA. In September 2016, the Court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and the class in an immaterial amount, which has been recorded as a charge in the accompanying Consolidated Financial Statements. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a petition for an award of attorney's fees, costs and incentive payment. The court awarded an immaterial amount in legal fees. The Company appealed from the adverse judgment and the award of attorney's fees. On December 22, 2017, the Pennsylvania Superior Court held that the Company correctly determined the "regular rate" by dividing weekly compensation by all hours worked (rather than 40), but held that the regular rate must be multiplied by 1.5 (rather than 0.5) to determine the amount of overtime owed. Taking accumulated interest into account, the net result of the Superior Court's decision was to reduce the Company's liability by an immaterial amount, which has been reflected in the accompanying Consolidated Financial Statements. The Company filed a petition for appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on January 22, 2018. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court accepted the Company's petition for appeal on July 16, 2018 and has issued a briefing schedule to the parties. GNC Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a specialty retailer of health, wellness, and performance products. It operates through three segments: U.S. and Canada, International, and Manufacturing/Wholesale. The company was founded in 1935 and is headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. GNC HOLDINGS: Court Narrows Class Claims in Naranjo Suit --------------------------------------------------------- GNC Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2018, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the court granted in part and denied in part the company's motion for decertification. On February 29, 2012, former Senior Store Manager, Elizabeth Naranjo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, sued General Nutrition Corporation in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda. The class action complaint contains eight causes of action, alleging, among other matters, meal, rest break and overtime violations for which indeterminate money damages for wages, penalties, interest, and legal fees are sought. In June 2018, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Company's Motion for Decertification. As of June 30, 2018, an immaterial liability has been accrued in the accompanying financial statements. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the remaining class action claims asserted in this action, and to seek decertification as to some or all of the claims following additional discovery. It is expected that the trial will occur in 2019. GNC Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a specialty retailer of health, wellness, and performance products. It operates through three segments: U.S. and Canada, International, and Manufacturing/Wholesale. The company was founded in 1935 and is headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. GOLDMAN SACHS: Awaits 2nd Cir. Ruling on Gender Pay Disparity Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2018, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the Defendants' petition with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals seeking interlocutory review of the district court's March 30, 2018 certification decision in a class suit related to gender pay inequality matters is still pending. On September 15, 2010, a putative class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by three female former employees. The complaint, as subsequently amended, alleges that Group Inc. and Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) have systematically discriminated against female employees in respect of compensation, promotion and performance evaluations. The complaint alleges a class consisting of all female employees employed at specified levels in specified areas by Group Inc. and GS&Co. since July 2002, and asserts claims under federal and New York City discrimination laws. The complaint seeks class action status, injunctive relief and unspecified amounts of compensatory, punitive and other damages. On July 17, 2012, the district court issued a decision granting in part Group Inc.'s and GS&Co.'s motion to strike certain of plaintiffs' class allegations on the ground that plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue certain equitable remedies and denying Group Inc.'s and GS&Co.'s motion to strike plaintiffs' class allegations in their entirety as premature. On March 21, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that arbitration should be compelled with one of the named plaintiffs, who as a managing director was a party to an arbitration agreement with the firm. On March 10, 2015, the magistrate judge to whom the district judge assigned the remaining plaintiffs' May 2014 motion for class certification recommended that the motion be denied in all respects. On August 3, 2015, the magistrate judge granted the plaintiffs' motion to intervene two female individuals, one of whom was employed by the firm as of September 2010 and the other of whom ceased to be an employee of the firm subsequent to the magistrate judge's decision. On March 30, 2018, the district court certified a damages class as to the plaintiffs' disparate impact and treatment claims. On April 13, 2018, defendants filed a petition with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals seeking interlocutory review of the district court's certification decision. Based in New York, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (NYSE:GS) is a bank holding company. It is also an investment banking, securities and investment management firm that provides services to clients that include corporations, financial institutions, governments and high-net-worth individuals. GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Nix Commodities-Related Suit Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2018, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that Defendants' motion to dismiss the third consolidated amended complaint in the Commodities-Related Litigation is still pending. Goldman Sachs International (GSI) is among the defendants named in putative class actions relating to trading in platinum and palladium, filed beginning on November 25, 2014 and most recently amended on May 15, 2017, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The amended complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated federal antitrust laws and the Commodity Exchange Act in connection with an alleged conspiracy to manipulate a benchmark for physical platinum and palladium prices and seek declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as treble damages in an unspecified amount. Defendants moved to dismiss the third consolidated amended complaint on July 21, 2017. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Based in New York, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (NYSE:GS) is a bank holding company. It is also an investment banking, securities and investment management firm that provides services to clients that include corporations, financial institutions, governments and high-net-worth individuals. GOLDMAN SACHS: Bids to Drop Adeptus Health Class Actions Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that motions to dismiss lawsuits related to Adeptus Health are still pending. Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) is among the underwriters named as defendants in several putative securities class actions, filed beginning in October 2016 and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include certain past and present directors and officers of Adeptus Health Inc. (Adeptus), as well as Adeptus' sponsor. As to the underwriters, the consolidated amended complaint, filed on November 21, 2017, relates to the US$124 million June 2014 initial public offering, the US$154 million May 2015 secondary equity offering, the US$411 million July 2015 secondary equity offering, and the US$175 million June 2016 secondary equity offering. GS&Co. underwrote 1.69 million shares of common stock in the June 2014 initial public offering representing an aggregate offering price of approximately US$37 million, 962,378 shares of common stock in the May 2015 offering representing an aggregate offering price of approximately US$61 million, 1.76 million shares of common stock in the July 2015 offering representing an aggregate offering price of approximately US$184 million, and all the shares of common stock in the June 2016 offering representing an aggregate offering price of approximately US$175 million. On April 19, 2017, Adeptus filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The defendants filed motions to dismiss on February 5, 2018. Based in New York, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (NYSE:GS) is a bank holding company. It is also an investment banking, securities and investment management firm that provides services to clients that include corporations, financial institutions, governments and high-net-worth individuals. GOLDMAN SACHS: Bids to Drop Securities Lending Suits Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2018, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that motions to dismiss the class action and individual action related to securities lending practices remain pending. Group Inc. and Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) are among the defendants named in a putative antitrust class action and an individual action relating to securities lending practices filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York beginning in August 2017. The complaints generally assert claims under federal antitrust law and state common law in connection with an alleged conspiracy among the defendants to preclude the development of electronic platforms for securities lending transactions. The individual complaint also asserts claims for tortious interference with business relations and under state trade practices law. The complaints seek declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as treble damages and restitution in unspecified amounts. Group Inc. was voluntarily dismissed from the putative class action on January 26, 2018. Defendants moved to dismiss the class action complaint on January 26, 2018 and the individual action on June 1, 2018. Based in New York, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (NYSE:GS) is a bank holding company. It is also an investment banking, securities and investment management firm that provides services to clients that include corporations, financial institutions, governments and high-net-worth individuals. GOLDMAN SACHS: Bids to Drop U.S. Treasury Securities Suit Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2018, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the Defendants moved to dismiss the U.S. Treasury Securities Litigation on February 23, 2018. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) is among the primary dealers named as defendants in several putative class actions relating to the market for U.S. Treasury securities, filed beginning in July 2015 and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. GS&Co. is also among the primary dealers named as defendants in a similar individual action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on August 25, 2017. The consolidated class action complaint, filed on December 29, 2017, generally alleges that the defendants violated antitrust laws in connection with an alleged conspiracy to manipulate the when-issued market and auctions for U.S. Treasury securities and that certain defendants, including GS&Co., colluded to preclude trading of U.S. Treasury securities on electronic trading platforms in order to impede competition in the bidding process. The individual action alleges a similar conspiracy regarding manipulation of the when-issued market and auctions, as well as related futures and options in violation of the Commodity Exchange Act. The complaints seek declaratory and injunctive relief, treble damages in an unspecified amount and restitution. Defendants moved to dismiss on February 23, 2018. Based in New York, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (NYSE:GS) is a bank holding company. It is also an investment banking, securities and investment management firm that provides services to clients that include corporations, financial institutions, governments and high-net-worth individuals. GOLDMAN SACHS: Interest Rate Swap Antitrust Actions Still Ongoing ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the Interest Rate Swap Antitrust Litigation is still ongoing. Group Inc., Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.), Goldman Sachs International (GSI), GS Bank USA and Goldman Sachs Financial Markets, L.P. (GSFM) are among the defendants named in a putative antitrust class action relating to the trading of interest rate swaps, filed in November 2015 and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The same Goldman Sachs entities also are among the defendants named in two antitrust actions relating to the trading of interest rate swaps filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York beginning in April 2016 by three operators of swap execution facilities and certain of their affiliates. These actions have been consolidated for pretrial proceedings. The complaints generally assert claims under federal antitrust law and state common law in connection with an alleged conspiracy among the defendants to preclude exchange trading of interest rate swaps. The complaints in the individual actions also assert claims under state antitrust law. The complaints seek declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as treble damages in an unspecified amount. Defendants moved to dismiss the class and one of the individual actions on January 20, 2017. On July 28, 2017, the district court issued a decision dismissing the state common law claims asserted by the plaintiffs in the individual action and otherwise limiting the antitrust claims in both actions and the state common law claim in the putative class action to the period from 2013 to 2016. On May 30, 2018, plaintiffs in the putative class action filed a third consolidated amended complaint. Defendants moved to dismiss the second individual action on July 19, 2018. Based in New York, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (NYSE:GS) is a bank holding company. It is also an investment banking, securities and investment management firm that provides services to clients that include corporations, financial institutions, governments and high-net-worth individuals. GOLDMAN SACHS: Lawsuit over 2012-2014 Securities Sales Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2018, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the Cobalt International Energy Securities Litigation is still ongoing. Cobalt International Energy, Inc. (Cobalt), certain of its officers and directors (including employees of affiliates of Group Inc. who served as directors of Cobalt), affiliates of shareholders of Cobalt (including Group Inc.) and the underwriters (including Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.)) for certain offerings of Cobalt's securities are defendants in a putative securities class action filed on November 30, 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The second consolidated amended complaint, filed on March 15, 2017, relates to a US$1.67 billion February 2012 offering of Cobalt common stock, a US$1.38 billion December 2012 offering of Cobalt's convertible notes, a US$1.00 billion January 2013 offering of Cobalt's common stock, a US$1.33 billion May 2013 offering of Cobalt's common stock, and a US$1.30 billion May 2014 offering of Cobalt's convertible notes. The consolidated amended complaint alleges that, among others, Group Inc. and GS&Co. are liable as controlling persons with respect to all five offerings, and that the shareholder affiliates (including Group Inc.) are liable for the sale of Cobalt common stock on the basis of inside information. The consolidated amended complaint also seeks damages from GS&Co. in connection with its acting as an underwriter of 16,594,500 shares of common stock representing an aggregate offering price of approximately US$465 million, US$690 million principal amount of convertible notes, and approximately US$508 million principal amount of convertible notes in the February 2012, December 2012 and May 2014 offerings, respectively, for an aggregate offering price of approximately US$1.66 billion. On January 19, 2016, the court granted, with leave to replead, the underwriter defendants' motions to dismiss as to claims by plaintiffs who purchased Cobalt securities after April 30, 2013, but denied the motions to dismiss in all other respects. On June 15, 2017, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification and denied certain of the shareholder affiliates' motions (including Group Inc.) to dismiss the claim alleging sales based on inside information. On August 4, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted defendants' petition for interlocutory review of the class certification order. On August 23, 2017, the district court denied the defendants' motion for reconsideration of certain aspects of the class certification order. The district court and the Fifth Circuit denied defendants' request to stay discovery pending resolution of the Fifth Circuit proceeding. On December 14, 2017, Cobalt filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Cobalt, certain of its officers and directors (including employees of affiliates of Group Inc. who served as directors of Cobalt), certain shareholders of Cobalt (including funds affiliated with Group Inc.), and affiliates of these shareholders (including Group Inc.) are defendants in putative shareholder derivative actions filed on May 6, 2016 and November 29, 2016 in Texas District Court, Harris County. As to the director and officer defendants (including employees of affiliates of Group Inc. who served as directors of Cobalt), the petitions generally allege that they breached their fiduciary duties under state law by making materially false and misleading statements concerning Cobalt. As to the shareholder defendants and their affiliates (including Group Inc. and several affiliated funds), the original petition also alleges that they breached their fiduciary duties by selling Cobalt securities in the common stock offerings on the basis of inside information. The petitions seek, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and disgorgement of proceeds from the sale of Cobalt common stock. Cobalt's Chapter 11 plan, which became effective on April 10, 2018, releases the derivative claims against Group Inc. and its affiliated funds. Based in New York, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (NYSE:GS) is a bank holding company. It is also an investment banking, securities and investment management firm that provides services to clients that include corporations, financial institutions, governments and high-net-worth individuals. GOLDMAN SACHS: Lawsuit over Sale of Valeant Shares Still Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) and Goldman Sachs Canada Inc. (GS Canada) continues to defend themselves in a putative class action related to Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., according to The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018. Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) and Goldman Sachs Canada Inc. (GS Canada) are among the underwriters and initial purchasers named as defendants in a putative class action filed on March 2, 2016 in the Superior Court of Quebec, Canada. In addition to the underwriters and initial purchasers, the defendants include Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., certain directors and officers of Valeant and Valeant's auditor. As to GS&Co. and GS Canada, the complaint relates to the June 2013 public offering of US$2.3 billion of common stock, the June 2013 Rule 144A offering of US$3.2 billion principal amount of senior notes, and the November 2013 Rule 144A offering of US$900 million principal amount of senior notes. The complaint asserts claims under the Quebec Securities Act and the Civil Code of Quebec. On August 29, 2017, the court certified a class that includes only non-U.S. purchasers in the offerings. Defendants' motion for leave to appeal the certification was denied on November 30, 2017. GS&Co. and GS Canada, as sole underwriters, sold 5,334,897 shares of common stock in the June 2013 offering to non-U.S. purchasers representing an aggregate offering price of approximately US$453 million and, as initial purchasers, had a proportional share of sales to non-U.S. purchasers of approximately CAD14.2 million in principal amount of senior notes in the June 2013 and November 2013 Rule 144A offerings. Based in New York, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (NYSE:GS) is a bank holding company. It is also an investment banking, securities and investment management firm that provides services to clients that include corporations, financial institutions, governments and high-net-worth individuals. GOLDMAN SACHS: Must Defend Calif. Suit over Snap IPO ---------------------------------------------------- Defendants' motions to dismiss the federal court action related to Snap Inc. were denied on June 7, 2018, according to The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2018, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018. Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) is among the underwriters named as defendants in putative securities class actions pending in California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles and the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California beginning in May 2017, relating to Snap Inc.'s US$3.91 billion March 2017 initial public offering. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Snap Inc. and certain of its officers and directors. GS&Co. underwrote 57,040,000 shares of common stock representing an aggregate offering price of approximately US$970 million. Defendants' motions to dismiss the federal court action were denied on June 7, 2018. Based in New York, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (NYSE:GS) is a bank holding company. It is also an investment banking, securities and investment management firm that provides services to clients that include corporations, financial institutions, governments and high-net-worth individuals. GOLDMAN SACHS: Plaintiffs in SunEdison Lawsuit Seek Class Status ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that plaintiffs in the class action related to SunEdison, Inc., has sought class certification. Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) is among the underwriters named as defendants in several putative class actions and individual actions filed beginning in March 2016 relating to the August 2015 public offering of US$650 million of SunEdison, Inc. convertible preferred stock. The defendants also include certain of SunEdison's directors and officers. On April 21, 2016, SunEdison filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The pending cases were transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and on March 17, 2017, plaintiffs in the putative class action filed a consolidated amended complaint. GS&Co., as underwriter, sold 138,890 shares of SunEdison convertible preferred stock in the offering, representing an aggregate offering price of approximately US$139 million. On March 6, 2018, the defendants' motion to dismiss in the class action was granted in part and denied in part, and on June 13, 2018, plaintiffs in the class action moved for class certification. On April 10, 2018 and April 17, 2018, certain plaintiffs in the individual actions filed amended complaints. Based in New York, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (NYSE:GS) is a bank holding company. It is also an investment banking, securities and investment management firm that provides services to clients that include corporations, financial institutions, governments and high-net-worth individuals. GOLDMAN SACHS: Still Faces Currencies-Related Litigation in N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. continues to face a class action lawsuit by indirect purchasers of foreign exchange instruments, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2018, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018. The Court previously granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the case on March 15, 2018, but the plaintiffs moved for leave to replead on April 5, 2018. Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) and Group Inc. are among the defendants named in putative class actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York beginning in September 2016 on behalf of putative indirect purchasers of foreign exchange instruments. The consolidated amended complaint, filed on June 30, 2017, generally alleges a conspiracy to manipulate the foreign currency exchange markets and asserts claims under federal and state antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws and seeks injunctive relief, as well as treble damages in an unspecified amount. On March 15, 2018, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss, and the plaintiffs moved for leave to replead on April 5, 2018. Based in New York, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (NYSE:GS) is a bank holding company. It is also an investment banking, securities and investment management firm that provides services to clients that include corporations, financial institutions, governments and high-net-worth individuals. GOPRO INC: 2018 Shareholder Class Complaints Underway ----------------------------------------------------- GoPro, Inc. has yet to respond to the consolidated amended complaint in a purported shareholder class action lawsuits initially filed in 2018, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2018, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018. The Company said, "Beginning on January 9, 2018, the first of four purported shareholder class action lawsuits (the "2018 Shareholder Class Action") were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company, Mr. Woodman, and Mr. McGee. Similar complaints were filed on January 11, 2018 and January 24, 2018. On April 20, 2018, the court consolidated the four cases and appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On June 18, 2018, plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Amended Complaint (the "Complaint"). The Complaint purports to bring suit on behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company's publicly traded securities between November 2, 2017 and January 5, 2018. The Complaint adds Mr. Prober, GoPro's former COO, as a defendant (together with GoPro, Mr. Woodman and Mr. McGee ("Defendants"), and purports to allege that Defendants made false and misleading statements about the Company's business, operations and prospects in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "1934 Act"), asserts claims under Section 20A of the 1934 Act against Mr. Woodman and Mr. McGee, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages, fees and costs. The time for Defendants to respond to the Complaint has not yet passed." GoPro, Inc. makes mountable and wearable cameras, drones and accessories. The Company's products are sold globally through retailers, wholesale distributors and on the Company's website. The Company's global corporate headquarters are located in San Mateo, California. GOPRO INC: Shareholder Lawsuit in N.D. Calif. Still Ongoing ----------------------------------------------------------- GoPro, Inc. is still facing a purported shareholder class action lawsuit originally filed in November 2016 with a second amended complaint filed in August 2017, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018. The Company said, "On November 16, 2016, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit (the "2016 Shareholder Class Action") was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and Mr. Woodman, our Chairman and CEO, Brian McGee, our CFO, and Anthony Bates, our former President ("Defendants"). The complaint purports to bring suit on behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company's publicly traded securities between September 19, 2016 and November 4, 2016. The complaint purports to allege that Defendants made false and misleading statements about the Company's business, operations and prospects in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages, fees and costs. On February 6, 2017, the court appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On March 14, 2017, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint against the Company and certain of its officers ("GoPro Defendants") on behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company's publicly traded securities between September 19, 2016 and November 8, 2016. On April 13, 2017, the GoPro Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On July 26, 2017, the court denied that motion and directed plaintiff to amend its complaint to add all defendants the plaintiff intended to sue. On August 4, 2017, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, which Defendants answered on September 8, 2017." GoPro, Inc. makes mountable and wearable cameras, drones and accessories. The Company's products are sold globally through retailers, wholesale distributors and on the Company's website. The Company's global corporate headquarters are located in San Mateo, California. HAMILTON COUNTY, OH: Court Approves Settlement of Inmates' Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, SAMUEL ROBINSON, ET AL. Plaintiffs, v. HAMILTON COUNTY SHERIFF JIM NEIL, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-652 (S.D. Ohio), Judge Susan J. Dlott of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, granted the proposed class settlement. In June 2017, the number of inmates in the Hamilton County Justice Center spiked to 1,611 inmates. The current sheriff, Neil, was forced to house inmates on temporary beds, more commonly called "boats," in the two gymnasiums in the Hamilton County Justice Center. This caused security and safety concerns, difficulty in locating inmates for distribution of medication and provision of medical care, difficulty with the provision of toilet facilities, and inadequate telephone access to inmates. About the same time, following the closure of the Queens Gate Correctional Facility, the Ohio courts had found some of the adopted release policies violated Ohio law. Major Ketteman, the director of jail operations in the Hamilton County Justice Center, authored a letter on June 14, 2017, declaring an emergency under Ohio law and articulated the overcrowding issues outlined. Major Ketteman documented a cascade of consequences caused by overcrowding that the Plaintiffs contend violate class members rights as protected by the Eighth Amendment to the constitution. This declaration of emergency allowed Sheriff Neil to directly draw funds from the Hamilton County Auditor without an appropriation by the Hamilton County Board of County Commissioners, to pay for housing inmates in jail facilities located in other Ohio counties. In September 2017, inmate Robinson filed a grievance, complaining that he had a medical condition preventing him from using a boat. This led to a class action complaint being filed on Sept. 28, 2017, asserting, inter alia, that overcrowding at HCJC was causing class members to suffer conditions of confinement that violated their right not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment as protected by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Two amended complaints adding named inmates and alleging the same unconstitutional conditions were filed thereafter. Sheriff Neil filed an Answer on Jan. 10, 2018 and opposed the class certification. The Parties disputed whether unconstitutional conditions of confinement, similar to those outlined in the Ketteman Memorandum, continued after suit was filed, prompting an agreement to mediate. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Litkovitz for the sole purpose of conducting a settlement conference on Dec. 5, 2017. After numerous conferences with Magistrate Judge Litkovitz and meetings between counsel for Inmate Robinson and Sheriff Neil, a proposed settlement was agreed upon by the counsel for the parties. On May 11, 2018, the Court certified the Class, preliminarily approved the Class settlement, ordered notice to be sent to the class members, and set a hearing on fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the proposed settlement. During the time period between the Ketteman Memorandum of June 14, 2017 and the Parties agreeing upon the Proposed Settlement Agreement numerous changes took place in the physical make up and the operational procedures used in the Hamilton County Justice Center. The Class consists of all current and future inmates in the Hamilton County Justice Center during the time period the settlement is effective. There are two parts of the Class. First, "Population Inmates" are those who have had an initial appearance before a judge who are held pending trial or held serving a sentence. Population inmates are held for longer periods of time that may span several months. The second part of the class is "Detention Inmates", who are inmates that have not appeared before a judge and may only be held for 48 hours. The result of the negotiations described resolved the issues as follows: (a) No Population Inmate may be assigned to a boat for more than five consecutive days in a month. (b) The use of boats for Population Inmates is limited to 4 in each 16-cell pod and 6 in each 24-bed pod. No boats may be used in the Mental Health Unit or Medical Unit. (c) The classification system will be used for Population Inmates both in cells and on boats. (d) The problem with limiting inmates in the Hamilton County Justice System to a fixed number is that the classification system dictates how many single cell placements are required. In order to maximize use of the Hamilton County Justice Center and to protect the inmates from overcrowding, the parties agreed that the classification system will be used to control population. When the population requires that the boats be used in excess of use formula set out in items (a) and (b), the sheriff is required to take immediate remedial action set out in item (e). (e) The sheriff, should the limit be reached, shall: (1) send additional inmates to jail facilities in other Ohio counties; (2) utilize the pretrial release program without the limitations set by the bond imposed by the Municipal or Common Pleas Courts; (3) do both remedies (1) and (2); or (4) stop admitting inmates into the Hamilton County Justice Center and seek further relief from the Court. (f) The sheriff is authorized to continue utilizing his seven release policies, including those that may violate Ohio law. (g) The county administrator agreed to provide the amount of $30,000 to hire an expert for the Court, Dr. Austin, to make recommendations concerning the classification system and the current release policies. (h) The Hamilton County Board of County Commissioners is planning to authorize conversion of administrative space into additional housing for inmates within the Hamilton County Justice Center. Therefore, the length of this agreement is limited to two years, so that the effect of the conversion of administrative space to housing space on overcrowding can be evaluated and the need to continue this order determined. (i) The medical care provider, NaphCare, already screened all incoming inmates for medical issues and whether they have an impairment that prevents the inmate from climbing stairs. NaphCare agreed to extend the screening process to determine whether an incoming inmate had a physical impairment preventing a boat assignment. If such impairment exists, the inmate will not be assigned to a Boat. The Notice of the Class Settlement was broadcast on the in-house Hamilton County Justice Center television for all inmates starting at 1500 hours on May 15, 2018, and ran through May 16, 2018, at 1500 hours. If the settlement is approved by the Court, a second notice of the rights of the inmates and terms of the settlement will be posted in the Hamilton County Justice Center in various pods and distributed to inmates along with other Hamilton County Justice Center Information. There is no monetary award to the Class members or Class representatives. Plaintiff Robinson was awarded $5,000 as compensation on Count II of the Complaint, an individual cause of action. The parties agree that the statuary pay rate for attorneys involved in prison litigation is $210 per hour. The parties further agreed that the totals calculated below are fair, reasonable, and adequate: Marc Mezibov has 10.5 hours = $2,205. Michael O'Hara has 113 hours plus $23.60 in expenses = $23,0753.60. Robert Newman has 230.10 hours = $48,321. Based upon the consideration of thesefindings, Judge Dlott concludes that the proposed settlement of the above captioned case is fair, reasonable, and adequate. She adopted the proposed settlement, and it binds Sheriff Neil and the Class members. A full-text copy of the Court's June 27, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/4d7KKO from Leagle.com. Samuel Robinson, on behalf of himself and a class of others similarly situated, Markalo Harris, on behalf of himself and a class of others similarly situated, Eric Buig, on behalf of himself and a class of others similarly situated, Jason Robinson, on behalf of himself and a class of others similarly situated, Gregory Wilson, on behalf of himself and a class of others similarly situated, Dontonyio Spruill, on behalf of himself and a class of others similarly situated, Demetrious Ruff, on behalf of himself and a class of others similarly situated, Brandon Eubank, on behalf of himself and a class of others similarly situated, William Dabney, on behalf of himself and a class of others similarly situated, Matthew Louthan, on behalf of himself and a class of others similarly situated, Robert Feller, on behalf of himself and a class of others similarly situated, Robert Lyles, on behalf of himself and a class of others similarly situated, Mike Maxwell, on behalf of himself and a class of others similarly situated, Shawn Harrison, on behalf of himself and a class of others similarly situated, Demarco Jenkins, on behalf of himself and a class of others similarly situated, Cecil Johnson, on behalf of himself and a class of others similarly situated, Nathan Bainum, on behalf of himself and a class of others similarly situated, Thomas Diehl, on behalf of himself and a class of others similarly situated, Mark Cordell, on behalf of himself and a class of others similarly situated, Brandon Dilts, on behalf of himself and a class of others similarly situated, William Hughes, on behalf of himself and a class of others similarly situated, Mark Whitson, on behalf of himself and a class of others similarly situated, Michael Walls, on behalf of himself and a class of others similarly situated, Derrick Jackson, on behalf of himself and a class of others similarly situated, Daveno Brown, on behalf of himself and a class of others similarly situated, Ireese Kennedy, on behalf of himself and a class of others similarly situated, Aaron Bemmes, on behalf of himself and a class of others similarly situated, Robert Miller, on behalf of himself and a class of others similarly situated, Daniel Johnson, on behalf of himself and a class of others similarly situated, Michael Miller, on behalf of himself and a class of others similarly situated, Joseph McClure, on behalf of himself and a class of others similarly situated & Nicholas Simmons, on behalf of himself and a class of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Marc David Mezibov, Mezibov Butler, Michael Jay O'Hara -- mohara@oharataylor.com -- O'Hara, Taylor, Sloan & Cassidy & Robert Brand Newman, Newman & Meeks Co LPA. Sheriff Jim Neil, individually and In his capacity as Sheriff of Hamilton County Ohio, Defendant, represented by Mark Carl Vollman, Hamilton County Prosecutor's Office, Christian Joseph Schaefer, Hamilton County Prosecutor, James Warren Harper, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, Jay R. Wampler, Hamilton County Prosecutor's Office, Jerome A. Kunkel, Hamilton County Prosecutor's Office & Pamela J. Sears, Hamilton County Prosecutor. HANOVER INSURANCE: Settlement in Principle Reached in Durand Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2018, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that parties in the Durand Litigation have reached a settlement in principle on major terms, which is subject to agreement on certain other terms, written documentation, and Court approval. On March 12, 2007, a putative class action suit captioned Jennifer A. Durand v. The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc., and The Allmerica Financial Cash Balance Pension Plan, was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. The named plaintiff, a former employee of the Company's former life insurance and annuity business who received a lump sum distribution from the Company's Cash Balance Plan (the "Plan") at or about the time of her separation from the company, claims that she and others similarly situated did not receive the appropriate lump sum distribution because in computing the lump sum, the Company and the Plan understated the accrued benefit in the calculation. The plaintiff claims that the Plan underpaid her distributions and those of similarly situated participants by failing to pay an additional so-called "whipsaw" amount reflecting the present value of an estimate of future interest credits from the date of the lump sum distribution to each participant's retirement age of 65 ("whipsaw claim"). The plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint adding two new named plaintiffs and additional claims on December 11, 2009. Two of the three new claims set forth in the Amended Complaint were dismissed by the District Court, which action was upheld in November 2015 by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. The District Court, however, did allow to stand the portion of the Amended Complaint which set forth claims against the Company for breach of fiduciary duty and failure to meet notice requirements arising under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") from the various interest crediting and lump sum distribution matters of which plaintiffs complain, but only as to plaintiffs' "whipsaw" claim that remained in the case. On December 17, 2013, the Court entered an order certifying a class to bring "whipsaw" and related breach of fiduciary duty claims consisting of all persons who received a lump sum distribution between March 1, 1997 and December 31, 2003. The Company filed a summary judgment motion, prior to the decision on the appeal, that was based on the statute of limitations and seeks to dismiss the subclass of plaintiffs who received lump sum distributions prior to March 13, 2002. This summary judgment motion has been stayed pending additional discovery. On November 2, 2017, plaintiffs filed a motion conceding that the statutory "whipsaw" claims, but not the breach of fiduciary duty or failure to meet ERISA notice requirement claims, of participants who received lump sum distributions prior to March 13, 2002 are time-barred. Consequently, on February 16, 2018, the Court entered an order limiting the claims of those participants to alleged violations of ERISA's disclosure requirements and breaches of fiduciary duty. After the Court denied plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the Court's February 16, 2018 order, the parties entered into settlement discussions and have reached a settlement in principle on major terms, which is subject to agreement on certain other terms, written documentation, and Court approval. The Company said, "Provided the parties are able to finalize such settlement on substantially the terms agreed upon in principle and obtain the necessary court approval, we do not believe the resulting settlement amount will be material to the Company's financial position or have a material effect on its results of operations." The Hanover Insurance Company, Inc. offers personal and commercial property and casualty insurance services for individuals, families, and businesses. Its personal insurance coverage includes umbrella and personal liability, home, auto, insurance for valuables, and watercraft and toys insurance. The company is based in Worcester, Massachusetts. HAYNES TRUCKING: Certification of Truck Drivers' Class Upheld ------------------------------------------------------------- The Supreme Court of Kentucky reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals reversing the District Court's Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in the case captioned MELVIN HENSLEY, DANNY LAINHART, JAMES D. FETTERS, WILLIAM ABNEY, AND CHARLES BUSSELL ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Appellants, v. HAYNES TRUCKING, LLC; AND L-M ASPHALT PARTNERS, LTD, D/B/A ATS CONSTRUCTION AND HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE CO., Appellees, No. 2016-SC-000180-DG (Ky.). A group of plaintiffs, claiming for themselves and for others similarly situated, brought the action in the trial court for backpay and statutory damages under Kentucky's prevailing-wage law, Kentucky Revised Statute (KRS) 337.505-550; and the trial court granted their motion to certify it as a class action under Kentucky Rule of Civil Procedure (CR) 23. The trial court's Findings of Fact included: 1. The Plaintiffs filed a Class Action Complaint alleging violations of Kentucky prevailing wage law and breach of contract against the Defendants. 2. The class is definite, and members are ascertainable. With at least 139 members, and perhaps many more, the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. 3. There are questions of law and fact common to the class. Specifically, all liability issues are common to the class, including whether the defendants were required to pay prevailing wages to truck drivers for the time spent on the site of public works projects. 4. The claims of the representative parties are typical of the claims of the class. 5. The representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. In their depositions they have shown an appreciation of the issues in this case. Furthermore, they have come forward to speak on behalf of current employees who may fear repercussions, including loss of their employment, should they come forward individually. This additional fact enhances their ability to represent the class. 6. The questions of law and fact common to the members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members. All legal issues are common and predominate. 7. Counsel for the Plaintiffs . . . are sufficiently experienced and qualified to serve as class counsel, and have demonstrated their knowledge of the law, procedure, and the requisite ability to fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class. Haynes and ATS filed a timely joint notice of appeal from the class-certification order, and Hartford filed a separate notice of appeal of the same order. At the Court of Appeals, Haynes, ATS, and Hartford argued that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to rule on class certification and that Hensley had not satisfied the legal requirements for certification under CR 23. A panel of the Court of Appeals concluded that Hensley had fallen short in establishing the prerequisites of CR 23 to support a class action, commonality, and, therefore, vacated the trial court's order and remanded the case to the trial court for decertification of the class. In a separate concurring opinion, the judge posited that KRS 337.550(2) does not permit class action suits at all. General Rules of Law for Class-Action Certification In Kentucky, a party must fulfill the prerequisites of CR 23.01 and 23.02 to be able to maintain a class action. CR 23.01 states: "Subject to CR 23.02, one or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all only if (a) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, (b) there are questions of law or fact common to the class, (c) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class, and (d) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class." The trial court did not abuse its discretion when certifying the class The Court of Appeals attacked-as the appellees now similarly attack-the trial court's order in several ways. First, they suggest that the trial court failed to conduct a probe behind the pleadings or a rigorous analysis when conducting its class-certification analysis, and as a result, they have questioned the evidentiary support for class certification. Second, they question compliance with some of the CR 23.01 class certification requirements, specifically, numerosity, commonality, and typicality. Third, they attack the trial court's CR 23.02(c) finding of satisfaction of the predominance and superiority requirements. Lastly, they question the class definition for lack of ascertainability of the class and for other reasons. Probe behind the pleadings, rigorous analysis and evidentiary support The trial court allowed discovery of additional information beyond what the pleadings stated and conducted extensive hearings that touched both indirectly and directly on the class-certification issue. The trial court also allowed the parties to brief and orally argue the issues, in addition to considering the submission of numerous exhibits. The trial court's written order and oral findings are admittedly minimal. But a trial court's brevity, in and of itself, does not make its ruling arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound legal principles. The trial court heard extensive argument and reviewed volumes of testimony and exhibits before deciding. The Court are not persuaded that the trial court abused its discretion in the way it considered its findings nor in the way the findings were stated. And while we find no abuse of discretion by the trial court in this instance, we do hasten to emphasize the preference for a class-certification order in which the trial court explains itself beyond conclusory statements with limited written support. CR 23.01 Findings. The parties' argument that differences in each purported class member's liability analysis preclude the satisfaction of commonality would be more well taken if they articulated how the analysis differs among preclude the satisfaction of commonality would be more well taken if they articulated how the analysis differs among class members. Haynes, ATS, and Hartford seem to argue, in one respect, that the legal analysis for finding liability on the payment of prevailing wage is different for each purported class member. But these parties have not shown why this is the case. For example, the parties did not argue that some truck drivers fall under a different statutory analysis than other truck drivers. The parties' simple conclusory allegation that a different legal analysis is needed to evaluate each truck driver's claim is insufficient to prove an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in certifying a class. In general, the record shows the trial court adequately grasped the potential differences among class members and how they may affect this case in further proceedings. The Court cannot say at this stage of the case that these differences destroy the commonality prong. The trial court also correctly found typicality to be satisfied. As stated, the claims of the drivers are all based on the same legal theory that the law affords truck drivers on public-works projects the right to the prevailing wage. Additionally, the truck drivers' claims arise from the same event, practice, or course of conduct that gives rise to the claims of other class members all purported class members were employed by Haynes, were not paid the prevailing wage, and were truck drivers performing the various activities described in the class definition. The Court fail to see how any reasonable trial court would not find typicality to be satisfied in this case based on those facts. Nothing about the trial court's CR 23.01 findings can be labeled as an abuse of discretion. CR 23.02 findings The lower court also fails to see how a class action in this case would not be superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. Allowing this case to proceed as a class action consolidates all claims by former Haynes truck drivers into a single case, which benefits both sides. The truck drivers do not have to bring individualized claims for essentially the same relief, based on a common nucleus of operative facts and on the same legal theory, while Haynes, ATS, and Hartford can organize their defense to contest all claims against them in one litigation. Even if the state Supreme Court were to agree with Haynes, ATS, and Hartford that the CR 23.02(c) requirements cannot be satisfied in this case, the trial court also found satisfaction of the CR 23.02(a) requirements. On the question of whether the CR 23.02 requirements have been satisfied, the trial court need only find the requirements of either (a), (b), or (c) are satisfied to proceed with class certification. Neither the Court of Appeals nor the parties attacked the trial court's findings that the requirements of CR 23.02(a) have been satisfied. As such, no matter our determination of the propriety of the trial court's finding of satisfaction of CR 23.02(c), the trial court found CR 23.02(a) to have been satisfied, which was all that was necessary to proceed with its class certification determination. And this finding has not been challenged. Class Definition Hartford alleged that the class definition was an improper fail-safe definition, as the Sixth Circuit has articulated. But Hartford misunderstands what a fail-safe class is. The Sixth Circuit in Randleman, Randleman v. Fidelity Nat. Title Ins. Co., 646 F.3d 347 (6th Cir. 2011), found an abuse of discretion in the trial court's initial class definition, which included all persons who were entitled to receive a certain insurance rate. Defining the class in such way was improper because it shields the putative class members from receiving an adverse judgment. Either the class members win or, by virtue of losing, they are not in the class and, therefore, not bound by the judgment. A full-text copy of the state Supreme Court's June 14, 2018 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/yaaz44bq from Leagle.com. William R. Garmer , Jerome Park Prather Garmer and Prather, PLLC, Brent Caldwell , Caldwell Law Firm, PLLC, Bryce Caldwell, Counsel for Appellants. Robert E. Maclin III -- remaclin@mmlk.com -- Jon Allen Woodall -- jwoodall@mmlk.com -- Brendan Reynolds Yates -- byates@mmlk.com -- Masten Childers III , McBrayer, McGinnis, Leslie & Kirkland, PLLC, Counsel for Appellees: Haynes Trucking, LLC; and L-M Asphalt Partners, Ltd, D/B/A ATS Construction. La Toi D. Mayo -- lmayo@littler.com -- J. Andrew Inman -- jinman@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.S.C., Susan C. Sears, Counsel for Appellee: Hartford Insurance Co. HUB GROUP: Claims in Robles Suit Dismissed With Prejudice --------------------------------------------------------- Hub Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2018, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that in the case filed by Salvador Robles, the Court stated on July 2, 2018 that the dismissal of the claims of all purported class members who signed settlement agreements was with prejudice. On January 25, 2013, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (Sacramento Division) by Salvador Robles against our subsidiary Hub Group Trucking, Inc ("HGT"). The action is brought on behalf of a class comprised of present and former California-based truck drivers for HGT who were classified as independent contractors, from January 2009 to August 2014. It alleges HGT has misclassified such drivers as independent contractors and that such drivers were employees. It asserts various violations of the California Labor Code and claims that HGT has engaged in unfair competition practices. The complaint seeks, among other things, declaratory and injunctive relief, monetary damages and attorney's fees. In May 2013, the complaint was amended to add similar claims based on Mr. Robles' status as an employed company driver. These additional claims are only on behalf of Mr. Robles and not a putative class. The Company believes that the California independent contractor truck drivers were properly classified as independent contractors at all times. Nevertheless, because lawsuits are expensive, time-consuming and could interrupt our business operations, HGT decided to make settlement offers to individual drivers with respect to the claims alleged in this lawsuit, without admitting liability. As of June 30, 2018, 96% of the California drivers have accepted the settlement offers. In late 2014, HGT decided to convert its model from independent contractors to employee drivers in California (the "Conversion"). In early 2016, HGT closed its operations in Southern California. On April 3, 2015, the Robles case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee (Western Division) in Memphis. In May 2015, the plaintiffs in the Robles case filed a Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") which names 334 current and former Hub Group Trucking drivers as "interested putative class members." In addition to reasserting their existing claims, the SAC includes claims post-Conversion, added two new plaintiffs and seeks a judicial declaration that the settlement agreements are unenforceable. In June 2015, Hub Group Trucking filed a motion to dismiss the SAC and on July 19, 2016, Hub Group Trucking's motion to dismiss was granted in part, and denied in part, by the District Court. The motion to dismiss was granted for the claims of all purported class members who have signed settlement agreements and on plaintiffs' claims based on quantum merit and it was denied with respect to federal preemption and choice of law. On August 11, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a motion to clarify whether the Court's dismissal of the claims of all purported class members who signed settlement agreements was with or without prejudice and, if the dismissal was with prejudice, Plaintiffs moved the Court to revise and reconsider the order. On July 2, 2018, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Clarification or Reconsideration and stated that the dismissal of the claims of all purported class members who signed settlement agreements was with prejudice. Hub Group, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that was incorporated on March 8, 1995. The company is one of North America's leading asset-light freight transportation management companies. The company offers comprehensive intermodal, truck brokerage and logistics services. HUNTER WARFIELD: $21K Deal in FDCPA Suit Has Final Approval ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JUSTINE McMULLEN, an individual, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated; Plaintiffs, v. HUNTER WARFIELD OF NEW ENGLAND, INC., a Florida corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-01646 (D. Nev.), Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada granted granted the Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Certification of Settlement Class, granted in part the Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Costs. McMullen brought the instant action against the Defendant for alleged violations of the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"). On Sept. 8, 2017, the Preliminary Approval Orde regarding the class action settlement was entered which, among other things, conditionally certified a class as defined in the Complaint for settlement purposes only and directed notice of the Settlement to the Class. The parties now move jointly for final approval of their class action Settlement. Having reviewed all papers submitted on the matter, her reasons, and her findings and conclusions on the record, Judge Dorsey granted final certification to the Class for settlement. She certified the Settlement Class defined as all Nevada residents who (i) on or after July 13, 2015 through May 10, 2017 (ii) were sent a collection letter in the form of Exhibit 1, attached to the First Amended Complaint, from Defendant Hunter Warfield (iii) which was not returned as undeliverable by the U.S. Post Office (iv) in an attempt to recover an alleged obligation incurred for personal, family, or household purposes. The Judge designated McMullen as the Class Representative; and O. Randolph Bragg of Horwitz, Horwitz & Associates, LTD. and Keren E. Gesund of Gesund & Pailet, LLC as the Class Counsel. The Named Plaintiffs, each member of the Class, and each of the Releasing Persons' claims are dismissed with prejudice as to the Released Parties. The Named Plaintiffs' individual claims against the Defendant are dismissed with prejudice. The Defendant will pay $21,000 to the Class pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, i.e. -- $41.01 to each of the 512 Class Members. It will pay for the cost of class notice, preparation and distribution of checks to the class members, claims administration, etc. The Judge awarded $839.10 in costs plus $44,208.40 in attorneys' fees (which reflects an across-the-board 20% reduction from the requested amount), for a total fees-and-costs award of $45,047.50. The Plaintiffs has filed a motion for an award of $56,099.60 in fees and costs. She also awarded the Plaintiff $4,000, $1,000 in statutory damages plus a class-representative incentive award of $3,000, to be paid directly by the Defendant. She approved Legal Aid Center of Southern Nevada, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization as the recipient of the cy pres award for any monies remaining from the $21,000 settlement fund that are unclaimed, including all monies from the checks from the settlement fund that are not cashed within 90 days of their issuance date. This cy pres award must be used for consumer representation and/or education. And because these rulings leave no further action to be taken by the Court, Judge Dorseu approved the Class Action Settlement and directed the parties to carry out the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant in the amount of $44,208.40 in attorneys' fees and $839.10 in costs, for a total judgment of $45,047.50 and close the case. A full-text copy of the Court's June 26, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/QPyGO5 from Leagle.com. Justine McMullen, Plaintiff, represented by O. Randolph Bragg, Horwitz, Horwitz & Associates, pro hac vice & Keren E. Gesund -- keren@gp-nola.com -- Gesund & Pailet, LLC. Hunter Warfield of New England, Inc., Defendant, represented by David J. Kaminski -- kaminskid@cmtlaw.com -- Carlson & Messer, pro hac vice, Kurt R. Bonds -- kbonds@alversontaylor.com -- Alverson Taylor Mortensen, et al, Tamar Gabriel -- cmt@cmtlaw.com -- Carlson & Messer, pro hac vice & Trevor Waite -- twaite@alversontaylor.com -- Alverson Taylor Mortensen & Sander. IC SYSTEM: Delgado Seeks Certification of Class Under FDCPA ----------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled TERESA DELGADO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. I.C. SYSTEM, INC., Case No. 1:17-cv-01366 (N.D. Ill.), asks the Court to certify that the claims set forth in her complaint may proceed on behalf of a class defined as: (1) all persons with addresses in the State of Illinois (2) from whom Defendant attempted to collect a delinquent consumer debt; (3) upon which Defendants sent a form letter substantially similar to that of Plaintiff's Exhibit C; which (4) is the initial communication with the person; and which (5) states that the alleged debtor had thirty (30) days after the receipt of the Letter to exercise several rights, including the right to dispute the debt; and which (6) also states that the dispute must be in writing, unless the alleged debtor lives in New Jersey, Delaware, or Pennsylvania. The putative class action lawsuit is brought against the Defendant for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated the FDCPA when ICS used false, deceptive and misleading representations and unfair or unconscionable means in an attempt to collect a debt. She asserts that while making a settlement offer the Defendant stated that negative credit reporting may begin, when in fact the alleged debt had already been reported to the credit bureaus. Ms. Delgado also asks the Court to certify the Class in this matter and that briefing as to class certification be stayed pending discovery as to class issues. She further asks the Court to name her as class representative, to appoint her lawyers as counsel for the class and to allow her to file a memorandum in support of the Motion after taking class discovery. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Wood, Esq. Celetha Chatman, Esq. COMMUNITY LAWYERS GROUP, LTD. 73 W. Monroe Street, Suite 514 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 757-1880 Facsimile: (312) 476-1362 E-mail: mwood@communitylawyersgroup.com cchatman@communitylawyersgroup.com ILG INC: Faces Hohman Class Suit over Marriott Vacations Merger --------------------------------------------------------------- ILG, Inc. is facing a class action complaint filed by Dina A. Hohman related to the Company's merger agreement with Marriott Vacations Worldwide Corporation, according to ILG's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018. On April 30, 2018, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger ("Merger Agreement"), with Marriott Vacations Worldwide Corporation ("Marriott Vacations"), Ignite Holdco, Inc. and Ignite Holdco Subsidiary, Inc. (two of the Company's wholly owned subsidiaries), and Volt Merger Sub, Inc. and Volt Merger Sub, LLC (two wholly owned subsidiaries of Marriott Vacations), pursuant to which Marriott Vacations will acquire ILG in a series of transactions (the "Combination Transactions") and ILG stockholders will receive US$14.75 in cash (without interest) and 0.165 shares of common stock of Marriott Vacations for each share of ILG common stock held by such stockholder. This will result in ILG stockholders owning approximately 43% of Marriott Vacations following the merger transactions. On July 31, 2018, a class action complaint challenging the Combination Transactions was filed on behalf of an alleged stockholder of ILG in the District Court for the District of Delaware, captioned Dina A. Hohman v. ILG, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-01126. The complaint names ILG and ILG's directors as defendants. The complaint alleges that (i) ILG and ILG's directors issued a false and misleading registration statement in violation of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder and (ii) ILG's directors violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by allegedly exercising control over ILG while issuing a false and misleading registration statement. The complaint seeks an injunction preventing the defendants from consummating the Combination Transactions and attorneys' fees and costs, as well as other remedies. ILG believes that the claims asserted in this matter are without merit. ILG, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides professional vacation services in the United States and internationally. The company operates in two segments, Vacation Ownership (VO), and Exchange and Rental. The Company was formerly known as Interval Leisure Group, Inc. and changed its name to ILG, Inc. in October 2016. ILG, Inc. was founded in 1976 and is headquartered in Miami, Florida. ILG INC: Still Awaiting Court Ruling on Bid to Drop Mass Action --------------------------------------------------------------- ILG, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2018, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the federal court in the Southern District of New York has "not yet rendered any decision" on the motion to dismiss the complaint, as amended, in a mass action related to the Fifth and Fifty-Fifth Residence Club. On December 5, 2016, individuals and entities who own or owned 107 fractional interests of a total of 372 interests created in the Fifth and Fifty-Fifth Residence Club located within The St. Regis, New York (the "Club") filed suit against ILG, certain of the Company's subsidiaries, Marriott International Inc. ("Marriott") and certain of its subsidiaries including Starwood. The case is filed as a mass action in federal court in the Southern District of New York, not as a class action. In response to the Company's request to file a motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 6, 2017. Plaintiffs principally challenge the sale of less than all interests offered in the fractional offering plan, the amendment of the plan to include additional units, and the rental of unsold fractional interests by the plan's sponsor, claiming that alleged acts by the Company and the other defendants breached the relevant agreements and harmed the value of plaintiffs' fractional interests. The relief sought includes, among other things, compensatory damages, rescission, disgorgement, attorneys' fees, and pre- and post-judgment interest. The Company said, "We filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on April 21, 2017. The court has not yet rendered any decision on the motion. Fact discovery is complete and expert discovery is proceeding. We dispute the material allegations in the amended complaint and intend to defend against the action vigorously. Given the early stages of the action and the inherent uncertainties of litigation, we cannot estimate a range of the potential liability, if any, at this time." ILG, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides professional vacation services in the United States and internationally. The company operates in two segments, Vacation Ownership (VO), and Exchange and Rental. The Company was formerly known as Interval Leisure Group, Inc. and changed its name to ILG, Inc. in October 2016. ILG, Inc. was founded in 1976 and is headquartered in Miami, Florida. IMPERVA INC: Settlement in Principle Reached in Calif. Class Suits ------------------------------------------------------------------ Imperva, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the Company recorded an accrual of US$2.4 million for the six months period ended June 30, 2018 to cover the settlement of two related class action lawsuits in California. On August 25, 2017, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and others, alleging that current, former and prospective employees are entitled to monetary damages for violations of the notice provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and similar California laws governing background checks. The lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court for San Mateo County and on September 29, 2017, the Company removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. On November 6, 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the action. On April 9, 2018, the court granted the motion, dismissing several claims with prejudice and giving plaintiff thirty days to file an amended complaint with regards to the remaining claims. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on May 10, 2018 with only one claim under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and no claims under the similar California laws. On August 25, 2017, the same plaintiff filed a second purported class action lawsuit against the Company and others in the Superior Court for San Mateo County, alleging, among other claims, violation of California wage and hour, overtime, meal break and rest break rules and regulations, failure to provide for proper expense reimbursements, failure to maintain accurate and complete payroll records, failure to pay commissions and unfair business practices, and seeking unspecified monetary damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. The Company filed an answer to the complaint on September 29, 2017. On November 3, 2017, the plaintiff amended his complaint to assert an additional representative Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) claim against the Company. On December 6, 2017, the Company filed an answer to the amended complaint. In June 2018, through formal mediation, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle both actions. The Company recorded an accrual of US$2.4 million included under other current and accrued liabilities for the six months period ended June 30, 2018 to cover the settlement of both class action lawsuits. Both settlements remain subject to the approval of the respective courts in which the actions were brought, among other conditions, and will not be funded until the courts issue final approvals of the settlements. Imperva, Inc. engages in the development, market, sale, and support of cyber security solutions that protect business critical data and applications in the cloud or on premises worldwide. The company was founded in 2002 and is headquartered in Redwood Shores, California. INVUITY INC: Paciga Securities Class Lawsuit Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- Invuity, Inc. continues to defend itself against a stockholder class action titled Paciga v. Invuity, Inc., et al., according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2018, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018. The Company said, "On February 27, 2017, a purported stockholder class action titled Paciga v. Invuity, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17‑cv‑01005, was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against us, our Chief Executive Officer, and our Chief Financial Officer. The complaint alleges that the defendants made false or misleading statements to investors regarding our business prospects. The complaint purports to assert claims for violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC Rule 10b‑5 on behalf of a purported class consisting of all purchasers of our common stock between July 19, 2016 and November 3, 2016, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages, attorney fees and costs, and other relief." On May 30, 2017, the Court appointed Mike Paciga as lead plaintiff. The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on July 31, 2017. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on September 14, 2017, and the lead plaintiff filed his opposition to the motion on October 30, 2017. Defendants filed a reply brief on December 4, 2017. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. The Company said, "We intend to defend the litigation vigorously. Based on information currently available, we have determined that the amount of any possible loss or range of possible loss is not reasonably estimable." Invuity, Inc. is a medical technology company focused on developing and marketing advanced surgical devices to improve the ability of physicians to perform minimal access surgery through smaller and hidden incisions. The company is based in San Francisco, California. JACOB TRANSPORTATION: Settlement in R. Greene's Suit Has Prelim OK ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, ROBERT GREENE, THOMAS SCHEMKES, and GREGORY GREEN on behalf of themselves and all others similarly Member situated, Plaintiffs, v. JACOB TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, LLC, a Nevada Corporation, doing business as Executive Las Vegas; JAMES JIMMERSON, an individual, CAROL JIMMERSON, an individual, and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:09-CV-00466-GMN-CWH, Consolidated with Case No. 2:11-CV-00355-JAD-NJK (D. Nev.), Judge Gloria M. Navarro of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada granted the Application for Preliminary Approval of a Class Action Settlement. The Judge approved, as to form and content, the Notice of Pendency of Class Action, Proposed Class Action Settlement, and Hearing Date for Court Approval, and the Claim Form. She also approved the procedure for the Class Members to participate in, to opt out of and to object to, the Settlement as set forth in the Notice of Pendency of Class Action. Judge Navarro directed the mailing of the Notice of Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement, and the Claim Forms by first class mail to the Class Members in accordance with the Implementation Schedule set forth. The Settlement Class is preliminarily certified for settlement purposes only. The Judge confirmed Plaintiffs Greene, Schemkes, and Green as the Class Representatives; and Thierman Buck, LLP as the Class Counsel. She confirmed Simpluris as the Claims Administrator. The following Implementation Schedule for further proceedings is ordered: a. Deadline for the Defendants to Submit Class Member Information to Claims - July 6, 2018, by 5:00 p.m. [10 calendar days after Order granting Administrator Preliminary Approval] b. Deadline for Claims Administrator to Mail the Notice and the Claim Form - July 10, 2018 [14 calendar days after Order granting to Class Members Preliminary Approval] c. Deadline for Class Members to Postmark Claim Forms - Aug. 9, 2018 [30 calendar days after initial mailing of the Notice and Claim Form to Class Members] d. Deadline for Class Members to Postmark Requests for Exclusions - Aug. 9, 2018 [30 calendar days after initial mailing of the Notice and Claim Form to Class Members] e. Deadline for Receipt by Court and Counsel of any Objections to Settlement - Aug. 9, 2018 [30 calendar days after initial mailing of the Notice and Claim Form to Class Members] f. Deadline for Class Counsel to file Motion for Final Approval of Settlement, Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Enhancement Award - Sept. 10, 2018 [7 calendar days before Final Approval Hearing] g. Deadline for Class Counsel to File Declaration from Claims Administrator of Due Diligence and Proof of Mailing - Sept. 10, 2018 [7 calendar days before Final Approval Hearing] h. Final Fairness Hearing & Final Approval - Sept. 17, 2018 at 2:30 p.m. at Courtroom 7D i. Deadline for Defendants to Fund Settlement Account maintained by Claims Administrator - Sept. 22, 2018 [5 calendar days after Effective Date] j. Deadline for Claims Administrator to wire the Attorneys' Fees and Costs to Class Counsel (if Settlement is Effective) - Oct. 1, 2018 [5 calendar days after transfer of Defendants Fund to Settlement Account) k. Deadline for Claims Administrator to mail the Awards to Class Representatives (if Settlement is Effective) - Oct. 2, 2018 [10 days after Settlement Awards to Class Defendants Fund Members and the Enhancement Settlement Account] l. Claims Administrator to File Proof of Payment of Settlement Awards, Attorneys' Fees and Costs, Enhancement Awards, (if Settlement is Effective) - Dec. 17, 2018 [90 calendar days after Effective Date] A full-text copy of the Court's June 26, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/h9Ld79 from Leagle.com. Robert Greene, Gregory Green & Thomas Schemkes, Plaintiffs, represented by Mark R. Thierman -- mark@thiermanbuck.com -- Thierman Buck, LLP, Jason J. Kuller -- jason@kullerlaw.com -- Kuller Law PC, Joshua D. Buck -- josh@thiermanbuck.com -- Thierman Buck, LLP, Joshua R. Hendrickson, Thierman Buck, LLC & Leah Lin Jones -- leah@thiermanbuck.com -- Thierman Buck, LLP. Carol Jimmerson & Jacob Transportation Services, LLC, doing business as Executive Las Vegas, Defendants, represented by James J. Jimmerson -- jjj@jimmersonlawfirm.com -- Jimmerson Hansen, P.C. James Jimmerson, Defendant, pro se. Jacob Transportation Services, LLC, Consol Counter Claimant, represented by Ikenna K. Odunze, Jimmerson Hansen, PC & James J. Jimmerson, Jimmerson Hansen, P.C. Thomas Thatcher Schemkes, Consol Counter Defendant, represented by Jason J. Kuller, Kuller Law PC, Joshua D. Buck, Thierman Buck, LLP & Mark R. Thierman, Thierman Buck, LLP. JAMES MAYER: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Barry Says --------------------------------------------------- Peter Barry, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Law Office of James A. Mayer, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-11667-CCC-MF (D.N.J., July 16, 2018) seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of sending prerecorded messages to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone without her prior express written consent. Law Office of James A. Mayer is an entity operating as a law office in Westwood, New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ross H. Schmierer, Esq. DeNITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C. 525 Route 73 North, Suite 410 Marlton, NJ 08053 Telephone: (856) 797-9951 E-mail: rschmierer@denittislaw.com JONATHAN KLEIN: Lundi Sues Over Illegal Credit Collection --------------------------------------------------------- Ricardo Lundi, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Law Office of Jonathan Klein, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-04373 (E.D. N.Y., August 2, 2018), seeks redress for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act for alleged illegal collection over a consumer credit. The Law Office of Jonathan Klein is a law firm that provides customized account receivables management services. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. SANDERS LAW, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Tel: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com JP MORGAN: $285K in Attys' Fees Awarded in M. Loeza's Wage Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MARY LOEZA et al., Plaintiffs, v. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK NA, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:13-cv-00095-L-BGS (S.D. Cal.), Judge M. James Lorenz of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' Motion for Approval of Attorneys' Fees and Costs and Plaintiffs' Service Enhancements. In this wages and hours action, the Court has approved a class action settlement. Pending before the Court is the Plaintiffs' Motion for Approval of Attorneys' Fees and Costs and Plaintiffs' Service Enhancements. The Defendants did not file an opposition. Although the class members received notice of the terms of the settlement, including attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, costs, and the Plaintiffs' service enhancements, none have objected. The class counsel seeks $285,000 in attorneys' fees. The class Counsel seeks attorneys' fees of $285,000, based on 30% of the common fund of $950,000, and a lodestar of approximately $741,000. The settlement agreement allows for this amount without objection from the Defendant, and the request was noticed to the class. The class counsel also requests $22,018.21 in costs, including filing fees, depositions, expert and mediation fees, and travel expenses. This less than the $35,000 provided for in the Settlement Agreement and noticed to the class members. The named Plaintiffs request service enhancement awards in addition to their individual settlement payments. Plaintiff Angie Reveles initially sought $5,000, but subsequently increased her request to $10,000. Plaintiff Loeza seeks $15,000. The Settlement Agreement provides for a payment of $15,000 to Loeza and $5,000 to Reveles, and the same was noticed to the class. Judge Lorenz finds that a total of 1,575 hours were billed to the case for a total of amount of $741,435.50. Upon review of the time records and the Court's docket sheet for the case, the number of hours billed is reasonable, given that the case settled after discovery and a highly contested summary judgment motion. The average hourly rate for the entire action is approximately $471, which is reasonable in the context of the case. Lastly, he finds that awarding 30% of the common fund is also reasonable in light of the lodestar. Upon review of the costs and expenses documented in itemized billing sheets, and in light of the stage of the litigation when the case settled, the Judge holds that all requested costs and litigation expenses will be approved as reasonable. Finally, the Judge agrees that the Plaintiffs should receive enhancement awards. However, because the average class member settlement amount is approximately $708, the requested amounts of $15,000 and $10,000, respectively, in addition to each of the Plaintiff's settlement amount, is excessive. He finds that $5,000 and $3,000, respectively, adequately compensate Loeza and Reveles for their time, effort and risk. Accordingly, Judge Lorenz granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' Motion for Approval of Attorneys' Fees and Costs and Plaintiffs' Service Enhancements. He granted the request for the class counsel's fees, costs and litigation expenses is granted. The class counsel will recover from the settlement the sum of $285,000 for their fees and $22,018.21 for their costs and litigation expenses. He granted the Plaintiffs' request for enhancement awards to the extent that Loeza is awarded $5,000 and Reveles is awarded $3,000 from the settlement. In all other respects, he denied the motion. A full-text copy of the Court's June 27, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/j78Hcq from Leagle.com. Mary Loeza, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated & Angie Reveles, an individual, on behalf of themselves, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by David R. Markham -- dmarkham@markham-law.com -- The Markham Law Firm, Janine R. Menhennet -- janinerm@sbcglobal.net -- Cohelan Khoury & Singer, Maggie K. Realin , The Markham Law Firm, Peggy J. Reali -- preali@realilaw.com -- The Markham Law Firm & Richard E. Quintilone, II -- req@quintlaw.com -- Quintilone & Associates. JP Morgan Chase Bank NA, an unknown business entity, Defendant, represented by John Spivey Battenfeld -- john.battenfeld@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis and Bockius & John D. Hayashi -- john.hayashi@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP. LAMB WESTON: Kennard Sues Over Under-filled Snack Product --------------------------------------------------------- Angela Kennard, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Lamb Weston Holdings, Inc. and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-04665 (N.D. Cal., August 2, 2018), seeks damages, injunctive relief and any other available legal or equitable remedies for violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act and the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act. Kennard purchased Defendant's Alexia Sweet Potato fries with Sea Salt product several times during 2017 and 2018 in Daly City, California. She alleges that the container had more than 50% empty space, or slack-fill. Lamb Weston sells potato products in over 100 countries around the world.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS - A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 4100 Newport Place, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Tel: (949) 706-6464 Fax: (949) 706-6469 Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com LANDMARK CREDIT: $950K Deal in Overdraft Fees Suit Has Prelim OK ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, DANELL BEHRENS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LANDMARK CREDIT UNION and DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-101-jdp (W.D. Wis.), Judge James D. Peterson of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin graned Behrens' unopposed motion seeking preliminary approval for the parties' proposed class action settlement. Behrens filed a proposed class action alleging that the Defendants, charged LCU members overdraft fees in violation of Regulation E of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ("ETFA") and LCU's own overdraft program contract. LCU is a Wisconsin-based credit union. During the six-year period prior to the filing of the suit, Behrens and the proposed class members all had checking accounts with LCU. Behrens alleges that LCU wrongfully charged its customers overdraft fees. An overdraft fee is charged to an account when there are not sufficient funds in an account to cover a transaction. LCU used the available balance method to assess its overdraft fees. The available balance reflects only the money not subject to a hold due to pending transactions. Thus, the available balance in an account may be less than the actual balance. So by using the available balance method, LCU may assess an overdraft fee even when a customer's actual balance shows enough money to cover a transaction. Behrens claims that this practice violates the terms of the contracts governing LCU's overdraft program, and that it violates Regulation E of the EFTA, because LCU failed to properly disclose its overdraft policy to customers. Behrens brings her claims on behalf of herself and the entire class, which is composed of two subclasses. The first, the "Sufficient Funds" subclass, is tied to the breach of contract claim and is defined as those members of the Defendant who were assessed an Overdraft Fee between Feb. 9, 2011 and Feb. 28, 2017 on any type of payment transaction and at the time such fee was assessed, the member had sufficient money in his or her ledger balance to cover the transaction that resulted in the fee. The second, the "Regulation E" subclass, is tied to the ETFA claim and is defined as "those members of Defendant who were assessed an Overdraft Fee for an ATM or non-recurring debit card payment transaction for the first time between Feb. 9, 2016 and Feb. 28, 2017. Now before the Court is Behrens's unopposed motion seeking preliminary approval for the parties' proposed class action settlement. In her motion, he seeks conditional certification of the class, approval of a proposed notice plan, appointment of a claims administrator, and a hearing date for the final approval of the settlement. Behrens summarizes the relevant settlement terms in her brief: i. LCU will pay $950,000 into a settlement fund; ii. LCU will change its overdraft assessment policy so that it charges overdraft fees using the available balance method. This will save class members an estimated $385,000 per year; iii. LCU will waive $88,082 in assessed, but uncollected, overdraft fees; iv. A claims administrator will administer the disbursement of the settlement fund in accordance with the process outlined in detail in the settlement agreement; v. No class member will be eligible to recover more than the amount actually charged as an overdraft fee; vi. Any residual funds will not revert to LCU. Instead, they will be allocated to a cy pres recipient; vii. A service payment of $10,000 may be requested by the Named Plaintiff, Danell Behrens; viii. Any class member will be given an opportunity to opt out by mailing an exclusion letter by the Bar Date; ix. The Plaintiff's counsel will petition the court for attorney's fees and costs from the settlement fund. The settlement agreement caps recovery at 70% of the charged overdraft fee. This cap, in conjunction with a 10-claim limit for members of the Regulation E subclass, is designed to prevent the claims of the Regulation E subclass members from overwhelming the claims of the Sufficient Funds subclass. Finally, the agreement lays out the process for notifying the class, getting final approval of the settlement, and administering it. The settlement agreement provides that class counsel will seek attorney fees and costs, to be paid from the settlement fund. The class counsel states that they will seek 25% of the value of the settlement. This equals $355,770.50, which is 37.4% of the settlement fund. Behrens also moves the Court to approve a proposed notice, and to appoint Garden City Group, LLC, as the claims administrator. Judge Peterson granted the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement and her unopposed motion for approval of claims administrator. He appointed Danell Behrens as the class representative; Richard McCune of McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP, and Taras Kick of the Kick Law Firm, APC, as the class counsel; and Garden City Group, LLC as the claims administrator. The notice attached to the settlement agreement is approved. Per the settlement agreement, Garden City Group, LLC, will send the notice to the class within 20 days of the date of the Order. The class counsel will file a petition for approval of attorney fees and costs no later than Aug. 9, 2018. The class counsel will file any supplemental brief in support of final approval of the settlement agreement or in response to any objections to the petition for attorney fees and costs no later than Aug. 23, 2018. The telephonic final fairness hearing is scheduled for Aug. 30, 2018 at 9:00 a.m. The counsel for the Plaintiff is responsible for initiating the conference call. A full-text copy of the Court's June 26, 2018 Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/0Jw2mh from Leagle.com. Danell Behrens, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas P. Dehler -- Doug.Dehler@wilaw.com -- O'Neil, Cannon, Hollman, DeJong & Laing S.C., Laura Jean Lavey -- Laura.Lavey@wilaw.com -- O'Neil, Cannon, Hollman, DeJong & Laing S.C., Taras Kick -- Taras@kicklawfirm.com -- The Kick Law Firm & Richard Dale McCune, Jr. -- rdm@mccunewright.com -- McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP. Landmark Credit Union, Defendant, represented by Stuart M. Richter -- stuart.richter@kattenlaw.com -- Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, Andrew J. Demko -- andrew.demko@kattenlaw.com -- Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, Paul A. Grammatico -- paul.grammatico@kattenlaw.com -- Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP & William Warren Ehrke -- wehrke@crivellocarlson.com -- Crivello Carlson, S.C.. LEE COUNTY, FL: Court Dismisses H. Gonzalez's Prisoners Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Sheri Polster Chappell of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division, dismissed the case, HECTOR GONZALEZ, Plaintiff, v. LAYRON J. GAITHER, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-366-FtM-99CM (M.D. Fla.). On May 23, 2018, the Court issued an Opinion and Order dismissing without prejudice a purported class action complaint initiated by seven pretrial detainees held in the Lee County Jail for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted to each pro se Plaintiff filing a separate amended complaint and motion to proceed in forma pauperis in their own action. The deadline to file an amended pleading and motion to proceed in forma pauperis has expired and no Amended Complaint or motion has been filed. Accordingly, the Judge dismissed the case and directed the Clerk to enter judgment accordingly, terminate all deadlines and close the case. A full-text copy of the Court's June 27, 2018 Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/qooye8 from Leagle.com. Hector Gonzalez, Plaintiff, pro se. LJM PARTNERS: Faces Shlifka Suit Over Growth Fund Collapse ---------------------------------------------------------- JAY J. SHLIFKA and DENISE B. SHLIFKA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. LJM PARTNERS, LTD., Case No. 2018CH09614 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., July 31, 2018), is brought on behalf of all persons, other than the Defendant, who invested in the LJM Preservation and Growth Fund, L.P., as of February 6, 2018. LJM Partners, Ltd., is an Illinois corporation and is registered as a commodity pool operator and a commodity trading advisor. LJM is the general partner of the now-defunct LJM Preservation and Growth Fund, L.P. LJM, as the general partner of the Preservation and Growth Fund, implements and manages the trading strategy for the Partnership. The case arises from a stunningly rapid collapse of the Partnership wherein investors lost virtually their entire investment in what was billed as a "Preservation and Growth" Fund -- 81% of the value of investors' capital accounts was wiped out -- in just two days, notes the complaint. As a result, LJM placed the Partnership in liquidation and the Partnership has ceased all trading activity. LJM marketed the Preservation and Growth Fund as a conservative investment opportunity to preserve capital and pursue moderate growth with minimal correlation to the U.S. equity market, the Plaintiffs note. Contrary to the statements in the offering materials, the Preservation and Growth Fund had no investment or market position to adequately preserve capital and mitigate risk in the face of this minimal market volatility, the Plaintiffs argue.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC 70 W. Madison St., Suite 1400 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 984-0000 E-mail: malmstrom@whafh.com - and - Matthew M. Guiney, Esq. Demet Basar, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 545-4600 Facsimile: (212) 545-4653 E-mail: guiney@whafh.com basar@whafh.com M CULINARY CONCEPTS: Alejandro Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Miguel Angel Valdez Alejandro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. M. Culinary Concepts, Novel Foods Inc., A.M. Catering Solutions, Inc., Amichai Melamed and Samar Sajjad, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-04839 (S.D. N.Y., May 31, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. Defendants own, operate, or control a Middle Eastern and Mediterranean restaurant, located at 62 W 22nd St, New York, NY 10010 under the name "Bite" where Plaintiff was employed as a delivery worker. The complaint says the Plaintiff worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate overtime compensation for the hours worked. Defendants also failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and repeatedly failed to pay Plaintiff wages on a timely basis. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Tel: (212) 317-1200 Email: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com MACERICH COMPANY: Murphy Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site -------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES MURPHY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. THE MACERICH COMPANY d/b/a KINGS PLAZA, Case No. 1:18-cv-06871-ALC (S.D.N.Y., July 31, 2018), is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its alleged failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Web site -- http://www.kingsplazaonline.com/-- to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Macerich Company is a Maryland Corporation doing business in New York. The Defendant is a mall operator that operates Kings Plaza mall, as well as the Kings Plaza Web site. The Defendant operates Kings Plaza mall in Brooklyn, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl. Brooklyn, NY 11201 Telephone: (929) 575-4175 Facsimile: (929) 575-4195 E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal - and - Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003-2461 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 E-mail: nyjg@aol.com danalgottlieb@aol.com MACTANZ INC: Snider Moves to Certify Class of Servers Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned Matthew Snider, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) v. MACTANZ, Inc. d/b/a Mac and Bob's Restaurant, Case No. 7:18-cv-00233-EKD (W.D. Va.), files with the Court his motion for expedited conditional certification of collective action and judicially-supervised notice under Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mr. Snider asks the Court to conditionally certify the class and authorize his counsel to send his proposed notices to this group of individuals: All current and former employees who worked for Defendant as servers, waiters, or waitresses at any time during the three (3) years preceding the filing of this lawsuit and were paid a direct cash wage of less than $7.25 per hour. The Plaintiff filed this action against the Defendant seeking payment of unpaid wages under the FLSA. He alleges that the Defendant violated the FLSA by requiring him and his fellow servers to contribute tips to a tip pool in which non-tipped back-of-the-house employees, such as the dishwashers and food runners, received a portion of the tips, invalidating the tip pool. The Plaintiff is represented by: Drew N. Herrmann, Esq. HERRMANN LAW, PLLC 801 Cherry St., Suite 2365 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Telephone: (817) 479-9229 Facsimile: (817) 260-0801 E-mail: drew@herrmannlaw.com - and - William C. Tucker, Esq. TUCKER LAW FIRM, PLC 690 Berkmar Circle Charlottesville, VA 22901 Telephone: (434) 978-0100 Facsimile: (434) 978-0101 E-mail: bill.tucker@tuckerlawplc.com MASTER JANITORIAL: Retina Associates Sues Over Illegal Faxed Ads ---------------------------------------------------------------- Retina Associates Medical Group, Inc. on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Master Janitorial Service, Inc., Jay Kumar Rao, and Lisa Rao, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00941, (C.D. Cal., May 31, 2018), seeks an injunction requiring Defendants to cease all unsolicited telephone calling activities and an award of statutory damages together with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Defendants operate as "Master Janitorial Service." They placed unsolicited fax advertisements without obtaining prior express consent, says the Plaintiff. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth M. Lehrman, Esq. EDWARDS POTTINGER, LLC 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: 954-524-2820 Facsimile: 954-524-2822 E-mail: seth@epllc.com METROPOLITAN TRANSIT: Randle Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Hubert Randle, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-01770 (S.D. Tex., May 30, 2018), seeks overtime pay at the correct overtime rate, liquidated damages, all costs and attorneys' fees incurred prosecuting this claim, prejudgment interest and all further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant misclassified their Metrolift drivers as independent contractors instead of as employees, thus denying them overtime pay, notes the complaint. Metrolift is a division of Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Taft L. Foley, II, Esq. THE FOLEY LAW FIRM 3003 South Loop West, Suite 108 Houston, TX 77054 Phone: (832) 778-8182 Facsimile: (832) 778-8353 Email: Taft.Foley@thefoleylawfirm.com MIAMI-DADE EXPRESSWAY: Class Cert. in Axle Toll Suit Affirmed ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Miami-Dade Expressway Authority and Javier Rodriguez, P.E., etc., Appellants, v. Tropical Trailer Leasing, L.L.C., et al., Appellees, Case No. 3D16-2851 (Fla. App.), Judge Vance E. Salter of the District Court of Appeal of Florida for the Third District affirmed the trial court's order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Defendants/Appellants ("MDX"), appeal an order granting a motion for class certification by Tropical Trailer, and eight co-Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs are in the business of leasing trailers. The trailers are not self-propelled, and the Plaintiffs do not own the tractor trucks needed to transport the trailers. They lease the trailers to third parties, who in turn hire the owners of tractor trucks to tow the leased trailers. Many times the tractor truck owners hire independent drivers for a particular haul or group of hauls. Implemented in 2010, MDX uses an electronic transponder system to charge the motor vehicles and drivers on its roads a toll based on the number of axles on the vehicle. If the tractor truck contains a working electronic transponder device ("SunPass transponder"), the entire toll amount for a five-axle vehicle (three axles for the tractor and two for the trailer) is automatically deducted from the SunPass transponder account of the tractor truck's owner. If the vehicle has no SunPass transponder, then the MDX toll system relies on a video "Toll by Plate" system, capturing an image of the vehicle's rear tag. In such cases, MDX charges the entire per-axle toll to the rear tag's registered owner. This practice led MDX to charge the Plaintiffs a full five-axle toll. The Plaintiffs alleged that, starting in 2013, some MDX systems had the capability to photograph the front tag belonging to the driver, but MDX made no consistent effort to identify the driver of the motorized vehicle. The Plaintiffs asserted that MDX had no authority to impose a toll on their tractor-towed, non-motorized trailers before a 2012 amendment to the statutory definition of "motor vehicle," and thereafter, no authority to impose a toll on the trailers for the separately-owned and operated tractor trucks pulling the trailers. The Plaintiffs sued MDX for declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief based on allegations that MDX's toll collection practices, through its video tolling and "Toll by Plate" system, had unlawfully charged the Plaintiffs tolls on occasions where third parties were towing their trailers. The Plaintiffs argued that a trailer owner is not the owner of the "motor vehicle" incurring the toll. They sought to certify a class of all trailer owners who were charged a toll by MDX because the driver of the motorized tractor truck did not pay the toll incurred by the truck. The operative Second Amended Class Action Complaint asserted that many of the tractor truck drivers tow the trailers on MDX roads without paying tolls. These drivers allegedly smudge or obscure the tractor plate to avoid MDX detection. The Plaintiffs argued that Florida statutes make a driver ultimately responsible for the entire unpaid toll, not the trailer owner. As a result, the Plaintiffs have been paying most of the violations even though the tolls are unlawful. The complaint also sought clarification of the trailer owners' liability for tolls after a 2012 statutory amendment. Prior to July 1, 2012, the Plaintiffs allege that MDX had no authority to assess tolls against Tropical Trailer's non-self-propelled vehicles. As the trailers were not self-propelled, they could not be assessed any toll under the pre-2012 statute. The Plaintiffs moved for class certification. After the hearing, the trial court granted the motion for class certification. The court found that the elements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy, under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.220(a), were established. The trial court also found that Rule 1.220(b)(2) was satisfied. The trial court defined two subclasses, rather than the four proposed by the Plaintiffs, dividing the class members into those affected before, and those affected after, the July 1, 2012, legislative amendment: (1) the owners of all trailers towed on MDX roadways for which MDX used the toll by plate method of toll imposition from Oct. 14, 2010, through June 30, 2012; and (2) the owners of all trailers on MDX roadways for which MDX used the toll by plate method of toll imposition since July 1, 2012. MDX appealed the order granting class certification. Judge Salter holds that the class certification motion was thoroughly briefed and argued by experienced counsel on both sides. The evidentiary hearing, though shorter than many, included competent, substantial evidence establishing the elements required for certification. The very nature of the claim -- allegedly-improper toll charges on heavily-traveled expressways with tens of thousands of pertinent billings -- supports the adjudication of the claims as a class action. No single trailer owner could cost-effectively maintain such an action, seeking reimbursement for a series of charges of a few dollars per "Toll by Plate" billing. The Judge holds that the trial court was both diligent and vigilant (reforming the class definitions, for example) in assessing the required elements. For these reasons, the Judge affirmed the order and findings in all respects. Certification order affirmed. A full-text copy of the Court's June 27, 2018 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/SVyUr5 from Leagle.com. Johnson, Anselmo, Murdoch, Burke, Piper & Hochman and Jonathan H. Railey -- Railey@jambg.com -- Michael R. Piper -- Piper@jambg.com -- and Christopher J. Stearns -- Stearns@jambg.com -- (Fort Lauderdale), for appellants. Akerman LLP and A. Rodger Traynor, Jr. -- rodger.traynor@akerman.com -- and Lawrence D. Silverman -- lawrence.silverman@akerman.com -- for appellees. MICROSOFT CORP: Antitrust Class Lawsuit in Canada Still Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Microsoft Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2018, for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2018, that the Canadian courts "will likely reach a decision on approval in September 2018" in the antitrust class action proceeding in British Columbia. Antitrust and unfair competition class action lawsuits were filed against the Company in British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec, Canada. All three have been certified on behalf of Canadian indirect purchasers who acquired licenses for Microsoft operating system software and/or productivity application software between 1998 and 2010. The trial of the British Columbia action commenced in May 2016. Following a mediation, the parties agreed to a global settlement of all three Canadian actions, and have submitted the proposed settlement agreement to the courts in all three jurisdictions for approval. The courts will likely reach a decision on approval in September 2018. Microsoft Corporation, a technology company, develops, licenses, and supports software products, services, and devices worldwide. The Company markets and distributes its products through original equipment manufacturers (OEM), distributors, and resellers, as well as through online and Microsoft retail stores. Microsoft Corporation was founded in 1975 and is headquartered in Redmond, Washington. MICROSOFT CORP: Canadian Cell Phone Class Action Remains Dormant ---------------------------------------------------------------- Microsoft Corporation said in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2018, that a Canadian cell phone class action has been dormant for more than three years. Subsidiary Microsoft Mobile Oy, along with other handset manufacturers and network operators, is a defendant in a 2013 class action lawsuit filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia by a purported class of Canadians who have used cellular phones for at least 1,600 hours, including a subclass of users with brain tumors, alleging adverse health effects from cellular phone use. Microsoft was served with the complaint in June 2014 and has been substituted for the Nokia defendants. The litigation has been dormant for more than three years. Microsoft Corporation, a technology company, develops, licenses, and supports software products, services, and devices worldwide. The Company markets and distributes its products through original equipment manufacturers (OEM), distributors, and resellers, as well as through online and Microsoft retail stores. Microsoft Corporation was founded in 1975 and is headquartered in Redmond, Washington. MISSISSIPPI COUNTY, AR: Bryan Suit Alleges FLSA Violation --------------------------------------------------------- Brandon Bryan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mississippi County, Arkansas, Case No. 3:18-cv-00130 (E.D. Ark., July 17, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for violations of the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. The Plaintiff, Brandon Bryan, is an individual and resident of Mississippi County. He was employed by the Defendant as a Deputy Sheriff from approximately March 21, 2011 until July 9, 2018. The Defendant, Mississippi County, Arkansas, operates the Mississippi County Sheriff's Department where Plaintiff was employed within the three years prior to the filing of this Complaint as a Deputy Sheriff. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stacy Gibson, Esq. Chris Burks, Esq. Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford, Ste 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Tel: (501) 221-0088 Fax: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: stacy@sanfordlawfirm.com chris@sanfordlawfirm.com josh@sanfordlawfirm.com MRI INT'L: Insurance Policies Liquidation in "Takiguchi" Ordered ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, HIGE TAKIGUCHI, et. al, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarity Situated, Plaintiffs, v. MRI INTERNATIONAL, INC., EDWIN J. FUJINAGA, JUNZO SUZUKI, PAUL MUSASHI SUZUKI, LVT, INC., dba STERLING ESCROW, and DOES 1-500, Defendants, Case No. 2:13-cv-01183-HDM-NJK (D. Nev.), Judge Howard D. McKibben of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada has entered the parties' stipulated order regarding the liquidation of life insurance policies and payment of funds pursuant to the final approval of class action settlement. On Dec. 11, 2017, the Suzuki Defendants entered into a Settlement Agreement with the Plaintiffs by which they agreed to surrender and liquidate certain life insurance policies and pay the surrender value to the Plaintiffs as consideration for resolution the action. On May 22, 2018, the Court granted final approval of the class action settlement with the Suzuki Defendants. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the following life insurance policies will be surrendered by the Suzuki Defendant and liquidated, with the entire surrender proceeds wire transferred to the Court appointed claims administrator, Heffler Claims Group to be held in a qualified settlement fund: 1. Pacific Guardian Life Policy No. 0007225184 owned by Keiko Suzuki; 2. New York Life Policy No. 46-908-188 owned by Suzuki Enterprises, Inc.; and 3. New York Life Policy No. 38-164-436 owned by Junzo Suzuki. As of June 22, 2018, the Court's preliminary injunction order freezing the assets of the Suzuki Defendants is permanently lifted and vacated. Therefore, the Parties stipulated and Judge McKibben granted that: 1. Pacific Guardian Life is ordered to process the surrender of Policy No. 0007225184 owned by Keiko Suzuki, and transfer the entire surrender value of Policy No. 0007225184 to the qualified settlement account designated by Heffler Claims Group; 2. New York Life is ordered to process the surrender of Policy No. 46-908-188 owned by Suzuki Enterprises, Inc. and transfer the entire surrender value of Policy No. 46-908-188 to the qualified settlement account designated by Heffler Claims Group; 3. New York Life is ordered to process the surrender of Policy No. 46-908-188 owned by Suzuki Enterprises, Inc. and transfer the entire surrender value of Policy No. 46-908-188 to the qualified settlement account designated by Heffler Claims Group; and 4. The Suzuki Defendants are ordered to reasonably cooperate with the Plaintiffs and the life insurance policy issuers as necessary in effectuating the surrender of the above policies. A full-text copy of the Court's June 22, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/inlcv6 from Leagle.com. Shige Takiguchi, Fumi Nonaka, Kaoruko Koizumi, Tatsuro Sakai & Mitsuaki Takita, Plaintiffs, represented by James Edwin Gibbons -- jeg@manningllp.com -- Manning & Kass Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester LLP, James R. Olson, Olson, Cannon, Gormley, Angulo & Stoberski, Mariko Taenaka, Law Offices of Robert W. Cohen, Robert W. Cohen, Law Offices of Robert W. Cohen, APC & Steven Jeff Renick -- sjrnull@nullmanningllp.com -- Manning & Kass, Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester LLP. Shizuuko Ishimori, Yoko Hatano, Yuko Nakamura, Hidehito Miura, Yoshiko Tazaki, Masaaki Moriya, Hatsune Hatano, Satoru Moriya, Hidenao Takama, Shigeru Kurisu, Saka Ono, Kazuhiro Matsumoto, Kaya Hatanaka, Hiroka Yamajiri, Kiyoharu Yamamoto, Junko Yamamoto, Koichi Inoue, Akiko Naruse, Toshimasa Nomura & Ritsu Yurikusa, Plaintiffs, represented by James Edwin Gibbons, Manning & Kass Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester LLP, James R. Olson, Olson, Cannon, Gormley, Angulo & Stoberski, Mariko Taenaka, Law Offices of Robert W. Cohen, Robert W. Cohen, Law Offices of Robert W. Cohen, APC & Steven Jeff Renick, Manning & Kass, Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester LLP, pro hac vice. MRI International, Inc. & Edwin J Fujinaga, Defendants, represented by Daniel L. Hitzke, Hitzke & Associates & Erick M. Ferran. Junzo Suzuki, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey A. Silvestri -- jsilvestri@mcdonaldcarano.com -- McDonald Carano Wilson, Nicolas Morgan -- nicolasmorgan@paulhastings.com -- Paul Hastings LLP, pro hac vice & Paul J. Georgeson -- pgeorgeson@mcdonaldcarano.com -- McDonald Carano Wilson LLP. ICAG, INC., Defendant, represented by Jacob A. Reynolds -- jreynolds@hutchlegal.com -- Hutchison & Steffen, Mark A. Hutchison -- mhutchison@hutchlegal.com -- Hutchison & Steffen, LLC & Robert T. Stewart -- rstewart@hutchlegal.com -- Hutchison & Steffen, LLC. First Hawaiian Bank, Defendant, represented by Christopher R. Ramos -- cramos@vedderprice.com -- Vedder Price (CA), LLP, pro hac vice, Rex Garner -- rex.garner@akerman.com -- Akerman LLP, Ariel E. Stern -- ariel.stern@akerman.com -- Akerman LLP, Lisa M. Simonetti -- lsimonetti@vedderprice.com -- Vedder Price, LLP. Suzuki Enterprises, Inc. Profit Sharing Plan, Defendant, represented by Gregg D. Zucker -- gregg@foundationlaw.com -- Foundation Law Group & Robert A. Rabbat -- rrabbat@enensteinlaw.com -- Enenstein Ribakoff LaVina & Pham. Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert, Interested Party, represented by Paul D. Alston -- PAlston@ahfi.com -- Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing, Albert G. Marquis -- amarquis@maclaw.com -- Marquis & Aurbach, Candice Renka -- crenka@maclaw.com -- Marquis & Aurbach & Nickolas A. Kacprowski -- NKacprowski@ahfi.com -- Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing. Mary Luszczyk, Material Witness, represented by Mark S. Dzarnoski, Gordan & Silver, Ltd. MTGE INVESTMENT: Faces 4 Civil Actions over Annaly Merger Accord ---------------------------------------------------------------- MTGE Investment Corp. still defends itself against four civil actions, three of which are putative class actions, related to the Company's merger agreement with Annaly Capital Management, Inc., according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018. Subsequent to the public announcement of the proposed acquisition of the Company by Annaly, four civil actions were filed challenging the adequacy of the disclosures disseminated in connection with the proposed transaction. On May 25, 2018, Jeroen Van Poeck, a purported stockholder of the Company, commenced an action in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland against the Company, certain of the Company's current directors, Annaly and Purchaser. On May 25, 2018, Giampaolo Dell'Acqua, a purported stockholder of the Company, commenced a putative class action in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland against MTGE, certain of the Company's current and former directors named therein, Annaly and Purchaser. On May 30, 2018, Anthony Franchi, a purported stockholder of MTGE, commenced a putative class action in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland against the Company, certain of the Company's current directors named therein, Annaly and Purchaser. On May 31, 2018, Gary Meyer, a purported stockholder of the Company, commenced a putative class action in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland against MTGE and certain of the Company's current and former directors named therein. The complaints assert claims under Sections 14(d), 14(e) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 challenging the adequacy of the public disclosures made concerning the proposed transaction. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, an injunction preventing consummation of the proposed transaction, rescission of the proposed transaction or rescissory damages in the event it is consummated, an accounting by defendants for all damages caused to the plaintiff and, where applicable, the putative class, and the award of attorneys' fees and expenses. The Company said, "Although the outcomes of these cases cannot be predicted with certainty, we do not believe that these cases have merit or will result in a material liability, and, as of June 30, 2018, we did not accrue a loss contingency related to these matters." MTGE Investment Corp. operates as a real estate investment trust (REIT) in the United States. The Company was formerly known as American Capital Mortgage Investment Corp. and changed its name to MTGE Investment Corp. in September 2016. MTGE Investment Corp. was incorporated in 2011 and is headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland. MTGE INVESTMENT: Meyer Suit Seeks to Halt Sale to Annaly -------------------------------------------------------- Gary Meyer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MTGE Investment Corp., Gary D. Kain, Julia L. Coronado, Robert M. Couch, Randy E. Dobbs, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-01576, (D. Md., May 31, 2018), seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating or closing the acquisition of MTGE by Annaly Capital Management, Inc. through its wholly owned subsidiary, Mountain Merger Sub Corporation, or rescinding it in the event defendants consummate the merger. Rescissory damages, costs of this action, including reasonable allowance for plaintiff's attorneys' and experts' fees and such other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 are also sought by Plaintiffs. Mountain Merger Sub will purchase all of MTGE's issued and outstanding shares of common stock for either $9.82 in cash and 0.9519 shares of Annaly common stock or $19.65 in cash or 1.9037 shares of Annaly common stock. The complaint says the Solicitation/Recommendation Statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission lacks the valuation analyses performed by the Defendant's financial advisor, Barclays Capital Inc. in support of its fairness opinion, and failed to indicate the conflicts of interest faced by Barclays. MTGE is a hybrid mortgage real estate investment trust that invests in agency mortgage-backed securities, non-agency mortgage investments and other real estate-related assets, including skilled nursing and senior living facilities operated by third parties. Annaly is a mortgage real estate investment trust that owns a portfolio of real estate related investments. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. Miles D. Schreiner, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Avenue, 59th Floor New York, NY 10118 Telephone: (212) 971-1341 Email: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com mschreiner@monteverdelaw.com - and - Donald J. Enright, Esq. LEVI &KORSINSKY, LLP 1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 524-4290 Facsimile: (202) 333-2121 Email: denright@zlk.com MVP WORKFORCE: Smith Alleges Discrimination in Job Placements ------------------------------------------------------------- Eric Smith, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated laborers, Plaintiff, v. MVP Workforce, LLC d/b/a Workforce, Twin Staffing, Inc. and The Segerdahl Corp., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-03718, (N.D. Ill., May 29, 2018), seeks damages under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Civil Rights Act of 1866 for discrimination against African-American laborers. MVP Workforce is a temporary staffing agency that assigns temporary laborers in its labor pool to its third party client companies for a fee. Smith sought work assignments from Workforce's Cicero, Illinois Branch Office. Twin Staffing is an alter ego of Workforce and/or joint employer of temporary laborers assigned from the Workforce Cicero Office. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher J. Williams, Esq. Alvar Ayala, Esq. WORKERS' LAW OFFICE, PC 53 W. Jackson Blvd, Suite 701 Chicago, IL 60604 Tel: (312) 795-9121 Email: cwilliams@wagetheftlaw.com aayala@wagetheftlaw.com NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Awaiting Court's Okay of "Jordan" Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- Nationstar Mortgage Holdings Inc. is awaiting approval of a settlement of a class action proceeding under the caption Laura Zamora Jordan v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2018, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018. The Company is a defendant in a class action proceeding originally filed in state court in March 2012, and then removed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington under the caption Laura Zamora Jordan v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC. The suit was filed on behalf of a class of Washington borrowers and challenges property preservation measures the Company took, as loan servicer, after the borrowers defaulted and the Company's vendors determined that the borrowers had vacated or abandoned their properties. The case raises claims for (i) common law trespass, (ii) statutory trespass, and (iii) violation of Washington's Consumer Protection Act, and seeks recovery of actual, statutory, and treble damages, as well as attorneys' fees and litigation costs. On July 25, 2018, the Company entered into a settlement agreement to resolve this matter. The parties are currently seeking approval of the settlement from the court. The Company is pursuing reimbursement of the settlement payment from the owners of the loans it serviced, but there can be no assurance that the Company would prevail with any claims for reimbursement. Nationstar Mortgage Holdings Inc. provides servicing, origination, and transaction based services primarily to single-family residences in the United States. It operates in three segments: Servicing, Originations, and Xome. The Company was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in Coppell, Texas. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Still Defends Class Suit over Telephone Calls ------------------------------------------------------------------ Nationstar Mortgage Holdings Inc. still defends itself against a class action proceeding related to alleged improperly recorded telephone calls, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2018, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018. The Company is a defendant in a proceeding filed on October 23, 2015 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California under the caption Alfred Zaklit and Jessy Zaklit, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC et al. The plaintiff alleges that the Company improperly recorded telephone calls without the knowledge or consent of borrowers in violation of the California Penal Code. The court, on July 24, 2017, certified a class comprised of California borrowers who, from October 2014 to May 2016, participated in outbound telephone conversations with the Company's employees who recorded the conversations without first informing the borrowers that the conversations were being recorded. The class seeks statutory damages and attorney's fees. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses and will continue to vigorously defend itself in this matter. Nationstar Mortgage Holdings Inc. provides servicing, origination, and transaction based services primarily to single-family residences in the United States. It operates in three segments: Servicing, Originations, and Xome. The Company was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in Coppell, Texas. NATURE'S BEST: Arbitration Ruling in Drivers' Suit Reversed ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CHRISTOPHER WISE, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; NATURE'S BEST, LLC et al., Real Parties in Interest, Case No. B287534 (Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of California for the Second District, Division Five, directed the respondent court to vacate its Nov. 15, 2017 order granting the motion to compel arbitration, and issue a new order denying the motion. An employee filed a petition for a writ of mandate, contending the respondent court erred when it granted his employers' motion to compel arbitration of his claims. On Feb. 8, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a class action complaint against the Company for: (1) failure to pay hourly and overtime wages and failure to pay overtime; (2) failure to provide meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof; (3) failure to provide rest periods or compensation in lieu thereof; (4) knowing and intentional failure to comply with itemized wage statements; (5) violations of unfair competition law; and (6) violation of the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA"). On June 9, 2017, the Company moved to compel arbitration of the Plaintiff's claims pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement ("CBA"). The Plaintiff opposed the motion. The court held a hearing on Aug. 10, 2017, and Sept. 20, 2017. On Nov. 15, 2017, the respondent court issued a written ruling, granting the Company's motion to compel arbitration. The court stayed the PAGA cause of action pending completion of the arbitration process. The court stated that assuming the clear and unmistakable waiver requirement applies to any (or all) of the Plaintiff's claims, it finds that the Side Letter constitutes a clear and unmistakable waiver of the right to sue for overtime, meal breaks and rest breaks in court. As an alternative holding, the court concluded that the Plaintiff's claims arose from the CBA rather than the Labor Code. Accordingly, the general presumption favoring arbitration, rather than a requirement that a waiver to a judicial forum for statutory claims be clear and unmistakable, applied to the Plaintiff's case. The court explained that based on the CBA, which included an appendix of wage rates, the Plaintiff and other drivers earn well in excess of 30 more than the State minimum wage. Accordingly, all of the requirements for the CBA meal break exemption under section 512, subdivisions (e), (f) 4 are met. Therefore, the Plaintiff's claims for overtime and meal breaks derive from the CBA, and not from violations of statute because the Labor Code provisions on overtime and meal breaks do not apply to the Pplaintiff]. Although the Court does not decide the merits of the Defendants' exemption defense, the court finds it must consider the terms of the CBA when deciding the gateway issue of arbitrability of the Plaintiff's claims. The Plaintiff timely filed a petition for writ of mandate in the Court, challenging the respondent court's order granting the motion to compel arbitration. The Appellate Court disagrees with the Company's position that the clear and unmistakable standard only applies to statutory discrimination claims, and not to statutory wage and hour claims. Two recent cases have found that the clear and unmistakable standard applies to statutory wage and hour claims (Cortez v. Doty Bros. Equipment Company and Vasserman v. Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital), and no case has held to the contrary. It finds that Article 28, like the arbitration clause in Vasserman, does not include any reference to the Labor Code or any other state or federal statutes; and does not include any agreement to submit statutory causes of action to arbitration. Therefore, it cannot be reasonably read to include an explicitly stated, clear and unmistakable waiver of a judicial forum for employees' statutory claims. It further finds that the Side Letter provided that disputes over meal breaks, rest breaks, wages and overtime, are subject to final and binding arbitration under the grievance procedure of the Agreement. The Side Letter expressly defined "Agreement" as the current CBA. Giving appropriate significance to the words "under the grievance procedure of the Agreement," the Court concludes the Side Letter incorporated the grievance procedure set forth in Article 28. The grievance procedure permitted, but did not require, arbitration. That disputes over meal breaks, rest breaks, wages, and overtime were "subject" to the permissive arbitration procedure described in Article 28, did not require the Plaintiff to submit such disputes to arbitration. For these reasons, the Court concludes, based on its de novo review of the CBA and Side Letter, that neither included a clear and unmistakable waiver of the Plaintiff's right to a judicial forum for his statutory claims. The Judge let a peremptory writ of mandate issue directing the respondent court to vacate its Nov. 15, 2017 order granting the motion to compel arbitration, and issue a new order denying the motion. Wise will recover his costs in the proceeding. A full-text copy of the Court's June 26, 2018 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/8kAHy0 from Leagle.com. Harris & Ruble, Alan Harris -- HarrisA@harrisandruble.com -- David Garrett -- dgarrett@harrisandruble.com -- Min Ji Gal -- mgal@harrisandruble.com -- for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt, John B. Golper -- jgolper@brgslaw.com -- Jeffrey P. Fuchsman --- jfuchsman@brgslaw.com -- and John J. Manier -- jmanier@brgslaw.com -- for Real Parties in Interest. NAVIENT CORP: Bid to Drop Lord Abbett Funds Suit Underway --------------------------------------------------------- Navient Corporation is awaiting the Court's ruling of a motion to dismiss the consolidated class action with Lord Abbett Funds as the lead plaintiff, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2018, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018. During the first quarter of 2016, Navient Corporation, certain Navient officers and directors, and the underwriters of certain Navient securities offerings were sued in three putative securities class action lawsuits filed on behalf of certain investors in Navient stock or Navient unsecured debt. These three cases, which were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, were consolidated by the District Court, with Lord Abbett Funds appointed as Lead Plaintiff. The caption of the consolidated case is Lord Abbett Affiliated Fund, Inc., et al. v. Navient Corporation, et al. The plaintiffs filed their amended and consolidated complaint in September 2016. In September 2017, the Court granted the Navient defendants' motion and dismissed the complaint in its entirety with leave to amend. The plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint with the court in November 2017. The Navient defendants deny the allegations and intend to vigorously defend against the allegation in this lawsuit and filed a motion to dismiss in January 2018. Navient is a leading provider of asset management and business processing solutions for education, healthcare, and government clients at the federal, state, and local levels. The company is based in Wilmington, Delaware. NAVIENT CORP: Bid to Nix Consolidated "Pope" Suit Still Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Navient Corporation is still awaiting the court's decision on their motion to dismiss the consolidated securities class action pending in U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2018, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018. Two putative class actions have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey captioned Eli Pope v. Navient Corporation, John F. Remondi, Somsak Chivavibul and Christian Lown, and Melvin Gross v. Navient Corporation, John F. Remondi, Somsak Chivavibul and Christian M. Lown, both of which allege violations of the federal securities laws under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Company said, "These cases were consolidated by the Court in February 2018, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint in April 2018 and the Company filed its Motion to Dismiss in June 2018. The Company has denied the allegations and intends to vigorously defend itself." Navient is a leading provider of asset management and business processing solutions for education, healthcare, and government clients at the federal, state, and local levels. The company is based in Wilmington, Delaware. NETGEAR INC: Klebba Response to Bid to Dismiss Suit Due Aug. 20 --------------------------------------------------------------- Ryan Klebba's opposition to NETGEAR, Inc.'s Motion to Compel Arbitration and a Motion to Dismiss is due on August 20, 2018, and the Company's reply is due on September 5, 2018, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended July 1, 2018. On May 24, 2018, Ryan Klebba filed a purported class-action complaint in the District Court for the Western District of Texas. The complaint alleges that the Arlo Baby Product fails to perform as advertised and the Company did not release a tablet as promised, thereby decreasing the value of the Arlo Baby monitor. On July 23, 2018, the Company answered the complaint by filing a Motion to Compel Arbitration and a Motion to Dismiss. The plaintiff's opposition is due on August 20, 2018, and the Company's reply is due on September 5, 2018. It is too early to reasonably estimate any financial impact to the Company resulting from this litigation matter. NETGEAR, Inc. designs, develops, and markets networking and Internet connected products for consumers, businesses, and service providers. The company operates in three segments: Arlo, Connected Home, and Small and Medium Business. NETGEAR, Inc. was founded in 1996 and is headquartered in San Jose, California. NETGEAR INC: Sassine Voluntarily Drops Class Action --------------------------------------------------- NETGEAR, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2018, for the quarterly period ended July 1, 2018, that on June 21, 2018, Michel Sassine voluntarily dismissed her potential class action suit without prejudice. On March 23, 2018, the Company was sued in the Northern District of California. The plaintiff, Michel Sassine, purportedly represents a nationwide class of customers that were injured when the Company's ReadyCLOUD service allegedly had a service incident in March 2017 that deleted data that certain customers had stored on ReadyNAS storage devices. The complaint alleges that the Company: (a) failed to appropriately notify customers or take steps that would allow recovery of lost data, (b) violated Unfair Competition Laws, (c) breached its warranties, and (d) breached its contracts with customers. The Company was served with the complaint on April 3, 2018, received an extension to answer and has not yet answered the complaint. NETGEAR, Inc. designs, develops, and markets networking and Internet connected products for consumers, businesses, and service providers. The company operates in three segments: Arlo, Connected Home, and Small and Medium Business. NETGEAR, Inc. was founded in 1996 and is headquartered in San Jose, California. NETGEAR INC: Still Faces Fischer Suit over WiFi Range Extenders --------------------------------------------------------------- NETGEAR, Inc. continues to defend itself against a purported class lawsuit filed by Rob Fischer, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended July 1, 2018. On June 4, 2018, Plaintiff Rob Fischer filed a purported class-action complaint in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Ill, alleging the Company's Range Extender does not extend the range of a consumer's WiFi network as shown in a diagram in a data sheet. It is too early to reasonably estimate any financial impact to the Company resulting from this litigation matter. NETGEAR, Inc. designs, develops, and markets networking and Internet connected products for consumers, businesses, and service providers. The company operates in three segments: Arlo, Connected Home, and Small and Medium Business. NETGEAR, Inc. was founded in 1996 and is headquartered in San Jose, California. NEW YORK: Filing of 2nd Amended Suit vs. NYPD Partly OK'd --------------------------------------------------------- In the case, EDREWEENE RAYMOND, ADHYL POLANCO, PEDRO SERRANO, SANDY GONZALEZ, RITCHIE BAEZ, JULIO DIAZ, FELICIA WHITELY, ROMAN GORIS, DERICK WALLER, KAREEM ABDULLAH, OLAYOKUN OLAGOKE, and WIDMARC PIERRE, individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK BILL DE BLASIO, in his individual and official capacity, FORMER POLICE COMMISSIONER WILLIAM J. BRATTON, in his individual capacity, POLICE COMMISSIONER JAMES P. O'NEILL, in his individual and official capacity, NYPD CHIEF OF DEPARTMENT CARLOS GOMEZ, in his individual and official capacity, and BUREAU CHIEF NYPD COMMANDING OFFICER OF PATROL SERVICES TERENCE MONAHAN, in his official capacity, Defendants, Case No. 15-CV-06885-LTS (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Laura Taylor Swain of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. The Plaintiffs brought the civil rights action, individually and on behalf of a putative class of all others similarly situated, pursuant to New York Labor Law Section 215-a; the New York State Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL"), New York Executive Law Sections 290, 296; the New York City Human Rights Law ("NYCHRL"); and New York State Constitution Article 1, Section 8, against the Defendants. In a 17-count Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs claimed that the NYPD maintains illegal arrest and citation quotas that are focused disproportionately on areas in which minorities reside, that minority officers are pressured to meet the quotas, and that minority officers suffer adverse and retaliatory employment actions when they refuse to enforce or complain about the quotas as discriminatory. On March 6, 2017, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint, and permitting the Plaintiffs to move for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint as to the claims, and requests for relief asserted in the Amended Complaint's Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Tenth, Twelfth, Fourteenth, and Seventeenth Causes of Action. Those claims were for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, and alleged violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, New York State and New York City Human Rights Laws, and of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 based on alleged retaliation. On April 7, 2017, the Plaintiffs moved for leave to file a SAC, appending their Proposed SAC to their motion papers. In the Proposed SAC, the Plaintiffs seek to assert claims against the City, Mayor de Blasio, Former Commissioner Bratton, Commissioner O'Neill, Inspector and Former Commanding Officer of the 40th Precinct Christopher McCormack, Deputy Inspector and former Commanding Officer of Transit District 32 Constantin Tsachas, First Deputy Commissioner Benjamin Tucker, and Deputy Commissioner, Department Advocate Kevin S. Richardson ("Proposed Defendants") for employment discrimination based on race, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and the New York State and New York City Human Rights Laws; and violations of the First Amendment rights of Plaintiffs Raymond, Polanco, Serrano, Waller, and Gonzalez, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, seeking damages and injunctive and declaratory relief. Judge Swain granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion. The Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a SAC is granted as to (i) Raymond's federal discrimination claims relating to his punishment for submitting a late vacation request and for failing to meet quotas, as against Proposed Individual Defendant Tsachas only; (ii) Gonzalez' and Baez' federal discrimination claims relating to negative performance evaluations and placement on PMP, as against Proposed Individual Defendant McCormack only; (iii) Serrano's federal discrimination claim relating to his negative 2012 performance rating, as against Proposed Individual Defendant McCormack only; and (iv) Gonzalez' and Serrano's claims of retaliation for complaining of discrimination, as against proposed Individual Defendant McCormack only. She also granted the Plaintiffs' motion as to their NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims that parallel the federal claims that are permitted to be asserted in the SAC. The Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a further amended complaint with respect to First Amendment retaliation claims is granted as to (i) Raymond's claim against Proposed Individual Defendant Tsachas based on the 2015 performance evaluation, promotion denial and punitive posting actions that followed the Nov. 22, 2014, meeting with the Platoon Commander; (ii) Gonzalez' First Amendment retaliation claim, to the extent he alleges retaliatory conduct from May to November 2015, against the City and Proposed Individual Defendants McCormack, O'Neill and Bratton; and (iii) Serrano's First Amendment retaliation claim against Proposed Individual Defendant McCormack. The motion is denied as to the remainder of the Proposed SAC. Judge Swain directed the Plaintiffs to file a Proposed SAC consistent with her Opinion and Order no later than 14 days from the date of the Opinion and Order, or July 11, 2018. The case will be referred to the designated magistrate judge for general pretrial management, and the Plaintiffs' counsel are directed to contact that judge's chambers promptly to schedule an initial conference. The July 10, 2018, pretrial conference is adjourned sine die in light of the referral. A full-text copy of the Court's June 27, 2018 Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/pYZOtE from Leagle.com. Edreweene Raymond, individually, and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated, Adhyl Polanco, individually, and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated, Pedro Serrano, individually, and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated, Sandy Gonzalez, individually, and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated, Ritchie Baez, individually, and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated, Julio Diaz, individually, and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated, Felicia Whitely, individually, and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated, Roman Goris, individually, and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated, Derick Waller, individually, and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated, Kareem Abdullah, individually, and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated, Olayokun Olagoke, individually, and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated & Widmarc Pierre, individually, and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Chukwuemeka Nwokoro, Nwokoro & Associates, P.C. City of New York, Mayor of the City of New York Bill deBlasio, in his individual and official capacity, Police Commissioner William J. Bratton, in his individual and official capacity, NYPD Chief of Department James P. O'Neill, in his individual and official capacity & Bureau Chief NYPD Commanding Officer of Patrol Services Carlos M Gomez, in his individual and official capacity, Defendants, represented by Kathleen Marie Comfrey, NYC Law Department, Office of the Corporation Counsel & Yuval Rubinstein, New York City Law Department. NORTH CAROLINA: Drivers File Suit v. DMV Over License Revocation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Seti Johnson and Sharee Smoot, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Torre Jessup, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the North Carolina Division of Motor Vehicles, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00467, (M.D. N.C., May 30, 2018), seeks an injunction enjoining the North Carolina Division of Motor Vehicles from revoking any driver's license for non-payment, an injunction mandating the DMV to lift license revocations previously entered and to restore the licenses of individuals that were revoked for non-payment under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Plaintiffs' drivers' licenses were revoked due to non-payment of traffic tickets. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher A. Brook, Esq. Cristina Becker, Esq. Sneha Shah, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NORTH CAROLINA LEGAL FOUNDATION P.O. Box 28004 Raleigh, NC 27611 Tel: (919) 834-3466 Email: cbrook@acluofnc.org cbecker@acluofnc.org sshah@acluofnc.org - and - Nusrat J. Choudhury, Esq. R. Orion Danjuma, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 Tel: (212) 519-7876, (212) 549-2563 Email: nchoudhury@aclu.org odanjuma@aclu.org - and - Kristi L. Graunke, Esq. Emily C.R. Early, Esq. SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 150 E. Ponce de Leon Ave., Ste. 340 Decatur, GA 30030 Tel: (404) 221-4036 Email: kristi.graunke@splcenter.org emily.early@splcenter.org - and - Samuel Brooke, Esq. Danielle Davis, Esq. SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 Tel: (334) 956-8200 Fax: (334) 956-8481 Email: samuel.brooke@splcenter.org danielle.davis@splcenter.org - and - Laura Holland, Esq. SOUTHERN COALITION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE 1415 W. NC Hwy 54, Suite 101 Durham, NC 27707 Tel: (919) 323-3380 ext. 161 Fax: (919) 323-3942 Email: lauraholland@southerncoalition.org NORTH SHORE BAKING: Bakers File Suit to Recover Unpaid OT Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Sanchez and Jose Angel Garcia, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. North Shore Baking Corp. and Tehiya Benezra, individually, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-03750 (N.D. Ill., May 29, 2018), seeks overtime pay at the correct overtime rate, liquidated damages, all costs and attorneys' fees incurred prosecuting this claim, prejudgment interest and all further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act, City of Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. Plaintiffs worked for North Shore as bakers. They claim overtime wages due for all time worked in excess of forty hours in individual work weeks.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas M. Werman, Esq. Maureen A. Salas, Esq. Sarah J. Arendt, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 West Washington, Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Tel: (312) 419-1008 Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com msalas@flsalaw.com sarendt@flsalaw.com OANDA CORP: Suit Over Excessive Forex Spreads Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------- Judge Saliann Scarpulla of the New York State Supreme Court granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the case, MUKENGESHAYI KALEMBA, Plaintiff, v. OANDA CORPORATION, Defendant, Docket No. 656647/2017, Motion Seq. No. 001 (N.Y. Sup.). Oanda operates one of the country's largest online platform for transactions in foreign currency exchange, which is called the FXTrade System. It has purportedly continuously represented on its website and in its sales and marketing materials that it offers low and competitive exchange rates, does not charge commissions or account maintenance fees, offers transparent pricing, and will make historical pricing data available to its customers. Oanda's marketing frequently touted that it had consistently competitive spreads compared to the rest of the Forex market, with no commissions or account fees. Kalemba alleges that, based on these representations, he and the members of the putative class created Oanda trading accounts through which they placed buy and sell Forex transactions, and Oanda charged a spread as well as additional fees on these transactions. Before creating a trading account with Oanda, Kalemba entered into Oanda's form FXTrade Customer Agreement, which was in effect from approximately July 2005 until March 2016. In or around March 2016, Kalemba entered into another FXTrade Customer Agreement, which is currently in effect. Beyond the specific provisions governing the mechanics of buy and sell orders, Oanda's customers, including Kalemba, made and agreed to several more general representations in the Agreements. After becoming a customer of Oanda, Kalemba alleges that he discovered that many of what he believed to be Oanda's representations in its advertising materials are false or misleading in two ways. First, despite Oanda's claim that it offered low and consistently competitive spreads, Oanda's spreads are purportedly excessive, not competitive, and some of the highest among Forex brokers. Second, Oanda effectively charges commissions on trades under the pretense of charging interest on each trade. In March 2017, Oanda changed its pricing model to include the spread itself and a fixed commission per trade. On Oct. 31, 2017, Kalemba commenced this action by filing a verified class action complaint. In the complaint, Kalemba asserts causes of action for: violation of the Martin Act (General Business Law Sections 349, 350); breach of contract; fraud; negligent misrepresentation; equitable accounting; and unjust enrichment. Oanda now moves to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211. Judge Scarpulla finds that although the complaint does allege that Oanda's pricing was not transparent, the complaint does not allege that Oanda's lack of transparency constitutes a breach of the Agreements. However, at oral arguments, Kalemba's counsel clarified that it was not possible for Kalemba to determine the rate at which he was charged interest on trades, in violation of Oanda's duty under the contract to make such a rate and calculation available on its website. While this allegation may support a cause of action for breach of contract, it is not sufficiently set forth in the complaint. Accordingly, while that branch of Oanda's motion to dismiss the second cause of action for breach of contract is granted, the Judge will grant Kalemba leave to replead the breach of contract cause of action for the reasons stated on the record at oral argument, court tr dated 4/4/18 at 27:10-28:4, 29:21-30:7. Kalemba's fraud claim is fundamentally flawed in several respects, the Judge finds. First, the allegations supporting the fraud claim are duplicative of Kalemba's breach of contract allegations. These allegations are almost identical to those supporting Kalemba's breach of contract claim. Additionally, because the complaint alleges the same measure of damages for both claims, Kalemba can recover all damages under a contract measure of damages, which renders his fraud claim duplicative of the breach of contract claim. To the extent that Kalemba claims that Oanda's advertising materials were collateral to the contract or misrepresentations of present facts regarding Oanda's practices, the Judge finds that Kalemba fails to plead this claim with the requisite particularity. Other than identifying a single press release dated Jan. 8, 2008, Kalemba makes only vague and conclusory allegations regarding Oanda's advertising materials. The complaint is devoid of allegations regarding when Kalemba received or viewed Oanda's advertising materials, when these misrepresentations were made, and who made any such misrepresentation, and is thus insufficient. Accordingly, that branch of Oanda's motion to dismiss the third cause of action for fraud will be granted. The Judge has considered the remaining arguments of the parties and finds them to be unavailing. For these reasons, Judge Scarpulla granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint. Kalemba is granted leave to serve and file an amended complaint so as to replead the second cause of action for breach of contract within 20 days after service on the Plaintiff's attorney of a copy of this order with notice of entry. In the event that Kalemba fails to serve and file an amended complaint in conformity with the Order within such time, leave to replead will be deemed denied, and the Clerk of the Court, upon service upon him (60 Centre Street, Room 141B) of a copy of the Order with notice of entry and an affirmation/affidavit by Oanda's counsel attesting to such non-compliance, is directed to enter judgment dismissing the entire action, with prejudice, and with costs and disbursements to the Defendant as taxed by the Clerk. Such service upon the Clerk of the Court will be made in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Protocol on Courthouse and County Clerk Procedures for Electronically Filed Cases. The Order constitutes the decision and order of the Court. A full-text copy of the Court's June 26, 2018 Decision and Order is available at https://is.gd/hVrlZs from Leagle.com. OCLARO INC: Franchi Challenges Lumentum Merger Deal --------------------------------------------------- Adam Franchi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, plaintiff, v. Oclaro, Inc., Marissa Peterson, Edward Collins, Greg Dougherty, Kendall Cowan, Denise Haylor, Ian Small, Bill Smith, Joel A. Smith III, Lumentum Holdings Inc., Prota Merger Sub, Inc. and Prota Merger, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00817 (D. Del., May 30, 2018), seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating or closing the merger of Oclaro Inc. and Lumentum Holdings Inc., or rescinding it in the event defendants consummate the merger. The plaintiff also seeks rescissory damages, costs of this action, including reasonable allowance for plaintiff's attorneys' and experts' fees, and such other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Oclaro stockholders stand to receive $5.60 in cash and 0.0636 shares of Lumentum common stock for each share of Oclaro stock they own, a transaction valued at $9.99 per share of Oclaro or $1.8 billion in the aggregate. The Merger Consideration appears inadequate in light of the company's recent financial performance and prospects for future growth, notes the complaint. It represents an approximate 9% discount to the Company's 52-week high despite having reported triple-digit EBITDA growth and exponential Net Income growth for the past two years, it adds. Oclaro manufactures and markets optical components, modules, and subsystems used in telecommunications, data communications, aerospace, consumer optics and semiconductors.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120 Wilmington, DE 19803 Tel: (302) 295-531 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 Email: bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com - and - Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Dr., Ste. 3112 Berwyn, PA 19312 Tel: (484) 324-6800 Email: rm@maniskas.com OCLARO INC: Ryan Files Suit Over Proposed Lumentum Merger --------------------------------------------------------- Walter Ryan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, plaintiff, v. Oclaro, Inc., Edward Collins, Denise Haylor, William L. Smith, Greg Dougherty, Marissa Peterson, Ian Small, Kendall Cowan and Joel A. Smith III, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-03174 (N.D. Cal., May 29, 2018), seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating or closing the merger of Oclaro Inc. and Lumentum Holdings Inc., or rescinding it in the event defendants consummate the merger. The Plaintiff further seeks rescissory damages, costs of this action, including reasonable allowance for attorneys' and experts' fees and such other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Oclaro stockholders stand to receive $5.60 in cash and 0.0636 shares of Lumentum common stock for each share of Oclaro stock they own, a transaction valued at $9.99 per share of Oclaro or $1.8 billion in the aggregate. The complaint says the Merger Consideration appears inadequate in light of the company's recent financial performance and prospects for future growth. It represents an approximate 9% discount to the Company's 52-week high despite having reported triple-digit EBITDA growth and exponential Net Income growth for the past two years, adds the Plaintiff. Oclaro manufactures and markets optical components, modules, and subsystems used in telecommunications, data communications, aerospace, consumer optics and semiconductors.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin Heikali, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (424) 256-2884 Facsimile: (424) 256-2885 E-mail: bheikali@faruqilaw.com OMNICELL INC: Status Conference in Mazya Lawsuit Set for Oct. 4 --------------------------------------------------------------- Omnicell, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the Company's obligation to respond to the complaint in the "Yana Mazya" suit has been held in abeyance until further determination by the court. On June 6, 2018, a class-action lawsuit was filed against a customer of the Company, the customer's parent company and two vendors of medication dispensing systems, one of which is the Company, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division, captioned Yana Mazya, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Northwestern Lake Forest Hospital, Northwestern Memorial Healthcare, Omnicell, Inc. and Becton Dickinson, Case No. 2018-CH-07161. The complaint seeks class certification, monetary damages in the form of statutory damages for willful and/or reckless or, in the alternative, negligent violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA"), and certain declaratory, injunctive, and other relief based on causes of action directed to allegations of violation of BIPA and of negligence by the defendants. The complaint was served on the Company on June 15, 2018. Counsel for the proposed class filed a motion to certify the class; the court continued the motion and scheduled a status conference for October 4, 2018. Omnicell said, "The Company's obligation to respond to the complaint has been held in abeyance until further determination by the court. The Company intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously." Omnicell, Inc. provides automation and business analytics software solutions for medication and supply management in healthcare worldwide. The Company operates through two segments, Automation and Analytics, and Medication Adherence. The Company was formerly known as Omnicell Technologies, Inc. and changed its name to Omnicell, Inc. in 2001. Omnicell, Inc. was founded in 1992 and is headquartered in Mountain View, California. ONEMAIN HOLDINGS: Securities Class Action in New York Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------- OneMain Holdings, Inc. continues to face a federal securities class action lawsuit in New York, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018. On February 10, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit, Galestan v. OneMain Holdings, Inc., et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, naming as defendants the Company and two of its officers. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Exchange Act for allegedly making materially misleading statements and/or omitting material information concerning alleged integration issues after the OneMain Acquisition in November 2015, and was filed on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between February 25, 2016 and November 7, 2016. The complaint seeks an award of unspecified compensatory damages, an award of interest, reasonable attorney's fees, expert fees and other costs, and equitable relief as the court may deem just and proper. On March 23, 2017, the court appointed a lead plaintiff for the putative class and approved the lead plaintiff's selection of counsel. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on June 13, 2017 challenging statements regarding the Company's projections of future financial performance and certain statements regarding integration after the OneMain Acquisition. On September 29, 2017, pursuant to the Court's Individual Rules and Practices, the Company sought permission to file a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. OneMain Holdings said, "The Company believes that the allegations specified in the amended complaint are without merit, and intends to vigorously defend against the claims. As the lawsuit is in the preliminary stages, the Company is unable to estimate a reasonably possible range of loss, if any, that may result from the lawsuit." OneMain is a provider of responsible personal loan products, primarily to non-prime customers. ONESPAN INC: Still Defends Putative Class Lawsuit in N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------------ OneSpan Inc. (formerly VASCO Data Security International, Inc.) disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2018, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the court has not yet issued a decision on the defendants' motion to dismiss the "Bunk" complaint, which was initially filed as the case Linda J. Rossbach v. Vasco Data Security International, Inc., et al. On July 28, 2015 a putative class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, captioned Linda J. Rossbach v. Vasco Data Security International, Inc., et al., case number 1:15‑cv‑06605, naming the Company and certain of its current and former executive officers as defendants and alleging violations under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The suit was purportedly filed on behalf of a putative class of investors who purchased securities of the Company between April 28, 2015 and July 28, 2015, and seeks to recover damages allegedly caused by the defendants' alleged violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b‑5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint seeks certification as a class action and unspecified compensatory damages plus interest and attorneys' fees. Pursuant to a September 1, 2015 scheduling order entered by the court, the lead plaintiff, once appointed, will have sixty days to file an amended complaint or notify the defendants that the lead plaintiff intends to rely on the current complaint. On January 30, 2017, the appointed lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint in which the allegations regarding OFAC related matters were dropped and replaced with allegations regarding public disclosures made by the defendants in April 2015 as compared to public statements made in July 2015, generally regarding the strength of the Company's business and its future prospects. This case is now referred to by the name of the new lead plaintiff, Bunk. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Bunk complaint on March 31, 2017. A decision from the court on such motion has not been issued to date. OneSpan said, "Although the ultimate outcome of litigation cannot be predicted with certainty, the Company believes that this lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend against the action vigorously. OneSpan is indemnifying its officers and directors for this matter." OneSpan Inc. (formerly VASCO Data Security International, Inc.) designs, develops and markets digital solutions for identity, security, and business productivity that protect and facilitate electronic transactions, via mobile and connected devices. The company is based in Chicago, Illinois. PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss Sgarlata Suit Underway ------------------------------------------------------ PayPal Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2018, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that a motion to dismiss has been filed in the case entitled, Sgarlata v. PayPal Holdings, Inc., et al. In November 2017, the company announced that it had suspended the operations of TIO Networks ("TIO") as part of an ongoing investigation of security vulnerabilities of the TIO platform. On December 1, 2017, the company announced that it had identified evidence of unauthorized access to TIO's network, including locations that stored personal information of some of TIO's customers and customers of TIO billers and the potential compromise of personally identifiable information for approximately 1.6 million customers. PayPal Holdings said "We have received a number of governmental inquiries, including from state attorneys general, and we may be subject to additional governmental inquiries and investigations in the future." In addition, on December 6, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit captioned Sgarlata v. PayPal Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-06956 was filed in the Court against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, its Chief Financial Officer and Hamed Shahbazi, the former chief executive officer of TIO (the "Defendants") alleging violations of federal securities laws. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that Defendants made false or misleading statements or failed to disclose that TIO's data security program was inadequate to safeguard the personally identifiable information of its users, those vulnerabilities threatened continued operation of TIO's platform, the Company's revenues derived from TIO services were thus unsustainable, and consequently, the Company overstated the benefits of the TIO acquisition, and, as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. The plaintiff who initiated the lawsuit sought to represent a class of shareholders who acquired shares of the Company's common stock between February 14, 2017 through December 1, 2017 and sought damages and attorneys' fees, among other relief. On March 16, 2018, the Court appointed two new plaintiffs, not the original plaintiff who filed the case, as interim co-lead plaintiffs in the case and appointed two law firms as interim co-lead counsel. Pursuant to stipulations entered into by the parties to the case, the Court issued orders on March 30 and April 6, 2018 providing for the publication by interim co-lead counsel of an amended notice under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act given the anticipated amendment of the complaint to include an amended class definition that includes individuals who purchased options to purchase our common stock between February 14, 2017 through December 1, 2017, the filing of an amended complaint by co-lead plaintiffs within seventy-five days of the March 30, 2018 order, and a briefing schedule on the Defendants’ anticipated motions to dismiss the amended complaint. On June 13, 2018, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which named TIO Networks ULC, TIO Networks USA, Inc., and John Kunze (the Company's Vice President, Global Consumer Products and Xoom) as additional defendants. The amended complaint is purportedly brought on behalf of all persons other than the Defendants who acquired the Company's securities between November 10, 2017 and December 1, 2017. The amended complaint alleges that the Company's and TIO's November 10, 2017 announcement of the suspension of TIO's operations was false and misleading because the announcement only disclosed security vulnerabilities on TIO's platform, rather than an actual security breach that Defendants were allegedly aware of at the time of the announcement. Defendants' filed their motion to dismiss the amended complaint on July 13, 2018. PayPal Holdings said "We may be subject to additional litigation relating to TIO's data security platform or the suspension of TIO's operations in the future." PayPal Holdings, Inc. operates as a technology platform company that enables digital and mobile payments on behalf of consumers and merchants worldwide. Its payment solutions include PayPal, PayPal Credit, Braintree, Venmo, Xoom, and Paydiant products. PayPal Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1998 and is headquartered in San Jose, California. POAH COMMUNITIES: Tenants Demand Whereabouts of Security Deposit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jessica Cross and Kendra Turner, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Poah Communities, Inc., and Poah Greenwood Park Preservation Associates, L.P., Defendants, Case No. 2018-CH-06776 (Ill. Cir., May 29, 2018), seeks declaratory and ancillary injunctive relief and corrective measures to lease premises, costs, interest on the judgment, reasonable attorney's fees and any other relief for violation of the Chicago Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance Municipal Code. Plaintiffs are tenants renting unit C at the Building at 4711 S. Ellis on or about February 14, 2014 managed by Poah. Poah failed to disclose in writing on the Lease signed by its tenants, the name and address of the financial institution where tenant security deposits were deposited. Poah also failed to give written notices to their tenants the name and address of the new financial institution where tenant security deposits would be deposited, within 14 days of the transfer of those tenants' security deposits from one financial institution to another during the pendency of rental agreements. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Silverman, Esq. MARK SILVERMAN LAW OFFICE LTD. 225 W. Washington Suite 2200 Chicago, IL 60606 Tel: (312) 775-1015 Fax: (312) 256-2055 - and - TOOLE LAW OFFICE, LLC 1525 East 53rd St. Suite 535 Chicago, IL 60615 Tel: (773) 684-5730 Fax: (773) 684-1681 PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Garcia Appeals D.N.J. Ruling to 3rd Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Rufino D. Garcia filed an appeal from a court ruling in his lawsuit entitled Garcia v. Portfolio Recovery Associates LLC, Case No. 1-15-cv-03685, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought pursuant to the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has a policy, pattern or practice of filing collections lawsuits without intent to prove its claims. The Plaintiff also contends that PRA violates the FDCPA's prohibitions by using false representations or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect alleged debts, and using unfair or unconscionable means in connection with the collection of alleged debts. The appellate case is captioned as Garcia v. Portfolio Recovery Associates LLC, Case No. 18-2692, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant RUFINO D. GARCIA, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, is represented by: Peter Colonna-Romano, Esq. BEREZOFSKY LAW GROUP 210 Lake Drive East Woodland Falls Corporate Park, Suite 101 Cherry Hill, NJ 08002 Telephone: (856) 667-0500 - and - Christopher Markos, Esq. WILLIAMS CUKER & BEREZOFSKY 1515 Market Street, Suite 1300 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 557-0099 E-mail: cmarkos@wcblegal.com Defendant-Appellee PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES LLC is represented by: Amanda L. Genovese, Esq. TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP 875 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 704-6000 E-mail: amanda.genovese@troutmansanders.com POST HOLDINGS: Unit Settles Indirect Buyers' Antitrust Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Post Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2018, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that in the class action for alleged violations of antitrust laws related to the production and sale of egg products, subsidiary Michael Foods, Inc. settled all claims asserted against it by indirect purchaser plaintiffs on confidential terms. In late 2008 and early 2009, some 22 class action lawsuits were filed in various federal courts against Michael Foods, Inc. ("Michael Foods"), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, and some 20 other defendants (producers of shell eggs and egg products, and egg industry organizations), alleging violations of federal and state antitrust laws in connection with the production and sale of shell eggs and egg products, and seeking unspecified damages. All cases were transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for coordinated and/or consolidated pretrial proceedings. The case involved three types of plaintiffs: (1) a nationwide class of direct purchasers of shell eggs ("direct purchaser class"); (2) individual companies (primarily large grocery chains and food companies that purchase considerable quantities of eggs) that opted out of various settlements and filed their own complaints related to their purchases of shell eggs and egg products ("opt-out plaintiffs"); and (3) indirect purchasers of shell eggs ("indirect purchaser plaintiffs"). In December 2016, Michael Foods settled all claims asserted against it by the direct purchaser class for a payment of US$75.0 million, which was approved by the district court on December 21, 2017. Michael Foods settled all claims asserted against it by opt-out plaintiffs related to shell egg purchases on confidential terms on January 19, 2017. In June 2018, Michael Foods settled all claims asserted against it by indirect purchaser plaintiffs on confidential terms. Michael Foods has at all times denied liability in this matter, and no settlement contains any admission of liability by Michael Foods. Michael Foods remains a defendant only with respect to claims that seek damages based on purchases of egg products by opt-out plaintiffs. The district court had granted summary judgment precluding any claims for egg products purchases by opt-out plaintiffs, but the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded these claims for further pre-trial proceedings. Defendants have sought leave to file a motion for summary judgment dismissing these claims and a decision is pending. The Company said, "Although the likelihood of a material adverse outcome in the egg antitrust litigation has been significantly reduced as a result of the Michael Foods settlements, the remaining portion of the case could still result in a material adverse outcome. At this time, however, the Company does not believe it is possible to estimate any loss in connection with this remaining portion of the egg antitrust litigation. Accordingly, the Company cannot predict what impact, if any, this remaining matter and any results from such matter could have on the Company's future results of operations or cash flows." Post Holdings, Inc. operates as a consumer packaged goods holding company in the United States and internationally. It was founded in 1895 and is headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri. PQ NEW YORK: Murphy Files ADA Suit v. Cafe Chain ------------------------------------------------- JAMES MURPHY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. PQ NEW YORK, INC. d/b/a LE PAIN QUOTIDIEN, Case No. 1:18-cv-06878-PAE (S.D.N.Y., July 31, 2018), accuses the Defendant of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act by failing to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Web site -- http://www.lepainquotidien.com/-- to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. PQ New York, Inc., is a Delaware Corporation doing business in New York. The Defendant is a cafe chain that operates Le Pain Quotidien cafes, as well as the Le Pain Quotidien Web site. The Defendant's Web site provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including cafe locations and hours, the ability to browse the menu, order food online, and related goods and services available both in cafes and online.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Telephone: (929) 575-4175 Facsimile: (929) 575-4195 E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal - and - Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003-2461 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 E-mail: nyjg@aol.com danalgottlieb@aol.com PROTHENA CORPORATION: Granite Point Sues over Drop in Share Price ----------------------------------------------------------------- GRANITE POINT CAPITAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. PROTHENA CORPORATION PLC.; GENE G. KINNEY; TRAN B. NGUYEN; and SARAH NOONBERG, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-06425 (S.D.N.Y., July 16, 2018) alleges violation of the Securities and Exchange Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants are a development-stage biotechnology company. On October 15, 2015 and April 20, 2018, the Defendants' principal asset was NEOD001, a monoclonal antibody designed to treat amyloid light chain amyloidosis ("AL amyloidosis") which is a debilitating disease that can lead to organ failure and death. The Defendants cited the "best response" results of their ongoing Phase 1/2 clinical study of NEOD001 as evidence that the drug was effective, while withholding relevant trial data showing that NEOD001 was not an effective treatment for AL amyloidosis. In addition, Defendants made misleading comparisons of NEOD001's "best response" rates against prior studies that measured sustained responses after a specified period of time, and falsely told investors that their ongoing Phase 1/2 study provided a strong basis for late-stage Phase 2b and Phase 3 studies of NEOD001. However, the full Phase 1/2 study data demonstrated that NEOD001 was not an effective treatment for AL amyloidosis and did not provide an adequate basis for the late-stage Phase 2b and Phase 3 studies. On April 23, 2018, before the market opened, the Defendants stunned investors by announcing that it was ending all development of NEOD001 after data from its Phase 2b PRONTO trial showed that NEOD001 failed to reach either its primary or secondary endpoints, and was substantially less effective than a placebo. On this news, the price of the Defendants' stock fell from $36.84 per share on April 20, 2018, the prior trading day, to close at $11.50 per share on April 23, 2018, a drop of 69%. Prothena Corporation plc, a late-stage clinical biotechnology company, focuses on the discovery, development, and commercialization of novel immunotherapies for the treatment of diseases in the neuroscience and orphan categories. Prothena Corporation plc was incorporated in 2012 and is headquartered in Dun Laoghaire, Ireland. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher J. Keller, Esq. Eric J. Belfi, Esq. Francis P. McConville, Esq. David J. Schwartz, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 E-mail: ckeller@labaton.com ebelfi@labaton.com fmcconville@labaton.com dschwartz@labaton.com RATCHFORD LAW: Walch Class Suit Asserts FDCPA Breach ---------------------------------------------------- SUSAN WALCH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. RATCHFORD LAW GROUP, PC, Case No. 3:18-cv-30125 (D. Mass., July 31, 2018), accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by failing to meaningfully convey to the Plaintiff that unless she disputes the validity of an alleged debt, or any portion thereof, within 30 days after receipt of the initial communication, the debt will be assumed valid by the Defendant. Ratchford Law is an entity engaged, by use of the mails and telephone, in the business of attempting to collect a "debt" from the Plaintiff. The Defendant is a "debt collector" as defined by the FDCPA.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Ruggiero, Esq. THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PLLC 275 Grove Street, Suite 2-400 Newton, MA 02466 Telephone: (339) 237-0343 Facsimile: (866) 317-2674 E-mail: DRuggiero@ThompsonConsumerLaw.com RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE: Muszytowski Moves to Certify Class ----------------------------------------------------------- Anthony Muszytowski moves the Court to certify the class described in the complaint of the lawsuit titled ANTHONY MUSZYTOWSKI, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-01018-PP (E.D. Wisc.), and further asks that the Court both stay the motion for class certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the Motion. Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class action complaint could moot a class representative's case by depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a class certification motion, the Plaintiff asserts, citing Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016). To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs."). While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement of a class representative's claims, the same decision cautions that other methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class, the Plaintiff tells the Court, citing Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10839 *9-10 (7th Cir. June 20, 2017). The Plaintiff asserts that one defendant has attempted a similar tactic by sending a certified check to the proposed class representative. Bonin v. CBS Radio, Inc., No. 16-cv-674-CNC (E.D. Wis.); see also Severns v. Eastern Account Systems of Connecticut, Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 24, 2016). The Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiff contends. As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiff asserts. The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative, and for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class counsel. The Plaintiff is represented by: John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Jesse Fruchter, Esq. Ben J. Slatky, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com jfruchter@ademilaw.com bslatky@ademilaw.com ROSENDIN ELECTRIC: J. Lopez's Labor Suit Remanded to State Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Fernando M. Olguin of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California remanded the case, JACOB LOPEZ, Plaintiff, v. ROSENDIN ELECTRIC, INC., Defendant, Case No. CV 18-5074 FMO (JEMx) (C.D. Cal.), to the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles. On April 17, 2018, Lopez filed a Class Action Complaint in the Los Angeles County Superior Court against Rosendin. The Complaint asserts 10 claims for relief under California law: (1) violation of California Labor Code Sections 510 and 1198 (unpaid overtime); (2) violation of California Labor Code Sections 226.7 and 512(a) (unpaid meal period premiums); (3) violation of California Labor Code Section 226.7 (unpaid rest period premiums); (4) violation of California Labor Code Sections 1194, 1197, and 1197.1 (unpaid minimum wages); (5) violation of California Labor Code Sections 201 and 202 (final wages not timely paid); (6) violation of California Labor Code Section 204 (wages not timely paid during employment); (7) violation of California Labor Code Section 226(a) (non-compliant wage statements); (8) violation of California Labor Code Section 1174(d) (failure to keep requisite payroll records; (9) violation of California Labor Code Sections 2800 and 2802 (unreimbursed business expenses); and (10) violation of California Business & Professions Code Sections 17200, et seq. On June 4, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC") alleging five claims: (1) violation of California Labor Code Section 226.7 (unpaid rest period premiums); (2) violation of California Labor Code Sections 201 and 202 (final wages not timely paid); (3) violation of California Labor Code Section 226(a) (non-compliant wage statements); (4) violation of California Labor Code Sections 2800 and 2802 (unreimbursed business expenses); and (5) violation of California Business & Professions Code Sections 17200, et seq. On June 7, 2018, the Defendant removed the action to the Court on grounds of federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 and Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act ("LMRA"). It contends that the Court has original jurisdiction over claims in the action arising under federal law. It asserts that the claims in the Plaintiff's FAC cannot be resolved without reference to the collective bargaining agreement which governs the terms and conditions of the Plaintiff's former employment with Rosendin. Having reviewed and considered the pleadings and all the materials submitted by the Defendant, Judge Olguin remanded the action to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. He finds that the Defendant has not identified any disputed terms in the CBA or any terms complex enough to require interpretation rather than mere application. The Defendant merely points to CBA provisions that may be relevant to the litigation, but which are neither disputed by the parties nor complex enough to require interpretation as opposed to simple application. As a result, the Plaintiff's action is not preempted by Section 301 of the LMRA. A full-text copy of the Court's June 26, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/bvt2CD from Leagle.com. Jacob Lopez, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Edwin Aiwazian -- edwin@lfjpc.com -- Lawyers for Justice PC & Elizabeth Parker-Fawley -- elizabeth@lfjpc.com -- Lawyers for Justice PC. Rosendin Electric, Inc., a California corporation, Defendant, represented by Mark J. Payne -- MPayne@rutan.com -- Rutan and Tucker LLP. S1 SECURITY GROUP: Suarez Suit to Recover Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------ Orlando Suarez and other similarly-situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. S1 Security Group Inc. and Rolando E. Palma, individually, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-22111, (S.D. Fla., May 28, 2018), seeks to recover from Defendants minimum and overtime wages, liquidated damages, costs and reasonable attorney's fees under the provisions of Fair Labor Standards Act. S1 Security provides security services for business, residential communities, construction sites and executive body guard services. It employed Sandoval as a non-exempt security employee from August 31, 2015 to May 6, 2018. In many weeks, Suarez worked more than 40 hours per week but was never was properly compensated for overtime hours worked. Plaintiff was misclassified as an independent contractor, says the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Show Cause Order in "Kerkorian" Suit Entered ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, PAUL KERKORIAN, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New Jersey corporation, and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00870-DAD-SKO (E.D. Cal.), Judge Dale E. Drozd of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California ordered the Plaintiff to show cause as to why the case should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The Plaintiff filed the putative class action on June 22, 2018, alleging various state law causes of action on behalf of a putative class of consumers who purchased POWERbot robotic vacuum cleaners from the Defendant. His sole jurisdictional allegation is that the Court has jurisdiction over the Defendants named because such Defendants do business within the State of California. Judge Drozd holds that such a jurisdictional allegation is facially deficient. He explains that the two most common bases for federal subject matter jurisdiction are cases that are based on federal law -- commonly known as "federal question" jurisdiction -- and cases between parties of diverse citizenship that involve more than $75,000 in damages -- commonly known as "diversity" jurisdiction. Additionally, because this is a putative class action, it is possible the Plaintiff intended to invoke the Court's jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"), which provides the federal courts with jurisdiction over class actions in which the parties have minimal diversity and there is more than $5 million in dispute, exclusive of interest and costs. The complaint, however, identifies no statutory basis for this court's jurisdiction. A statement that the Defendants do business within the State of California, while possibly relevant to the question of personal jurisdiction, provides no basis for the Court's subject matter jurisdiction. Given the foregoing, Judge Drozd ordered the Plaintiff to show cause as to why the case should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. he Plaintiff may discharge the Order to show cause by identifying a statutory basis for jurisdiction and identifying the factual allegations in the complaint that support jurisdiction. A full-text copy of the Court's June 26, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/e2vbLJ from Leagle.com. Paul Kerkorian, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher E. Nichols -- CNichols@WBLawGroup.com -- Webb Law Group, APC & Lenden Franklin Webb -- LWebb@WBLawGroup.com -- Webb Law Group, APC. SCHOOL REFORM COMMISSION: Taxpayers Seek to Rescind Contract ------------------------------------------------------------ John M. Weathers, Richard A. Didio and David A. Taylor, individually and on behalf of all other taxpayers similarly situated v. The School Reform Commission and The New Teacher Project, Defendant, Case No. 180503241, (Pa. Comm. Pleas, May 30, 2018), seeks to enjoin and vacate the contract award at issue and from performing under same; to order the School District to undertake a new procurement process that complies in full with the requirements of the request for proposal at issue and the Procurement Manual; and such other equitable relief pursuant to Request for Proposal 567 dated November 9, 2017. The School District issued Request for Proposal 567 which solicited proposals for a professional services contract involving job-embedded coaching and professional development facilitation support for first and second-year principals in the School District. Plaintiff are taxpayers who believe that the School District's evaluation of proposals failed to identify the vendor whose proposal provides the best value. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Justin C. Danilewitz, Esq. Albert F. Moran, Esq. SAUL EWING ARNSTEIN & LEHR LLP Centre Square West 1500 Market Street, 38th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102-2186 Tel: (215) 972-1977 SEATTLE GENETICS: Cascadian Acquisition-Related Suits Dismissed --------------------------------------------------------------- Seattle Genetics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2018, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that all four class action suits related to Cascadian Therapeutics, Inc.'s acquisition have been voluntarily dismissed with prejudice. Between February 13, 2018 and February 16, 2018, four purported stockholders of Cascadian filed separate putative class action lawsuits and an individual complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware and the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington against Cascadian and former members of its then-separate board of directors and the company. The cases filed in Delaware were Kim v. Cascadian Therapeutics, Inc., et al., and Palazzo v. Cascadian Therapeutics, Inc., et al. The cases filed in Washington were Jaso v. Cascadian Therapeutics, Inc., et al., and Bensimon v. Cascadian Therapeutics, Inc., et al. The plaintiffs alleged violations of Sections 14(d) and 14(e) of the Exchange Act, Rule 14d-9(d) promulgated under Section 14(d) of the Exchange Act, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act in connection with the Schedule 14D-9 filed by Cascadian with the SEC on February 8, 2018 in relation to the Cascadian Acquisition. The Bensimon complaint alleged that the Cascadian board breached its fiduciary duties of care, loyalty and good faith by entering into the Cascadian Acquisition and allegedly failing to take steps to maximize Cascadian's value. All four complaints alleged that the Schedule 14D-9 omitted material information, ostensibly rendering the Schedule 14D-9 materially incomplete. The complaints sought, among other things, to enjoin the Cascadian Acquisition and/or damages. On March 8, 2018, plaintiffs in the Kim, Palazzo and Bensimon cases, or the KPB Group, filed a motion in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware seeking the award of reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses as a result of the alleged benefit provided to Cascadian shareholders from the supplemental disclosures Cascadian made following the filing of their purported class actions. Cascadian entered into settlement and release agreements with the Jaso plaintiff and the KPB Group on May 21 and 22, 2018, respectively. All four cases have been voluntarily dismissed with prejudice. Seattle Genetics, Inc., a biotechnology company, focuses on the development and commercialization of targeted therapies for the treatment of cancer worldwide. Seattle Genetics, Inc. was founded in 1998 and is headquartered in Bothell, Washington. SEATTLE GENETICS: Court Dismisses CD33A Class Action ---------------------------------------------------- Seattle Genetics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2018, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the Court in CD33A class action suit granted the company's motion to dismiss with prejudice and entered a final judgment and order dismissing all claims against all defendants. On January 10, 2017, a purported securities class action lawsuit was commenced in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, or the Court, naming as defendants the company and certain of its officers, or the CD33A Class Action. A consolidated amended complaint was filed on June 6, 2017, following the court's appointment of a lead plaintiff and its approval of lead plaintiff's counsel. The lawsuit alleged material misrepresentations and omissions in public statements regarding the company's business, operational and compliance policies, violations by all named defendants of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, as well as violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint sought compensatory damages of an undisclosed amount. The plaintiff alleged, among other things, that the company made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that SGN-CD33A presents a significant risk of fatal hepatotoxicity and that the company had therefore overstated the viability of SGN-CD33A as a treatment for acute myeloid leukemia, AML. On May 24, 2018, the Court granted the company's motion to dismiss with prejudice and entered a final judgment and order dismissing all claims against all defendants. Seattle Genetics, Inc., a biotechnology company, focuses on the development and commercialization of targeted therapies for the treatment of cancer worldwide. Seattle Genetics, Inc. was founded in 1998 and is headquartered in Bothell, Washington. SEMPER SOLARIS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Anthony Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- JOSHUA ANTHONY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SEMPER SOLARIS CONSTRUCTION, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No. 37-2018-00035320-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty., July 16, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods. Mr. Anthony was employed by the Defendants as inspection representative from August 2015 to May 16, 2018. Semper Solaris Construction, Inc. own and operate a business selling and installing solar-powered systems for homes and businesses in San Diego, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul K. Haines, Esq. Sean M. Blakely, Esq. Daniel J. Brown, Esq. HAINES LAW GROUP, APC 222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (424) 292-2350 Facsimile: (424) 292-2355 E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com sblakely@haineslawgroup.com dbrown@haineslawgroup.com SIRIUS XM: Still Defend "Buchanan" Suit over Robocalls ------------------------------------------------------ Sirius XM Holdings 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 continues to defend itself in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act Suit filed by Thomas Buchanan. On March 13, 2017, Thomas Buchanan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint against the company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. The plaintiff in this action alleges that the company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (the "TCPA") by, among other things, making telephone solicitations to persons on the National Do-Not-Call registry, a database established to allow consumers to exclude themselves from telemarketing calls unless they consent to receive the calls in a signed, written agreement, and making calls to consumers in violation of our internal Do-Not-Call registry. The plaintiff is seeking various forms of relief, including statutory damages of five hundred dollars for each violation of the TCPA or, in the alternative, treble damages of up to fifteen hundred dollars for each knowing and willful violation of the TCPA and a permanent injunction prohibiting us from making, or having made, any calls to land lines that are listed on the National Do-Not-Call registry or our internal Do-Not-Call registry. Sirius XM Holdings said "We believe we have substantial defenses to the claims asserted in this action, and we intend to defend this action vigorously." Sirius XM Holdings Inc. provides satellite radio services in the United States. The company broadcasts music plus sports, entertainment, comedy, talk, news, traffic, and weather programs, including various music genres ranging from rock, pop and hip-hop to country, dance, jazz, Latin, and classical; live play-by-play sports from principal leagues and colleges; multitude of talk and entertainment channels for various audiences; national, international, and financial news; and limited run channels. The company was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in New York, New York. Sirius XM Holdings Inc. is a subsidiary of Liberty Media Corporation. SOLSTICE MARKETING: Faces Wu Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Solstice Marketing Concepts LLC. The case is captioned as Kathy Wu, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Solstice Marketing Concepts LLC; Solstice Marketing Corporation; and Safilo USA, Inc, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-06409-ER (S.D.N.Y., July 16, 2018). The lawsuit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is assigned to Judge Edgardo Ramos and referred to Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron. Solstice Marketing Concepts, LLC operates as a retailer of luxury, designer, and sport performance sunglasses for men and women. The company is based in New York, New York. It has store locations in the United States and Canada. Solstice Marketing Concepts, LLC operates as a subsidiary of Safilo Group S.p.A. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (917) 796-7437 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: danalgottlieb@aol.com SPACE NK USA LLC: Olsen Says Website not Blind-friendly ------------------------------------------------------- Thomas J. Olsen, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Space NK USA LLC, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-04694, (S.D. N.Y., May 28, 2018), seeks preliminary and permanent injunction, compensatory, statutory and punitive damages and fines, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and expenses of this action together with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such other and further relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law. Space NK owns and operates stores throughout the United States, including a location at 31 Prince Street, New York, New York and within Bloomingdales' department stores located in New York. It sells, at these locations, skin care products, makeup, haircare fragrances and similar items. It also provides a website, www.spacenk.com which allows all consumers to access the facilities and services that it offers about its retail stores. Olsen browsed and intended to make avail of their services. Plaintiff is legally blind and claims that Defendant's website cannot be accessed by the visually-impaired. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq. Christopher H. Lowe, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP 630 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor New York, NY 10017-6705 Tel: (212) 392-4772 Fax: (212) 444-1030 Email: doug@lipskylowe.com chris@lipskylowe.com SSC KERRVILLE: Fails to Pay OT Wages to RNs & LVNs, Passmore Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- ROSARIO PASSMORE and BRENDA L. CHAFTON, f/k/a BRENDA AGBEYE, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. SSC KERRVILLE HILLTOP VILLAGE OPERATING COMPANY LLC; SSC KERRVILLE EDGEWATER OPERATING COMPANY, LLC; SSC KERRVILLE ALPINE TERRACE OPERATING COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 5:18-cv-00782 (W.D. Tex., July 31, 2018), alleges that the Defendants have violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing and refusing to pay their Registered Nurses and Licensed Vocational Nurses at time-and-one-half the regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours within a workweek. Headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, SSC Kerrville Hilltop Village Operating Company LLC, SSC Kerrville Edgewater Operating Company LLC and SSC Kerrville Alpine Terrace Operating Company LLC are foreign limited liability companies that are currently authorized to do business in Texas, and are doing business in Texas. The Defendants operate short-term and long-term health care facilities in and around Kerr County, Texas. The Defendants provide health care services, primarily to seniors, including skilled nursing care, physical therapy (short-term and long-term), occupational therapy (short-term and long-term), speech therapy (short-term and long-term), wound care, hospice care, and respite care.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Edmond S. Moreland, Jr., Esq. MORELAND LAW FIRM, P.C. 700 West Summit Drive Wimberley, TX 78676 Telephone: (512) 782-0567 Facsimile: (512) 782-0605 E-mail: edmond@morelandlaw.com - and - Daniel A. Verrett, Esq. MORELAND LAW FIRM, P.C. The Commissioners House at Heritage Square 2901 Bee Cave Road, Box L Austin, TX 78746 Telephone: (512) 782-0567 Facsimile: (512) 782-0605 E-mail: daniel@morelandlaw.com STRAND BOOK: Murphy Wants Web Site Accessible to Visually-impaired ------------------------------------------------------------------ JAMES MURPHY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. STRAND BOOK STORE, INC., Case No. 1:18-cv-06881-GHW (S.D.N.Y., July 31, 2018), seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its Web site -- http://www.strandbooks.com/-- will become and remain accessible to the Plaintiff and other blind and visually-impaired consumers. Strand Book Store, Inc., is a New York Corporation doing business in New York. The Company is a book and gift retailer that operates STRAND BOOKS Stores, as well as the STRAND BOOKS Web site.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl. Brooklyn, NY 11201 Telephone: (929) 575-4175 Facsimile: (929) 575-4195 E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal - and - Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003-2461 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 E-mail: nyjg@aol.com danalgottlieb@aol.com SUPER MICRO: Consolidated Securities Suit Filing Due Sept. 24 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, LOGAN HESSEFORT, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. SUPER MICRO COMPUTER, INC., et al., Defendants, Lead Case No. 3:18-cv-00838-JST (N.D. Cal.), Judge Jon S. Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has entered a stipulated order regarding the filing of the consolidated complaint by the Lead Plaintiff, the Defendants' response thereto, and continuing the initial case management conference. On Feb. 8, 2018, two class action complaints were filed against the Company, Charles Liang, and Howard Hideshima: (1) Hessefort v. Super Micro Computer, Inc. No 3:18-cv-838, and (2) United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers & Allied Workers Local Union No. 8 WBPA Fund v. Super Micro Computer, Inc., No. 3:18-cv-850-JST. The Complaints allege claims under the federal securities laws, regarding among other matters the Company's failure to timely file its 2017 Annual Report on Form 10-K and other financial statements in light of an internal investigation into revenue recognition, that are subject to the procedural requirements of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, including those set forth in 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4. On April 9, 2018, New York Hotel Trades Council & Hotel Association of New York City, Inc. Pension Fund moved for an order: (1) consolidating the related actions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a); (2) appointing the Pension Fund as the lead Plaintiff; and (3) approving the Pension Fund's selection of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as the lead counsel. On May 8, 2018, the Court found United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers & Allied Workers Local Union No. 8 WBPA Fund v. Super Micro Computer, Inc., No. 3:18-cv-850 to be related to Hessefort v. Super Micro Computer, Inc., No 3:18-cv-838 (ECF No. 41). On May 9, 2018, the Clerk issued notice that the Initial Case Management Conference set for May 24, 2018, was continued to Aug. 29, 2018, and that a Joint Case Management Statement was due by 5:00 p.m. on Aug. 20, 2018. On May 25, 2018, the Court appointed the Pension Fund as the lead Plaintiff, approved its selection of Robbins Geller as the lead counsel, and consolidated Hessefort v. Super Micro Computer, Inc., No 3:18-cv-838 and United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers & Allied Workers Local Union No. 8 WBPA Fund v. Super Micro Computer, Inc., No. 3:18-cv-850. ECF No. 46. The Company has not yet filed its SEC Form 10-K for Fiscal Year 2017, or its Forms 10-Q for the quarters ended Sept. 30, 2017, Dec. 31, 2017, or March 31, 2018. On May 10, 2018, Super Micro Computer, Inc. issued a press release stating that the Nasdaq Hearings Panel of The Nasdaq Stock Market has granted the Company's request to continue its listing on Nasdaq through Aug. 24, 2018, subject to the condition that the Company becomes current with its U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings by that date. Because the Company's anticipated SEC filings (or potential delisting) are expected by the lead Plaintiff to bear directly on its allegations and likely will be incorporated into a consolidated complaint, the parties propose a schedule, subject to the Court's approval, that allows time for the lead Plaintiff to assess the content of the Company's delinquent filings with the SEC before filing the consolidated complaint, as well as the continuance of the Initial Case Management Conference (and related Joint Case Management Statement). The proposed schedule would help avoid the unnecessary expenditure of judicial resources or effort by the Court or the parties. The Defendants intend to file a motion to dismiss, which would trigger a stay of discovery under the Reform Act. Therefore the parties stipulated and Judge Tigar granted as follows: 1. The Defendants waive service of the summons and Complaint and accept service of the Complaint as of the date of the Stipulation; 2. The lead Plaintiff will file and serve a consolidated complaint no later than Sept. 24, 2018; 3. The Defendants will file and serve any answer or other response within 45 days of service of the consolidated complaint; 4. The lead Plaintiff will file and serve any opposition to the Defendants' motion to dismiss within 45 days of service of the motion to dismiss; 5. The Defendants will file and serve any reply brief in support of the motion to dismiss within 30 days of service of any opposition brief; and 6. The Initial Case Management Conference, currently scheduled for Aug. 29, 2018 at 2:00 p.m., is adjourned to such other date and time as the Court will order. Until the date of such Case Management Conference, the stay of discovery will remain in place, subject to the parties' right to seek to lift the stay. A full-text copy of the Court's June 26, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/OWSUZK from Leagle.com. Logan Hessefort, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer Pafiti -- jpafiti@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, J. Alexander Hood, II -- ahood@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice & Jeremy A. Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice. New York Hotel Trades Council & Hotel Association of New York City, Inc. Pension Fund, Movant, represented by Tricia Lynn McCormick -- TriciaM@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Daniel Jacob Pfefferbaum -- dpfefferbaum@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Shawn A. Williams -- shawnw@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP. Bristol County Retirement System, Movant, represented by K.C. Maxwell -- kmaxwell@bgrfirm.com -- Maxwell Law PC. Qiong Shen, Movant, represented by Laurence M. Rosen -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement System, Movant, represented by Richard Martin Heimann -- rheimann@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, Katherine Collinge Lubin -- klubin@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP & Lester Rene Hooker -- lhooker@saxenawhite.com -- Saxena White P.A.. SUPERRUAY CORP: Fails to Pay OT to Cooks, Basurto Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE LUIS ANGEL BASURTO and HUGO NERI DE JESUS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SUPERRUAY CORP. D/B/A LARB UBOL; NIRUN NOREE; RATCHANEE SUMPATBOON A.K.A POODAM; and KHAO DOE, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-06368 (S.D.N.Y., July 13, 2018) is an action against the Defendants to recover unpaid minimum, overtime wages, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as cook. Mr. Basurto was employed from September 2014 to June 19, 2018, and Mr. Neri de Jesus on February 2018 to June 19, 2018. Superruay Corp. a company engaged in the restaurant business. It owns, operates, or controls a Thai restaurant, located at 480 9th Ave, New York, NY 10018 under the name "Larb Ubol". [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 SUPERVALU INC: Summary Judgment, Class Cert. Bids Still Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Supervalu Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2018, for the quarterly period ended June 16, 2018, that the company still awaits for the court ruling on its motion for summary judgment and Daubert motion and on plaintiff's motion for class certification. In December 2008, a class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin against the company alleging that a 2003 transaction between Supervalu and C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc. ("C&S") was a conspiracy to restrain trade and allocate markets. In the 2003 transaction, the company purchased certain assets of the Fleming Corporation as part of Fleming Corporation's bankruptcy proceedings and sold certain of its assets to C&S that were located in New England. Three other retailers filed similar complaints in other jurisdictions and the cases were consolidated and are proceeding in the United States District Court in Minnesota. The complaints alleged that the conspiracy was concealed and continued through the use of non-compete and non-solicitation agreements and the closing down of the distribution facilities that the company and C&S purchased from each other. Plaintiffs are divided into Midwest plaintiffs and a New England plaintiff and are seeking monetary damages, injunctive relief and attorney's fees. On June 19, 2015, the District Court Magistrate Judge entered an order that decided a number of matters including granting Midwest plaintiffs' request to seek class certification for certain Midwest distribution centers and denying New England plaintiff's request to add an additional New England plaintiff and denying plaintiff's request to seek class certification for a group of New England retailers. In September 2015, the New England plaintiff appealed to the 8th Circuit the denial of the request to add an additional New England plaintiff and to seek class certification for a group of New England retailers and the hearing before the 8th Circuit occurred on May 17, 2016. On September 7, 2016, the District Court granted Midwest plaintiffs' motion to certify five Midwest distribution center classes, only one of which sued the company (the non-arbitration Champaign distribution center class). On March 1, 2017, the 8th Circuit denied the New England plaintiff's appeals seeking to join an additional New England plaintiff and the appeal seeking the ability to move for class certification of a smaller New England class. Supervalu Inc. said, "At a mediation on May 25, 2017, we reached a settlement with the non-arbitration Champaign distribution center class, which is the one Midwest class suing us. We and the Midwest plaintiffs entered into a settlement agreement and the court granted final approval of the settlement on November 17, 2017. The material terms of the settlement include: (1) denial of wrongdoing and liability by us; (2) release of all Midwest plaintiffs’ claims against us related to the allegations and transactions at issue in the litigation that were raised or could have been raised by the non-arbitration Champaign distribution center class; and (3) payment by us of $9. There is no contribution between us and C&S, and C&S did not settle the claims alleged against it and on April 19, 2018, a jury returned a verdict in favor of C&S determining that there was no conspiracy between Supervalu and C&S to restrain trade." The New England plaintiff is not a party to the settlement and is pursuing its individual claims and potential class action claims against us, which at this time are determined as remote. On February 15, 2018, the company filed a summary judgment and Daubert motion and the New England plaintiff filed a motion for class certification. The hearing on the motions occurred on May 16, 2018, and we are waiting for a decision. Supervalu Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a grocery wholesaler and retailer in the United States and internationally. It operates through two segments, Wholesale and Retail. The company was founded in 1871 and is headquartered in Eden Prairie, Minnesota. TAKING CARE: Gipson Action Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay -------------------------------------------------------- Linda Gipson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Taking Care Of Our Seniors, Inc. (d/b/a TKOOS) and Beverly L. Davis, individually, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-03745, (N.D. Ill., May 29, 2018), seeks recovery of overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law for failure to pay Plaintiff and other caregivers owed overtime wages for time worked in excess of forty hours per workweek. Defendants provide personal caregiving services to elderly individuals in their homes. Gipson worked multiple, consecutive 24-hour shifts in the homes of Defendants' clients. During the 24-hour shifts, Defendants automatically deducted eight hours for sleep time and three hours for meal and break time regardless of whether these were availed of or not, notes the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas M. Werman, Esq. Maureen A. Salas, Esq. Sarah J. Arendt, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 West Washington, Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Tel: (312) 419-1008 Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com msalas@flsalaw.com sarendt@flsalaw.com THREE SONZ: Branum Suit Seeks Payment of OT, Minimum Wage --------------------------------------------------------- Betty J. Branum, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Three Sonz LLC, Three Sonz II LLC, Three Sonz III LLC, Three Sonz IV LLC, Adnan Beydoun and Jane Doe Beydoun, Case No. 2:18-cv-02247 (D. Ariz., July 17, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime and minimum wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked as a cashier/customer service representatives for the Defendants. The Plaintiff was a full-time, non-exempt employee who worked for Defendant Three Sonz II LLC at Defendants' Ellsworth location at 1208 South Ellsworth Road Mesa, AZ 85209 from approximately October 2017 through approximately January 2018. The Defendants own and operate as Three Sonz, an enterprise located in Maricopa County, Arizona. The Defendants operate gas station companies whose primary marketplace offering is selling automobile fuel and various retail items. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clifford P. Bendau, II, Esq. Christopher J. Bendau, Esq. BENDAU & BENDAU PLLC P.O. Box 97066 Phoenix, AZ 85060 Tel: (480) 382-5176 Fax: (480) 304-3805 E-mail: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com chris@bendaulaw.com TUMINO'S TOWING: Jurisdictional Discovery Ordered in "Kiley" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Re: D.E. 10, Plaintiff's Motion to Remand Kiley, v. Tumino's Towing, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-3165 (JMV) (SCM) (D. N.J.), Magistrate Judge Steven C. Mannion of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey ordered the parties to produce limited jurisdictional discovery to determine what percentage of the putative class members are domiciled in New Jersey. Mr. Kiley instituted the putative class action to recover damages and injunctive relief for Tumino's Towing allegedly unlawful and predatory towing practices. His individual claims arise out of a nonconsensual tow of his vehicle that Tumino's Towing performed from a location in Ridgefield Park, New Jersey on Feb. 15, 2017. The complaint alleges that certain of the fees and charges that Tumino's Towing required Mr. Kiley to pay were unlawful under various New Jersey state consumer protection laws. Mr. Kiley seeks to certify a class of similarly situated customers whose vehicles were nonconsensually towed by Tumino's Towing throughout New Jersey during a six year period prior to Jan. 31, 2018, the date Mr. Kiley filed his complaint in the Union County Superior Court. The complaint does not set forth the citizenship of the proposed class members but includes each person whose vehicle was non-consensually towed by Defendants from a location in New Jersey, not as a result of an accident, during the relevant time period. Tumino's Towing estimates, based on towing records and invoices, that since 2012 they have performed approximately 13,000 such tows. On March 5, 2018, Tumino's Towing removed the action on the ground that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the case under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"). Tumino's Towing alleges that the case qualifies for CAFA jurisdiction because it is a class action in which the class has more than 100 members and the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5 million exclusive of interest and costs, and any member of the class of the Plaintiffs is a citizen of a State different from any Defendant. Mr. Kiley does not contest that the case qualifies for federal subject matter jurisdiction under CAFA but filed a Motion to Remand on April 4, 2018 on the ground that remand is required under CAFA's mandatory "Home State" exception or proper under the discretionary "Home State" exception. Based on the minimal information before the Court with regard to the proposed class members' citizenship, Magistrate Judge Mannion finds that Mr. Kiley has not shown that an exception to CAFA jurisdiction applies. However, because Mr. Kiley's claims regarding the citizenship of the proposed class members do not appear to be clearly frivolous, and because he finds that more information regarding citizenship will assist the Court in determining whether remand is proper, the Magistrate Judge will Mr. Kiley's request for jurisdictional discovery. Tumino's Towing possesses ample information regarding the citizenship of the putative class members which will allow the Court to determine whether either of the aforementioned CAFA exceptions apply. Therefore, the Magistrate Judge ordered limited jurisdictional discovery to allow Mr. Kiley to determine what percentage of the putative class members are domiciled in New Jersey. The parties will meet and confer and submit a proposed jurisdictional discovery plan by July 11, 2018. A full-text copy of the Court's June 27, 2018 Letter Opinion is available at https://is.gd/q73LeO from Leagle.com. SEAN KILEY, On behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by ANDREW R. WOLF -- awolf@wolflawfirm.net -- The Wolf Law Firm, LLC, MARK A. FISHER -- MFisher@wolflawfirm.net -- THE WOLF LAW FIRM, LLC & MATTHEW SCOTT OORBEEK -- moorbeek@genovaburns.com -- Genova Burns, LLC. TUMINO'S TOWING, INC. & JOHN TUMINO, Defendants, represented by CAROLINE ELEANORE OKS -- coks@gibbonslaw.com -- GIBBONS PC & MICHAEL R. MCDONALD -- mmcdonald@gibbonslaw.com -- GIBBONS, PC. ULTA BEAUTY: Levi & Korsinsky to Lead in Securities Fraud Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, BARBARA CHANDLER, Plaintiff, v. ULTA BEAUTY, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-1577 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, (i) granted Lehigh County Employees Retirement Fund's motion to withdraw, and struck its motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of selection of the lead counsel; (ii) granted Hurlbut Group's motion to for leave to file a sur-reply; (iii) granted Lawrence Banker, Cynthia Busse, Danny Hurlbut, Marlene Hurlbut's motion for appointment as the lead Plaintiffs, and approved their selection of Levi & Korsinsky, LLP as the lead counsel and Salas Wang, LLC as the liaison counsel; and (iv) denied the remaining motions for appointment as the lead Plaintiff. This is a securities class action against Ult, Mary N. Dillon, and Scott M. Settersten. Ulta operates a chain of beauty stores that offers cosmetics, fragrance, skin and hair care products, and salon services to customers throughout the United States. Dillon served at all relevant times as the Company's CEO and Director. Settersten served at all relevant times as the Company's Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Assistant Secretary. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (i) the Company was engaged in the widespread practice of repackaging returned cosmetics and re-shelving them alongside unblemished products to sell at full retail price; and (ii) that as a result of the foregoing, Ulta's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On Feb. 9, 2018, media outlets reported that a consumer class action had been filed against the Company, alleging that the Company engaged in the 'widespread and surreptitious' practice of repacking returned cosmetics and re-shelving them alongside unblemished products to sell at full price. The price of Ulta's stock fell following the news. On Feb. 23, 2018, CBS News published a story reporting on statements made by at least one former Ulta employee indicating that Ulta store managers pressured the Company's employees to clean and resell used products. The price of Ulta's stock fell further following the news. On March 2, 2018, Chandler filed the securities class action on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Ulta securities between March 30, 2016 and Feb. 23, 2018, both days inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by the Defendants' alleged violations of federal securities laws. Four movants sought appointment as the lead Plaintiff and the lead counsel in the matter: (1) Daniel Hurlbut, Marlene Hurlbut, Cynthia Busse, and Lawrence Banker ("Hurlbut Group"); (2) Asha Ullah, Ahmad Ullah, and Dr. Vaijinath Chakote ("Ullah Group"); (3) Iron Workers Local 580; and (4) Lehigh County Employees Retirement Fund. Lehigh County Employees Retirement Fund filed a motion to withdrawal its motion for appointment as the lead Plaintiff and approval of selection of the lead counsel. Accordingly, Lehigh County Employees Retirement Fund's motion to withdraw is granted and its motion for appointment as the lead Plaintiff and approval of selection of the lead counsel is stricken. Judge Dow finds that the remaining movants have all recognized that the Hurlbut Group had more than $180,000 in losses. The parties have submitted a number of loss calculations for the other movants, ranging from $49,331.78 to $58,598 for IW 580 and ranging from $8,954.00 to $25,398.10 for the Ullah Group. The Judge therefore concludes that the Hurlbut Group has the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the class. The Hurlbut Group also meets the adequacy requirement in Rule 23(a). There is no indication that the Hurlbut Group's claims conflict with those of the class. Given the Hurlbut Group's alleged losses, it has a substantial interest in the outcome of this case. Finally, the Hurlbut Group is represented by competent, experienced counsel. Because the Hurlbut Group satisfies all the criteria of 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(I), it is presumed the "most adequate plaintiff" under the PSLRA. Because no party has rebutted the Hurlbut Group's presumptive lead Plaintiff status, Judge Dow granted the Hurlbut Group's motion for appointment as the lead Plaintiff. The Hurlbut Group has selected Levi & Korsinsky, LLP as lead the counsel and Salas Wang, LLC as the liaison counsel. No party has challenged the Hurlbut Group's choice of counsel. Given the extensive experience of these firms in the area of securities law, the Judge approved them as the counsel in the case. The case is set for further status on July 17, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. A full-text copy of the Court's June 26, 2018 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/zCOurz from Leagle.com. Barbara Chandler, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Patrick Vincent Dahlstrom -- pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, J. Alexander Hood, II -- ahood@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz Llp, Louis Carey Ludwig -- lcludwig@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP & Jeremy Alan Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP. Ulta Beauty, Inc., Mary N. Dillon & Scott M. Settersten, Defendants, represented by Craig Christopher Martin -- cmartin@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block LLP, Howard Steven Suskin -- hsuskin@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block LLP, Matt D. Basil -- mbasil@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block LLP & Paul Benjamin Rietema -- prietema@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block Llp. Ulta Investor Group, Movant, represented by Jeffrey Michael Salas -- jsalas@salaswang.com -- Salas Wang LLC. Danny Hurlbut, Marlene Hurlbut & Cynthia Busse, Movants, represented by Jeffrey Michael Salas, Salas Wang LLC & Shannon Hopkins -- shopkins@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, pro hac vice. Lawrence Banker, Movant, represented by Gregory Potrepka -- gpotrepka@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey Michael Salas, Salas Wang LLC & Shannon Hopkins, Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, pro hac vice. Lehigh County Employees Retirement Fund, Movant, represented by Danielle S. Myers -- danim@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd Llp. Asha Ullah, Ahmad Ullah & Vaijinath Chakote, Movants, represented by Charles H. Linehan -- clinehan@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, pro hac vice, John Scott Monical -- jmonical@LKSU.com -- Lawrence, Kamin, Saunders & Uhlenhop, Lesley F. Portnoy -- lportnoy@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, pro hac vice, Marielise Fraioli -- mfraioli@LKSU.com -- Lawrence Kamin Saunders & Uhlenhop, LLC, Mitchell Benjamin Goldberg, Lawrence, Kamin, Saunders & Uhlenhop, Peter E. Cooper -- pcooper@lawrencekaminlaw.com -- Lawrence, Kamin, Saunders & Uhlenhop & Robert Vincent Prongay -- rprongay@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, pro hac vice. UNITED STATES: NY Court Certifies Class of UAC ---------------------------------------------- In the case, L.V.M., a minor, by and through his next friend EDITH ESMERALDA MEJIA DE GALINDO, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs/Petitioners, v. SCOTT LLOYD, Director, Office of Refugee Resettlement; JONATHAN WHITE, Deputy Director, Office of Refugee Resettlement; STEVEN WAGNER, Acting Assistant Secretary for the Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; ALEX AZAR, Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; ELCY VALDEZ, Federal Field Specialist, Office of Refugee Resettlement; JEREMY KOHOMBAN, President and Chief Executive Officer, Children's Village, Defendants/Respondents, Case No. 18 Civ. 1453 (PAC) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Paul A. Crotty of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (i) denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Complaint; (ii) granted the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification; and (iii) granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. The lawsuit is about how the U.S. Government treats unaccompanied alien children ("UAC"). Generally, when UAC are apprehended by an agency of the Federal Government, such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE"), the agency must transfer custody of the UAC to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Refugee Resettlement ("ORR") within 72 hours. ORR is then responsible for the care and custody of the UAC, until they are reunited with a family member or placed with other individuals or entities, while removal proceedings go forward in immigration courts. When UAC come into ORR's custody, ORR places UAC into one of three types of state licensed, ORR-funded, caretaker facilities: (1) secure facility; (2) staff-secure facility; and (3) shelter care facility. A secure facility has the most restrictive custodial condition and it is in many ways akin to juvenile jails; a staff-secure facility is less restrictive than a secure facility, but movement within it is substantially controlled; and a shelter care facility is the least restrictive custodial setting. These facilities are supposed to provide UAC with housing, education, health, and case management services. The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 ("TVPRA") mandates that ORR "promptly" place UAC in the least restrictive setting that is in the best interests of the child. Prompt placement of the child is critical to minimize the deleterious impact (anxiety, depression, and/or cognitive change) of detention. There is no dispute that the longer the detention, the greater the impact. The lawsuit challenges the ORR's newly revised process for placing UAC in the most appropriate setting at the earliest possible opportunity. In mid-2017, the then-newly appointed director of ORR, Scott Lloyd, added a director review step to the UAC release process, requiring his personal approval of release decisions involving UAC who are housed in a staff-secure facility or have ever been housed in a staff-secure or secure facility. The Plaintiffs claim that the director review step adds unjustifiable delays to the UAC release process and violates the administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), TVPRA, and Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Lead Plaintiff L.V.M., who is an UAC, brings the action on behalf of himself and those similarly situated against Scott Lloyd, Jonathan White, Steven Wagner, Alex Azar, and Ely Valdez ("Defendants") who are federal officers and employees of ORR, seeking injunctive relief and declaratory judgment, as well as habeas relief. To be clear, the lawsuit challenges only the ORR's process for promptly placing UAC in the most appropriate setting. The Plaintiffs move for class certification and a preliminary injunction; the Defendants move to dismiss. The Plaintiffs seek to certify the class of all children who are or will be in the custody of ORR in New York State and who are currently housed in a staff-secure facility or have ever been housed in a staff-secure or secure facility. With the Court's leave, the parties completed expedited discovery. On June 7, 2018, the Court heard oral argument on each of the motions. Judge Crotty (i) denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss; granted the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification; and (iii) granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. The Judge finds that not only have the Plaintiffs pleaded plausible statutory and constitutional violations, but they have also adequately demonstrated irreparable injury and the likelihood of success on numerous claims. For example, the APA guards against agency actions instituted based on personal preference of decisionmakers. According to evidence before the Court, Lloyd's director review policy was instituted within hours of Lloyd's appointment as the director of ORR, with no record demonstrating the need for a change. Apparently, the change was based on unidentified news reports about criminal activities involving immigrant minors. Expedited discovery has not yielded any record showing a consideration of relevant law, agency documents, or the impact on UAC. This is at the zenith of impermissible agency actions. This unlawful agency action keeps the Plaintiffs -- the very subjects that ORR is statutorily mandated to protect -- from reuniting with their sponsors for at the very least 35 more days (and likely more than that) in a process which already takes too long. The Judge holds that the Court cannot turn a blind eye tothe Plaintiffs' suffering and irreparable injury. He directed the ORR to vacate the director review policy, as reflected in ORR Guide: Children Entering the United States Unaccompanied as revised on June 12, 2017, until further order of the Court. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the pending motions at ECF 2, 41, and 61. A full-text copy of the Court's June 27, 2018 Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/PPe3Rw from Leagle.com. L.V.M., a minor, by and through his next friend Edith Esmeralda Mejia De Galindo, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, Petitioner, represented by Paige Austin, New York Civil Liberties Union, Aadhithi Padmanabhan, New York Civil Liberties Union, Robert Andrew Hodgson, New York Civil Liberties Union, Scout Katherine Katovich, New York Civil Liberties Union & Christopher T. Dunn, New York Civil Liberties Union. Scott Lloyd, Director, Office Refugee Resettlement, Jonathan White, Deputy Director, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Steven Wagner, Acting Assistant Secretary for the Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Alex Azar, Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services & Elcy Valdez, Federal Field Specialist, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Respondents, represented by Michael James Byars, U.S. Attorney's Office & Natasha Waglow Teleanu, United States Attorney's Office. UNITED STATES: Pars Challenges Ban on Muslims From Five Countries ----------------------------------------------------------------- PARS EQUALITY CENTER; ONEAMERICA; PAMELA WHITEHALL RAGHEBI; AFSHIN RAGHEBI; ZEINAB MOHAMED HASSAN; SIRAJI ETHA SIRAJI; MALAYEEN AHMED; REZA AZIMI; YAHYA GHALEB; MITRA HANNANI; NICHOLAS HANOUT; HOSSEIN ZAMANI HOSSEINABADI; HODA MEHRABI MOHAMMADABADI; JOHN DOES #1-3; and JANE DOE #1 v. MIKE POMPEO; KIRSTJEN NIELSEN; KEVIN K. MCALEENAN; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE; and U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, Case No. 2:18-cv-01122-BHS (W.D. Wash., July 31, 2018), is a purported class action challenging the Defendants' implementation of the waiver provision of Presidential Proclamation No. 9645, "Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry into the United States By Terrorists or other Public-Safety Threats." The Proclamation indefinitely bans millions of nationals of five Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States. For many thousands of individuals and families indefinitely separated by the President's ban, the Proclamation's waiver provision has, as a practical matter, amounted to nothing more than an empty promise -- in the words of Justice Breyer, merely "window dressing," according to the complaint. Mike Pompeo is the Secretary of State and has responsibility for overseeing enforcement and implementation of the Proclamation, including the Proclamation's waiver provision, by all Department of State staff. Kirstjen Nielsen is the Secretary of Homeland Security and has responsibility for overseeing enforcement and implementation of the Proclamation, including the Proclamation's waiver provision, by all Department of Homeland Security staff. Kevin K. McAleenan is the Commissioner of the Customs and Border Protection and has responsibility for overseeing enforcement and implementation of the Proclamation, including the Proclamation's waiver provision, by all Customs and Border Protection staff. U.S. Department of Homeland Security is a cabinet-level department of the United States federal government. DHS' components include U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS"), Customs and Border Protection ("CBP"), and Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE"). U.S. Department of State is a cabinet-level department of the United States federal government. DOS is responsible for the issuance of immigrant and nonimmigrant visas abroad. Customs and Border Protection is a federal law enforcement agency within DHS. CBP's responsibilities include inspecting and admitting immigrants and nonimmigrant arriving with U.S. visas at international points of entry, including airports and land borders.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Darin Sands, Esq. Dustin O'Quinn, Esq. Jessica Walder, Esq. Aaron Fickes, Esq. LANE POWELL, PC 1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4200 P.O. Box 91302 Seattle, WA 98111-9402 Telephone: (206) 223-7000 Facsimile: (206) 223-7107 E-mail: sandsd@lanepowell.com oquinnd@lanepowell.com walderj@lanepowell.com fickesa@lanepowell.com - and - Esther H. Sung, Esq. Jana Whalley, Esq. Joshua Stehlik, Esq. Melissa S. Keaney, Esq. Nicholas Espiritu, Esq. NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER 3450 Wilshire Blvd. #108-62 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 639-3900 E-mail: sung@nilc.org whalley@nilc.org stehlik@nilc.org keaney@nilc.org espiritu@nilc.org - and - Babak G. Yousefzadeh, Esq. IRANIAN AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION 5185 MacArthur Blvd. NW, Suite 624 Washington, DC 20016 Telephone: (415) 774-3191 E-mail: President@iaba.us - and - John A. Freedman, Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 601 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20001-3743 Telephone: (202) 942-5000 E-mail: john.freedman@arnoldporter.com - and - Brittney Rezaei, Esq. Zahra A. Billoo, Esq. COUNCIL ON AMERICAN-ISLAMIC RELATIONS, CALIFORNIA 3160 De La Cruz Blvd., Suite 110 Santa Clara, CA 95054 Telephone: (408) 986-9874 E-mail: brezaei@cair.com zbilloo@cair.com - and - Elica S. Vafaie, Esq. Christina Sinha, Esq. ADVANCING JUSTICE - ASIAN LAW CAUCUS 55 Columbus Ave. San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 848-7711 E-mail: elicav@advancingjustice-alc.org christinas@advancingjustice-alc.org UNITED STATES: Retirees File Suit Over Pension Reduction -------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM KING, ANTHONY GUGLIUZZA, and STEPHEN DARDZINSKI, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 1:18-cv-01115-NBF (Fed. Cl., July 31, 2018), seeks a finding that the Defendant has taken and illegally exacted the property of the Plaintiffs and members of the proposed class. This is a case about whether the federal government may authorize a fund with more than a billion dollars in it to cut vested pensions retroactively, overturning the rules that had governed the Plaintiffs' pensions for decades, according to the complaint. The lawsuit seeks to establish that the government, by authorizing those cuts, engaged in an uncompensated taking of the Plaintiffs' property -- their money. The Plaintiffs contend that they and all members of the proposed class and had their vested pensions cut beginning on October 1, 2017, and for nearly all of the Plaintiffs, the cut was massive: a 29% reduction, each month, for the rest of their lives. The Plaintiffs' pension fund is a multiemployer plan called the New York State Teamsters Conference Pension & Retirement Fund.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Noah A. Messing, Esq. MESSING & SPECTOR LLP 333 E. 43rd St., Lobby 1 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 960-3720 E-mail: nm@messingspector.com UNIVERSAL FIDELITY: Class Certification Sought in "O'Boyle" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Anne O'Boyle moves the Court to certify the class described in the complaint of her lawsuit entitled ANNE O'BOYLE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. UNIVERSAL FIDELITY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Case No. 2:18-cv-01016-JPS (E.D. Wisc.), and further asks that the Court both stay the motion for class certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the Motion. Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class action complaint could moot a class representative's case by depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a class certification motion, Ms. O'Boyle asserts, citing Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016). To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs."). While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement of a class representative's claims, the same decision cautions that other methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class, the Plaintiff tells the Court, citing Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10839 *9-10 (7th Cir. June 20, 2017). Ms. O'Boyle argues that one defendant has attempted a similar tactic by sending a certified check to the proposed class representative. Bonin v. CBS Radio, Inc., No. 16-cv-674-CNC (E.D. Wis.); see also Severns v. Eastern Account Systems of Connecticut, Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 24, 2016). Ms. O'Boyle contends that she is obligated to move for class certification to protect the interests of the putative class. As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, Ms. O'Boyle asserts. Ms. O'Boyle also asks to be appointed as class representative, and for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class counsel. The Plaintiff is represented by: John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Jesse Fruchter, Esq. Ben J. Slatky, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com jfruchter@ademilaw.com bslatky@ademilaw.com US BANK NA: McGovern Sues Over Excessive Bank Fees -------------------------------------------------- Reyna McGovern, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. U.S. Bank, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-01794 (S.D. Cal., August 2, 2018), seeks redress for breach of contract with respect Out-Of-Network ATM, Overdraft Fees. McGovern alleges that the bank charged her a fee when using an out-of-network ATM to withdraw money from a U.S. Bank account after checking its balance. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Todd D. Carpenter, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP 1350 Columbia Street, Suite 603 San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: (619) 762-1910 Fax: (619) 756-6991 Email: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com VICTORY FOR YOUTH: Quinones Seeks Unpaid Wages, Damages ------------------------------------------------------- Carlota J. Quinones and other similarly-situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. Victory For Youth, Inc. and Rolando Gonzalez, individually, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-22129 (S.D. Fla., May 30, 2018), seeks to recover from Defendants minimum and overtime wages, liquidated damages, costs and reasonable attorney's fees under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Victory for Youth is a human welfare organization dedicated to promotion of employment for people with disabilities providing them with on-the job training. Defendant provides other social services dedicated to poor and disadvantaged individuals. Quinones worked for the Defendant as an event coordinator. She worked more than 40 hours per week but was never properly compensated for overtime hours worked, says the complaint. Plaintiff was misclassified as an independent contractor. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com VIKING GROUP: Faces Jackson Suit Over Defective Fire Sprinklers --------------------------------------------------------------- GAYL JACKSON and TAMMY FOSTER, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VIKING GROUP, INC., THE VIKING CORPORATION and SUPPLY NETWORK, INC. d/b/a VIKING SUPPLYNET, Case No. 8:18-cv-02356 (D. Md., July 31, 2018), is brought on behalf of those who owned or rented residences with Viking VK457 fire sprinklers, which allegedly suffer from manufacturing and design defect that causes them to activate without a fire. Instead of protecting consumers and their homes from the dangers of fire as advertised, the Defect causes significant damage to consumers' homes and personal property, the Plaintiffs allege. Viking Group, Inc., is a Michigan for-profit corporation, that operates as a holding company and is located in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Viking Group publicizes itself as "lead[ing] the industry in quality and innovation because fire protection is all" that it does, and its singular focus is "to support and enhance the efforts of independent fire sprinkler contractors." Viking Group further claims that, "[w]ith 50 company-owned locations worldwide, and a global network of independent distribution partners, Viking's products and services are available when and where you need them." The Viking Corporation is a Michigan for-profit corporation that is a large manufacturer of fire-suppression systems and is in Hastings, Michigan. Supply Network, Inc., doing business as Viking SupplyNet, is a Michigan for-profit corporation that "distributes the largest selection of sprinkler system components to customers in over 70 countries," and is located in Hastings, Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James P. Ulwick, Esq. KRAMON & GRAHAM, P.A. One South Street, Suite 2600 Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: (410) 752-6030 Facsimile: (410) 539-1269 E-mail: julwick@kg-law.com - and - Joseph G. Sauder, Esq. Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq. Joseph B. Kenney, Esq. SAUDER SCHELKOPF LLC 555 Lancaster Avenue Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (888) 711-9975 E-mail: jgs@sstriallawyers.com mds@sstriallawyers.com jbk@sstriallawyers.com VISHARA VIDEO: Silva Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Premium ------------------------------------------------------ Atige Silva, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Vishara Video, Inc. and Ananda Dharmasena, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-04822 (S.D. N.Y., May 31, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. Defendants own, operate, or control a video store, located at 797 8th Ave, New York, NY 10019 under the name "Vishara Video" where Plaintiffs were employed as a sales associate. The complaint says Plaintiffs worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate overtime compensation for the hours that they worked. Moreover, Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and repeatedly failed to pay Plaintiffs wages on a timely basis. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Tel: (212) 317-1200 Email: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com WAUPACA FOUNDRY: Garrett Labor Suit Transferred to E.D. Wisconsin ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Hoy Garrett, Jr. and Lucas Shoultz, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Waupaca Foundry, Inc., successor to ThyssenKrupp Waupaca, Inc. Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00140, (S.D. Ind., September 5, 2017), was transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin on August 2, 2018, under Case No. 18-cv-01186. Waupaca employed Plaintiffs as foundry workers at its Tell City, Indiana plant. They seek to recover unpaid wages, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, and declaratory relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. [BN] Plaintiffs are represented by: John Gordon Rudd, Jr., Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED PLLP 1100 IDS Center 80 S Eighth St. Minneapolis, MN 55402-4123 Tel: (612) 341-0400 Fax: (612) 341-0844 Email: jgr@zimmreed.com - and - Kyle Frederick Biesecker, Esq. BIESECKER DUTKANYCH & MACER, LLC 411 Main Street Evansville, IN 47708 Tel: (812) 424-1000 Fax: (812) 424-1005 Email: kfb@bdlegal.com - and - T. Joseph Snodgrass, Esq. LARSON KING LLP 2800 Wells Fargo Pl. 30 E 7th St. St Paul, MN 55101 Tel: (651) 312-6510 Fax: (651) 312-6618 Email: jsnodgrass@larsonking.com - and - Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. James L. Holt, Jr., Esq. Paula R. Jackson, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT 262 German Oak Drive Cordova, TN 38018 Tel: (901) 754-8001 Fax: (901) 754-8524 Email: rbryant@jsyc.com Waupaca Foundry is represented by: Alexander M. DeGuire, Esq. Joseph Louis Olson, Esq. Lee M. Seese, Esq. Mitchell W. Quick, Esq. Paul E. Benson, Esq. Michael D. Bess, Esq. MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP 100 E Wisconsin Ave., Ste. 3300 Milwaukee, WI 53202-4108 Tel: (414) 271-6560 (414) 223-2502 Fax: (414) 277-0656 Email: amdeguire@michaelbest.com jlolson@michaelbest.com lmseese@michaelbest.com mwquick@michaelbest.com pebenson@michaelbest.com mdbess@michaelbest.com - and - Eric T. Presnell, Esq. BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP 1600 Division St., Ste. 700 Nashville, TN 37203 Tel: (615) 252-2355 Fax: (615) 252-6355 - and - Patrick A. Shoulders, Esq. Wm Michael Schiff, Esq. ZIEMER STAYMAN WEITZEL & SHOULDERS PO Box 916 Evansville, IN 47706 Tel: (812) 424-7575 Fax: (812) 421-5089 Email: pshoulders@zsws.com MSchiff@zsws.com WAUPACA FOUNDRY: Sarrell Labor Suit Transferred to E.D. Wisconsin ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Michael Sarrell and William Shadwick, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Waupaca Foundry, Inc., successor to ThyssenKrupp Waupaca, Inc. Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00056, (E.D. Tenn., February 28, 2017), was transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin on August 2, 2018, under Case No. 18-cv-01192. Waupaca employed Plaintiffs as foundry workers at its Etowah, Tennessee facility. They seek to recover unpaid wages, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, and declaratory relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. [BN] Plaintiffs are represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. James L. Holt, Jr., Esq. Paula R. Jackson, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT 262 German Oak Drive Cordova, TN 38018 Tel: (901) 754-8001 Fax: (901) 754-8524 Email: rbryant@jsyc.com Waupaca Foundry is represented by: Benjamin A. Kaplan, Esq. Joseph Louis Olson, Esq. Lee M. Seese, Esq. Mitchell W. Quick, Esq. Paul E. Benson, Esq. Michael D. Bess, Esq. MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP 100 E Wisconsin Ave., Ste. 3300 Milwaukee, WI 53202-4108 Tel: (414) 271-6560 (414) 223-2502 Fax: (414) 277-0656 Email: jlolson@michaelbest.com lmseese@michaelbest.com mwquick@michaelbest.com pebenson@michaelbest.com mdbess@michaelbest.com bakaplan@michaelbest.com - and - Eric T. Presnell, Esq. BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP 1600 Division St., Ste. 700 Nashville, TN 37203 Tel: (615) 252-2355 Fax: (615) 252-6355 WELLS FARGO: RMBS Investors' New York Class Suit Still Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------------- Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. continues to face a class action complaint by a group of institutional investors, according to GS Mortgage Securities Trust 2014-GC24's Form 10-K/A filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2018, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017. On June 18, 2014, a group of institutional investors filed a civil complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ("Wells Fargo Bank") in its capacity as trustee under 276 residential mortgage backed securities ("RMBS") trusts, which was later amended on July 18, 2014, to increase the number of trusts to 284 RMBS trusts. On November 24, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss the state court action without prejudice. That same day, a group of institutional investors filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "District Court") against Wells Fargo Bank, alleging claims against the bank in its capacity as trustee for 274 RMBS trusts (the "Federal Court Complaint"). In December 2014, the plaintiffs' motion to voluntarily dismiss their original state court action was granted. As with the prior state court action, the Federal Court Complaint is one of six similar complaints filed contemporaneously against RMBS trustees (Deutsche Bank, Citibank, HSBC, Bank of New York Mellon and US Bank) by a group of institutional investor plaintiffs. The Federal Court Complaint against Wells Fargo Bank alleges that the trustee caused losses to investors and asserts causes of action based upon, among other things, the trustee's alleged failure to: (i) notify and enforce repurchase obligations of mortgage loan sellers for purported breaches of representations and warranties, (ii) notify investors of alleged events of default, and (iii) abide by appropriate standards of care following alleged events of default. Relief sought includes money damages in an unspecified amount, reimbursement of expenses, and equitable relief. Other cases alleging similar causes of action have been filed against Wells Fargo Bank and other trustees in the District Court by RMBS investors in these and other transactions, and these cases against Wells Fargo Bank are proceeding before the same District Court judge. A similar complaint was also filed May 27, 2016 in New York state court by a different plaintiff investor. On January 19, 2016, an order was entered in connection with the Federal Court Complaint in which the District Court declined to exercise jurisdiction over 261 trusts at issue in the Federal Court Complaint; the District Court also allowed plaintiffs to file amended complaints as to the remaining, non-dismissed trusts, if they so chose, and three amended complaints have been filed. On December 17, 2016, the investor plaintiffs in the 261 trusts dismissed from the Federal Court Complaint filed a new complaint in New York state court (the "State Court Complaint"). In September 2017, Royal Park Investments SA/NV ("Royal Park"), one of the plaintiffs in the District Court cases against Wells Fargo Bank, filed a putative class action complaint relating to two trusts seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and money damages based on Wells Fargo Bank's indemnification from trust funds for legal fees and expenses Wells Fargo Bank incurs or has incurred in defending the District Court case filed by Royal Park. The Company said, "With respect to the foregoing litigations, Wells Fargo Bank believes plaintiffs' claims are without merit and intends to contest the claims vigorously, but there can be no assurances as to the outcome of the litigations or the possible impact of the litigations on Wells Fargo Bank or the RMBS trusts." Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is the Certificate Administrator for GS Mortgage Securities Trust 2014-GC24. WORLEY CLAIMS: Rosell Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Elaine Rosell, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Worley Claims Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00280, (W.D. N.C., May 29, 2018), seeks to recover overtime compensation, damages, equitable and other relief available under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Worley provides insurance claims services throughout the United States where Rosell worked as a file examiner. She has not received overtime pay at one and one-half the regular rate for hours rendered in excess of 40 per week, says the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Eric Spengler, Esq. SPENGLER & AGANS, PLLC 1713 East Blvd., Suite B Charlotte, NC 28203 Tel: (704) 910-5469 Fax: (704) 246-4189 Email: eric@spengleraganslaw.com YAHOO INC: Summary Judgment in B. Domiguez's TCPA Suit Affirmed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, BILL H. DOMINGUEZ, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Appellant, v. YAHOO, INC., Case No. 17-1243 (3d Cir.), Judge Jane Richards Roth of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Yahoo. Dominguez sued Yahoo, alleging that Yahoo violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by sending him thousands of unsolicited text messages. Dominguez purchased a cell phone with a reassigned telephone number. The prior owner of the number had subscribed to Yahoo's Email SMS Service, through which a user would receive a text message each time an email was sent to the user's Yahoo email account. Because the prior owner of the number never canceled the subscription, Dominguez received a text message from Yahoo every time the prior owner received an email. In an attempt to turn off the notifications, Dominguez pursued various courses of action, all of which proved unsuccessful. Ultimately, Dominguez received approximately 27,800 text messages from Yahoo over the course of 17 months. Dominguez then filed a putative class action alleging that Yahoo had violated the TCPA. The District Court first granted summary judgment in favor of Yahoo in 2014 after concluding that the undisputed evidence demonstrated that the Email SMS Service did not have the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers using a random or sequential number generator. In 2015, while Dominguez's appeal of that decision was pending, the FCC issued a declaratory ruling and order (the 2015 Declaratory Ruling), which concluded that "the capacity of an autodialer is not limited to its current configuration but also includes its potential functionalities. In light of this intervening ruling from the FCC, the Appellate Court vacated the District Court's judgment and remanded the case for further consideration. On remand, Dominguez amended his complaint to allege that the Email SMS Service had the potential capacity to place autodialed calls. Yahoo again moved for summary judgment, and both parties submitted expert reports addressing the Email SMS Service's latent or potential capacity. The District Court granted Yahoo's motion to exclude Dominguez's expert reports and once again granted summary judgment in favor of Yahoo. As relevant to the present appeal, the court concluded that (1) the 2015 Declaratory Ruling should not apply in the case under principles of retroactivity; (2) under the applicable "present capacity" standard, the Email SMS Service did not qualify as an autodialer; (3) in the alternative, even if the 2015 Declaratory Ruling were applicable in the case, Dominguez had not presented any evidence that the Email SMS Service had the latent or potential capacity to generate random numbers because Dominguez's expert reports did not satisfy the standard for admissibility under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc.; and (4) even if Dominguez's expert reports were admissible, Dominguez had failed to provide evidence that the Email SMS Service was capable of both generating random and sequential numbers and dialing those numbers. Dominguez appealed. While theappeal was pending, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued its opinion in ACA International v. FCC, a case involving consolidated challenges to the FCC's 2015 Declaratory Ruling. The D.C. Circuit held that the FCC had exceeded its authority by interpreting the term "capacity" to include any latent or potential capacity and described the FCC's approach as utterly unreasonable in the breadth of its regulatory inclusion. In particular, the D.C. Circuit took issue with the fact that a straightforward reading of the FCC's ruling invites the conclusion that all smartphones are autodialers. This was so because, as the FCC had conceded, any ordinary smartphone could achieve autodialer functionality by simply downloading a random-number-generating app. The D.C. Circuit therefore set aside the FCC's 2015 Declaratory Ruling. Judge Roth explains that the decision in ACA International has narrowed the scope of the appeal. In light of the D.C. Circuit's holding, she interpretes the statutory definition of an autodialer as the Court did prior to the issuance of 2015 Declaratory Ruling. Dominguez can no longer rely on his argument that the Email SMS Service had the latent or potential capacity to function as autodialer. The only remaining question, then, is whether Dominguez provided evidence to show that the Email SMS Service had the present capacity to function as autodialer. She finds that Dominguez cannot point to any evidence that creates a genuine dispute of fact as to whether the Email SMS Service had the present capacity to function as an autodialer by generating random or sequential telephone numbers and dialing those numbers. On the contrary, the record indicates that the Email SMS Service sent messages only to numbers that had been individually and manually inputted into its system by a user. There can be little doubt that Dominguez suffered great annoyance as a result of the unwanted text messages. But those messages were sent precisely because the prior owner of Dominguez's telephone number had affirmatively opted to receive them, not because of random number generation. The TCPA's prohibition on autodialers is therefore not the proper means of redress. A full-text copy of the Court's June 26, 2018 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/QiG0c3 from Leagle.com. Gerald E. Arth, Esq. -- garth@foxrothschild.com -- Abraham C. Reich, Esq. -- areich@foxrothschild.com -- Robert S. Tintner, Esq. -- rtintner@foxrothschild.com -- Fox Rothschild, 2000 Market Street, 20th Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19103. James A. Francis, Esq. -- jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com -- David A. Searles, Esq. -- dsearles@consumerlawfirm.com -- John Soumilas, Esq. -- jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com -- Francis & Mailman, 100 South Broad Street, Land Title Building, 19th Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19110, Counsel for Appellant. Ian C. Ballon, Esq. -- Ballon@gtlaw.com, Lori Chang, Esq. -- Chang@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, 1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900, Los Angeles, CA 90067. Brian T. Feeney, Esq. -- Feeney@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, 2001 Market Street, 2700 Two Commerce Square, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Counsel for Appellee. ********* 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 ***