/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/180913.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, September 13, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 184 Headlines 569 HUDSON LLC: Faces Zayas Suit in S.D. New York 7-ELEVEN INC: Acharya Suit Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA A.I.S. COMMERCIAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Kozina Suit Alleges AB CAR RENTAL: Settlement in Abdi Class Suit Has Final Approval AFNI INC: Hallmon Sues over Debt Collection Practices ALLY FINANCIAL: Violates Disabilities Act, Mendez Suit Claims ARCHWAY ON PEARL: Underpays Cooks, Other Staff, Moreno et al. Say ASPEN NATIONAL: Deppen Disputes Collection Letter BASF AG: Bryn Hill Hits Isocyanate Price-rigging BETTER GUTTER: Dash Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages BOSTON ROAD: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Maldonado et al. Claim CARDINAL LOGISTICS: Faces Dwight Labor Suit in Sacramento CBRE GROUP: Reached Tentative Agreement in Florida Class Suit CHICAGO TECH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Frierson Suit Alleges CHICAGO, IL: 7th Cir. Affirms Summary Ruling in Sex Offenders' Suit CLARK COUNTY, NV: Court Extends Stay of Suit vs. Mazo CLECO CORPORATE: Continues to Defend Merger-Related Class Suit CLIENT SERVICES: Court Certifies Class in Steffek FDCPA Suit COMPLYRIGHT INC: Faces Christiansen Suit over Data Breach CONTINENTAL SERVICE: Goldson Seeks Damages Under FDCPA DENONE LLC: Callaway Sues Over Illegal Tip-credit, Missing Wages DERREL'S MINI: Court Denies Bid to Remand Kutzman FCRA Suit DIRECT ENERGY: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Shackelford Alleges DIVERSIFIED RESTAURANT: Cross Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages DOCTORS ASSOCIATES: Greenburg Hits Illegal Telemarketing SMS DYNAMIC MEDICAL: Underpays Administrators, Castellano Suit Claims EDDIE BAUER: Court Compels Veridian to Produce Factual Work Product EGALET CORP: Bid to Dismiss ARYMO ER-Related Suit Granted ELITE FUNDING: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Abante Rooter Alleges ENERGY TRANSFER: Sept. 2019 Trial Set in Regency-ETP Merger Suit ENERGY XXI GULF: Faces Franchi Suit over Cox Oil Merger EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Davis Sues over Background Checks EQUITY RESIDENTIAL: R. Baker's Suit Remains in Mass. District Court ETRADE FINANCIAL: 2d Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Ryner Suit FCA US: Court Grants Dismissal of Swanigan's LMRA Suit FLEETCOR TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Georgia Class Suit FLORIDA: Court Dismisses Lee County Prisoners' Suit GC SERVICES: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Neuman Suit Says GLOBALSCAPE INC: Continues to Defend Giovagnoli Class Action Suit GOLDEN GATE: Settlement in Jama Suit Has Final Approval GOOGLE LLC: Court Denies Class Certification in Woods' AdWords Suit HP HOOD LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Phillips Suit Alleges INNATE INTELLIGENCE: Profax Allowed to Answer in Levine's TCPA Suit IQ DATA: Illegally Charged Interest on Bonds, Esposito Suit Says IRISH INVASION: Gonzales Sues Over Illegal Tip Credit J CHOO USA: Luc Burbon Files ADA Suit in N.Y. J. RECKNER: Judgment on Pleadings Bid in Lyngaas TCPA Suit Denied JAMBA INC: Fu Suit Seeks to Halt Focus Merger, Seeks Projections JB RAILROAD: Collins Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Richardson Sues over Sale of Talc Products KERYX BIOPHARMA: Asks Court to Reconsider Order on Dismissal Bid KITH RETAIL: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Delacruz Alleges KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Petition for Rehearing in Chowning Suit Denied L'OREAL USA: Cosmetic Bottle Dispenser Defective, Consumers Say LANGHAM HOTELS: Faces Burbon Suit Asserting ADA Violation LUMICO LIFE: Foote Suit Alleges TCPA Violation MARGE GROUP: Figueroa Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages MARICOPA, AZ: Injunction/Compensation Order in Melendres Affirmed MARKETSOURCE INC: Court Issues Protective Order in Brum's Suit MASSACHUSETTS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Union Alleges MASSIMO DUTTI: Violates Disabilities Act, Burbon Suit Alleges MERCANTILE ADJUSTMENT: Lopez Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections NATERA INC: Defendants' Bid for Judgment on Pleadings Granted NC KKA LLC: Han Files Fraud Class Action in N.Y. NEVRO CORP: Holzer & Holzer Files Class Action Lawsuit NEVRO CORP: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit NORTHERN OIL: Awaits Court OK on Bid to Dismiss Fries Suit OHIO: Court Dismisses Class Claim in RCI Prisoners Suit OPEN DOOR: Court Requires Supplemental Brief in Conde FLSA Suit OVERSTOCK.COM: Consolidated Utah Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed PALM BEACH CTY, FL: Sheriff Illegally Detained Minors, Suit Says PERRIGO CO: Awaits Attorney General's Opinion on Settlement PETCO ANIMAL: Gamez Files Suit Over Personal Info Disclosure PLAIN GREEN: Galloway Sues over Usurious Loan Rates POLLACK & ROSEN: Silberman Sues in S.D. Fla. Over FDCPA Violation RAYONIER ADVANCED: Bid to Dismiss Transferred Class Suit Pending RESTORATION ROBOTICS: Guerrini Hits Stock Drop from Low Sales RIDLEY'S FAMILY: Esparsen Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA ROBERT W BAIRD: Faces Mendez Suit Alleging ADA Violation SCHELL & KAMPETER: Dog Food Contaminated, Grossman Suit Says SCYNEXIS INC: Continues to Defend Gibson Class Action SEQUEL NATURAL: Faces Bland Suit over Contaminated Protein Shakes SETERUS INC: Court Narrows Claims in Baxa FCRA/RESPA Suit SHERWIN-WILLIAMS: NJ Superfund Neighbors Can't Sue Over Claims SHUTTERFLY INC: Continues to Defend Monroy Suit SHUTTERFLY INC: Taylor Class Action Still Ongoing SHUTTERFLY INC: Unit Defending Against Vigeant Class Action SINCLAIR BROADCAST: Ford Suit Alleges Sherman Act Violation SINGER FINANCIAL: Court Denies Class Certification in TCPA Suit SODEXO INC: Settlement in Mejia FLSA Suit Has Final Approval SOLCO HEALTHCARE: Valsartan Lawsuit Filed Over Contaminant SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Court Dismisses Miller's BIPA Suit ST JOHN KNITS: Burbon Suit Asserts ADA Breach SURGERY PARTNERS: Hearing Today on Bid to Dismiss Class Suit SYMANTEC CORP: Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Suits SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES: Bid to Drop New Jersey Suit Pending TECHTRONIC INDUSTRIES: Selling Illegal Knives, Says Lakatosh Suit TESLA INC: CEO Tweets Under Fire, Horwitz Hits Share Price Drop TMCSF INC: Cal. App. Affirms Denial of Arbitration in Fuentes Suit UNITED STATES: Court Dismisses Suit Over Superstorm Sandy UNITED STATES: Providence Mother Reacts to Class-Action Lawsuit UNITED STATES: Veterans Can Now File Class-Action Lawsuits VALUE ONE CORPORATION: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Fabricant Says VISUALSCAPE INC: Underpays Landscapers, Moresca Suit Alleges WAL-MART STORES: Workers Sue Over Pregnancy Discrimination WINDSTREAM SERVICES: Doppelt Class Action Concluded WOOD RIVER: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Property Liens XBIOTECH INC: Still Defends Rezko Class Action ********* 569 HUDSON LLC: Faces Zayas Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 569 Hudson LLC. The case is captioned as EDWIN ZAYAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 569 HUDSON LLC; and J.P.G. LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-07091-GHW (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 7, 2018) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is assigned to Judge Gregory H. Woods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Bahamonde, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JAMES E. BAHAMONDE, PC 2501 Jody Court North Bellmore, NY 11710 Telephone: (516) 783-9662 Facsimile: (646) 435-4376 E-mail: James@CivilRightsNY.com 7-ELEVEN INC: Acharya Suit Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- DEVENDRA RAJ ACHARYA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. 7-ELEVEN, INC. and JIMMY K SOLANKI, Case No. 1:18-cv-08010-RJS (S.D.N.Y., September 3, 2018), seeks to recover alleged unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. 7-Eleven is a corporation incorporated under the laws of the state of New York. 7-Eleven does business in New York engaged in business of selling goods. Jimmy K. Solanki is the owner and a franchisee of 7-Eleven.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Durga P. Bhurtel, Esq. BHURTEL LAW FIRM PLLC 37-49 75th Street, 2nd Floor Jackson Heights, NY 11372 Telephone: (718) 509-6181 Facsimile: (917) 396-4622 E-mail: deb@attorneybhurtel.com A.I.S. COMMERCIAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Kozina Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- BRIAN KOZINA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. A.I.S. COMMERCIAL PARTS AND SERVICE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01820 (N.D. Ohio, Aug. 7, 2018) is an action against the Defendant to recover unpaid wages and overtime compensation, as well as for liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mr. Kozina was employed by the Defendants as an hourly, non-exempt employee in Cuyahoga County, Ohio. A.I.S. Commercial Parts And Service, Inc. was founded in 1981. The company's line of business includes specialized repair services. [BN] The plaintiff is represented by: Hans A. Nilges, Esq. Shannon M. Draher, Esq. Michaela Calhoun, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 7266 Portage St., N.W., Suite D Massillon, OH 44646 Telephone: (330) 470-4428 E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com AB CAR RENTAL: Settlement in Abdi Class Suit Has Final Approval --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, SAMATAR ABDI, Plaintiff, v. AB CAR RENTAL SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00421-RSL (W.D. Wash.), Judge Robert S. Lasnik of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of Settlement. Having considered these materials and the statements of counsel at the Final Approval Hearing on July 31, 2018, the Judge finds the Settlement Agreement fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Settlement Class Members. The Settlement Class consists of all employees of the Defendant who were on the Defendant's payroll who are alleged to have been either Hospitality Workers or Transportation Workers and who worked one or more hours within the City of SeaTac at any time during the time period from Jan. 1, 2014 to the present, and who were paid less than the prevailing minimum wage prescribed by the City of SeaTac Municipal Code 7.45.050, i.e., a base rate of $15 per hour in 2014 and $15.24 in 2015 and 2016. The Judge finds that the Notice of Class Action Settlement fully satisfied the requirements of CR 23(c)(2) and CR 23(e) and the requirements of due process. He dismissed the action and any and all settled claims with prejudice as to the Plaintiff and all the Settlement Class Members, and without costs or attorney's fees to any Party except as provided under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Final Judgment, and the Court's Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Award of Attorney's Fees and Expenses. The parties are directed to proceed with the settlement payment procedures specified under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, including those contained in Articles II and III of the Settlement Agreement. A full-text copy of the Court's July 31, 2018 Order is available at https://bit.ly/2QksQKX from Leagle.com. Samatar Abdi, Plaintiff, represented by Cleveland Stockmeyer -- cleve@clevelandstockmeyer.co -- CLEVELAND STOCKMEYER, Daniel R. Whitmore -- dan@whitmorelawfirm.com -- & Duncan Calvert Turner -- dturner@badgleymullins.com -- BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER PLLC. AB Car Rental Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by Breanne Sheetz Martell -- bsheetz@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON & Ryan Paul Hammond -- rhammond@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON. AFNI INC: Hallmon Sues over Debt Collection Practices ----------------------------------------------------- SONJA HALLMON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AFNI, INC., Case No. 1:18-cv-01057-LJO-BAM (E.D. Cal., Aug. 7, 2018) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The case is assigned to Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill and referred to Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe. Afni, Inc. provides customer engagement solutions to business in the United States. The company was formerly known as Anderson Financial Network, Inc. and changed its name to Afni, Inc. in June 2000. Afni, Inc. was founded in 1936 and is based in Bloomington, Illinois with operations in Opelika, Alabama; Tucson, Arizona; Evans, Colorado; Bloomington, Illinois; Bowling Green, Kentucky; Quezon City, the Philippines. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Aaron Stieglitz, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN A. STIEGLITZ 11845 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone: (323) 979-2063 Facsimile: (323) 488-6748 E-mail: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com ALLY FINANCIAL: Violates Disabilities Act, Mendez Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ally Financial Inc. The case is styled as Himelda Mendez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Ally Financial Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-08016 (S.D.N.Y., September 3, 2018). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 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 operates Automotive Finance Operations, Insurance Operations, Mortgage Finance Operations, and Corporate Finance Operations segments.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Telephone: (917) 299-6612 Facsimile: (929) 575-4195 E-mail: joseph@cml.legal ARCHWAY ON PEARL: Underpays Cooks, Other Staff, Moreno et al. Say ----------------------------------------------------------------- MIGUEL ONOFRE-MORENO, GABRIEL ONOFRE, and RIGOBERTO FLORES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ARCHWAY ON PEARL, INC. d/b/a ARCHWAY CAFE; ARCHWAY ON WATER CORP. dba ARCHWAY CAFE; ARTHUR HASANI a/k/a ARTUR HASANI; and QERIME MARKE, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-04440-FB-RML (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 7, 2018) is an action against the Defendants to recover earned wages, minimum wages, and overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mr. Onofre-Moreno was employed by the Defendants as a cook from March 27, 2014 to August 3, 2018. Mr. Onofre was employed as a cook from June 2014 to August 2, 2018. Mr. Flores was employed as delivery worker from July 2014 to July 22, 2018. Archway on Pearl, Inc. d/b/a Archway Cafe is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Cilenti, Esq. Peter Hans Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 708 Third Avenue-61th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 209-3933 Facsimile: (212) 209-7102 E-mail: pcooper@jepelaw.com ASPEN NATIONAL: Deppen Disputes Collection Letter ------------------------------------------------- Maryjo Deppen (a/k/a Mary Jo Paff), individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Aspen National Financial, Inc. (d/b/a Aspen National Collections) and John Does 1-25, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-01563 (D. Colo., June 21, 2018), seeks damages, attorneys' fees and such other relief for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Aspen was tasked to collect a consumer debt Deppen owes Colorado Mesa University. On or around February 1, 2018, Deppen received a collection letter from Aspen that contains a threat of a balance increase and misleads the consumer into believing she must pay immediately rather than to take her 30 day period provided for by the Statute to either validate or dispute her debt. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: 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 BASF AG: Bryn Hill Hits Isocyanate Price-rigging ------------------------------------------------ Bryn Hill Industries, Inc. on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated Plaintiffs, v. BASF AG, BASF Corp., Bayer AG, Bayer Corp., Covestro AG, Covestro LLC, Dowdupont Inc., Dow Chemical Co., Huntsman Corp., Huntsman International LLC, MCNS Polyurethanes USA, Inc., Mitsui Chemicals, Inc., Mitsui Chemicals America, Inc., Mitsui Chemicals & SKC Polyurethanes, Inc., Wanhua Chemical Group Co. Ltd., Wanhua Chemical (America) Co. Ltd., Wanhua Chemical US Holding, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-07852, (S.D. N.Y., August 28, 2018) alleges violations of federal antitrust laws by the Defendants arising from the global supply of isocyanates by reducing their output through coordinated plant shutdowns and suspensions, thereby allowing lockstep price increases from on or before January 2016 through the present. Covestro, Dow, BASF, Huntsman, Wanhua and Mitsui manufacture methylene diphenyl diisocyanate and toluene diisocyanate, chemicals used in making polyurethane. Bryn Hill Industries manufactures custom molded polyurethane foam seating, for offices, medical/healthcare, vehicles and theaters. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Christopher Carmody, Esq. Arun Subramanian, Esq. Seth Ard, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 336-3330 Facsimile: (212) 336-8340 Email: bcarmody@susmangodfrey.com asubramanian@susmangodfrey.com sard@susmangodfrey.com BETTER GUTTER: Dash Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------- Kevin Dash, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. A Better Gutter Cleaning, Inc. and Davis Seaborn, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-04082, (N.D. Ga., August 27, 2018) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation owed, liquidated damages and attorney fees for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Dash was employed by the Defendants' gutter cleaning and repair business located at 5075 Roswell Rd NE, Ste. E, Atlanta, GA 30342 as a foreman. Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours per week without being paid overtime compensation, the complaint asserts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tyler B. Kaspers, Esq. THE KASPER FIRM LLC 152 New Street, Suite 109B Macon, GA 31201 Tel: (404) 994-3128 Email: tyler@kaspersfirm.com BOSTON ROAD: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Maldonado et al. Claim ---------------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD MALDONADO; and RONNIE MALDONADO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BOSTON ROAD EQUIPMENT RENTALS, INC.; and LAWRENCE GRITZ, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-07111-ALC (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 7, 2018) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid minimum wage, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, damages for illegal deductions from wages, prejudgment interest, and attorneys' fees. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as an hourly and non-exempt employees. Boston Road Equipment Rentals, Inc. is a corporation doing business in the State of New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mohammed Gangat, Esq. 675 3rd Avenue, Suite 1810 New York, NY Telephone: (718) 669-0714 E-mail: mgangat@gangatllc.com CARDINAL LOGISTICS: Faces Dwight Labor Suit in Sacramento --------------------------------------------------------- An employment-related class action lawsuit was filed against Cardinal Logistics Management Corp. The case is captioned as Jenkins Dwight, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Cardinal Logistics Management Corp., and Does 1-50, Defendants, Case No. 34-2018-00238308-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., Aug. 7, 2018). Cardinal Logistics Management Corporation provides integrated logistics and transportation services in the United States and Canada. Cardinal Logistics Management Corporation was formerly known as Cardinal Freight Carriers, Inc. and changed its name to Cardinal Logistics Management Corporation in April 2005. The company was founded in 1980 and is based in Concord, North Carolina with operations in the United States and Puerto Rico. Cardinal Logistics Management Corporation is a former subsidiary of ArcBest Corporation. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by William L. Marder, Esq. CBRE GROUP: Reached Tentative Agreement in Florida Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- CBRE Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2018, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company has reached a tentative settlement agreement in a class action lawsuit in Florida. In June 2016, CBRE was named as a defendant in a class action lawsuit relating to its role as property manager of certain real estate investment properties owned by the plaintiffs in Florida. CBRE started managing these various properties between July 2005 and March 2007, and CBRE ceased managing these properties in January 2011. The third-party sponsors of such investment properties inappropriately managed funds for the plaintiffs which resulted in losses, used some of these funds for personal purposes, and were imprisoned for their conduct. Since the third-party sponsors could not answer financially for the resulting losses to the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs made claims against CBRE generally alleging that CBRE should have prevented the fraud perpetuated by the third-party sponsors with respect to the properties managed by CBRE. On August 3, 2018, the company reached a tentative settlement agreement regarding this proceeding, which agreement is subject to negotiation of definitive settlement documentation and court approval, including the payment of $100 million to the plaintiffs. CBRE Group said, "We expect that such settlement payment will be funded principally by insurance coverage." CBRE Group, Inc. operates as a commercial real estate services and investment company worldwide. It operates through Americas; Europe, Middle East and Africa; Asia Pacific; Global Investment Management; and Development Services segments. CHICAGO TECH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Frierson Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Frierson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Chicago Tech Academy; Linnea Garrett; and Tiara Wheatley, Defendants, Case No. 18CV5375 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 7, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses. Mr. Frierson was employed by the Defendants as hourly employees. Chicago Tech Academy is a high school in the Chicago University Village in Pilsen. Chicago Tech opened in September 2009. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John C. Ireland, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JOHN C. IRELAND 636 Spruce Street South Elgin, IL 60177 Telephone: (630) 464-9675 Facsimile: (630) 206-0889 E-mail: attorneyireland@gmail.com CHICAGO, IL: 7th Cir. Affirms Summary Ruling in Sex Offenders' Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, affirmed the District Court's judgment granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment in the case captioned MICHAEL BELEY, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF CHICAGO, Defendant-Appellee. No. 17-1449. (7th Cir.). Michael Beley and Douglas Montgomery represent a class of sex offenders who allege that the City of Chicago refused to register them under the Illinois Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) because they could not produce proof of address. It agreed with the plaintiffs that a homeless sex offender has a protected liberty interest in the ability to register under SORA. But a municipality is liable for the constitutional violations of its officers only if the officers act pursuant to a city policy or custom. The district court said that the plaintiffs had arguably shown occasional lapses of judgment or individual misconduct by police officers but not that the City had a policy or custom of turning the homeless away. It thus held that the City was entitled to judgment. The Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of due process is triggered when the state deprives a person of life, liberty, or property. While their arguments are not particularly clear, the plaintiffs suggest several theories for why the City's intake officers deprived them of a cognizable liberty interest. All of them fail. The first is the weakest: the plaintiffs argue that they have the right to register as sex offenders. But saying that one has the right to register under SORA is like saying that one has the right to serve a sentence or the right to pay taxes. SORA's registration requirement burdens sex offenders; it is not, as the plaintiffs contend, an aspect of their liberty. The next argument is better, though also unsuccessful. The plaintiffs suggest that their undisputed liberty interest in freedom from bodily restraint triggered the Clause. The state action relevant here, the intake officers' refusal to register the plaintiffs did not deprive the plaintiffs of their interest in freedom from bodily restraint, so the plaintiffs cannot successfully argue that the loss of that interest triggered the Clause. The plaintiffs must ground their procedural due process claim in an interest that the offiers actually took. That brings us to their next theory: that freedom from the possibility of incarceration is a cognizable liberty interest in its own right. The plaintiffs offer no support for this position. Certainly, the Fourteenth Amendment does not protect a person's freedom from fear of apprehension. And the plaintiffs have not identified any other way in which the possibility of incarceration burdens them. It does not impose additional restrictions on where they can live, where they can work, or what they can do; nor does it saddle them with additional obligations like reporting requirements. In this case, however, plaintiffs were subject to similar restraints because they were sex offenders; SORA did not impose new restraints on them because they were noncompliant sex offenders. The plaintiffs float one last possibility. Even if the risk of losing liberty does not trigger the Due Process Clause, both Montgomery and Beley actually lost liberty for failing to register. Montgomery was charged with violating SORA, and Beley alleges that he suffered reputational harm when the State listed him as non-compliant on its website. But Montgomery and Beley do not represent a class defined as all homeless people denied registration under SORA who were subsequently arrested or listed as non-compliant on the State's website. They represent a class of all persons who were not permitted to register because they were homeless. A full-text copy of the Seventh Circuit's August 23, 2018 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9g9mgbo from Leagle.com. Andrew S. Mine, for Defendant-Appellee. Myriam Z. Kasper, for Defendant-Appellee. Jonathon D. Byrer, for Defendant-Appellee. Patrick W. Morrissey, for Plaintiff-Appellant. CLARK COUNTY, NV: Court Extends Stay of Suit vs. Mazo ----------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of Nevada issued an Order extending Stay of Case in the case captioned JOHN and JANE DOE I, Guardians Ad Litem for JOANN DOE I, a minor, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, and JOHN and JANE DOE II, Guardians Ad Litem for JOANN DOE II, a minor, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated; Plaintiffs, v. JEREMIAH MAZO; CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT; DOES 1 through 20; DOE 1 through 20; ROE CORPORATIONS 1 through 20; Defendants. Case No. 2:16-cv-00239-APG-PAL. (D. Nev.). Pursuant to Local Rule 6.1, the Parties hereby stipulate and agree that the case be stayed for an additional period of 30 days and the current discovery deadlines adjusted accordingly. This case was filed alleging abuse of students by a former CCSD teacher, Jeremiah Mazo, and bringing claims under Title IX against CCSD and state tort claims against all defendants. Discovery That Remains to be Completed Depositions of Plaintiffs Joann Doe I and Joann Doe II;1 and Certain Expert Depositions Basis for Extension The parties are continuing to negotiate a settlement in good faith and request this stay and extension of discovery to allow the depositions of Joann Doe I, Joann Doe II (subject to Motion for Protective Order), and certain of the parties' expert witnesses to take place should settlement negotiations come to an impasse. The parties have diligently engaged in discovery and want to avoid incurring any additional expense at this time. Accordingly, the parties request an additional 60 day stay of this matter and request an extension to allow for the foregoing outstanding discovery to be completed 60 days from the current deadlines. The new deadlines are as follows: Discovery Cut-Off Date: October 29, 2018 Dispositive Motions: November 28, 2018 Proposed Joint Pretrial Order: December 28, 2018 or 30 days after the Court rules on any dispositive motions. A full-text copy of the District Court's August 23, 2018 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y785d523 from Leagle.com. John Doe I, Guardian Ad Litem, Jane Doe I, Guardian Ad Litem, Joann Doe I, a minor, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, John Doe II, Guardian Ad Litem, Jane Doe II & Joann Doe II, a minor, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Aaron D. Ford , Eglet Prince, Artemus W. Ham, IV , Eglet Prince, Richard Hy & Robert T. Eglet , Eglet Prince. Jeremiah Mazo, Defendant, represented by John G. George , John George. Clark County School District, Defendant, represented by Kara B. Hendricks -- hendricksk@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig LLP, Mark E. Ferrario -- ferrariom@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, Michelle R. Schwarz , Hall Jaffe & Clayton, LLP, Moorea L. Katz -- katzaa@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Steven T. Jaffe , Hall Jaffe & Clayton, LLP, Tami D. Cowden -- cowdent@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig & Whitney Welch -- welchkirmsew@gtlaw.com -- c/o Greenberg Traurig. Clark County School District, Cross Claimant, represented by Kara B. Hendricks , Greenberg Traurig LLP, Mark E. Ferrario , Greenberg Traurig, Michelle R. Schwarz , Hall Jaffe & Clayton, LLP, Moorea L. Katz , Greenberg Traurig, LLP & Steven T. Jaffe , Hall Jaffe & Clayton, LLP. Jeremiah Mazo, Cross Defendant, represented by John G. George , John George. CLECO CORPORATE: Continues to Defend Merger-Related Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Cleco Corporate Holdings LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2018, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company continues to defend itself against a merger-related class action lawsuit. In connection with the Merger, four actions were filed in the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish, Louisiana and three actions were filed in the Civil District Court for Orleans Parish, Louisiana. The petitions in each action generally alleged, among other things, that the members of Cleco Corporation's Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, conducting an allegedly inadequate sale process, agreeing to the Merger at a price that allegedly undervalued Cleco, and failing to disclose material information about the Merger. The petitions also alleged that Cleco Partners, Cleco Corporation, Merger Sub, and in some cases, certain of the investors in Cleco Partners, either aided and abetted or entered into a civil conspiracy to advance those supposed breaches of duty. The petitions seek various remedies, including monetary damages, which includes attorneys' fees and expenses. The four actions filed in the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish are captioned as follows: * Braunstein v. Cleco Corporation, No. 251,383B (filed October 27, 2014), * Moore v. Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets, No. 251,417C (filed October 30, 2014), * Trahan v. Williamson, No. 251,456C (filed November 5, 2014), and * L'Herisson v. Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets, No. 251,515F (filed November 14, 2014). In November 2014, the plaintiff in the Braunstein action moved for a dismissal of the action without prejudice, and that motion was granted in November 2014. In December 2014, the Court consolidated the remaining three actions and appointed interim co-lead counsel. Also in December 2014, the plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed a Consolidated Amended Verified Derivative and Class Action Petition for Damages and Preliminary and Permanent Injunction (the Consolidated Amended Petition). The consolidated action named Cleco Corporation, its directors, Cleco Partners, and Merger Sub as defendants. The Consolidated Amended Petition alleged, among other things, that Cleco Corporation's directors breached their fiduciary duties to Cleco's shareholders and grossly mismanaged Cleco by approving the Merger Agreement because it allegedly did not value Cleco adequately, failing to structure a process through which shareholder value would be maximized, engaging in self-dealing by ignoring conflicts of interest, and failing to disclose material information about the Merger. The Consolidated Amended Petition further alleged that all defendants conspired to commit the breaches of fiduciary duty. Cleco believes that the allegations of the Consolidated Amended Petition are without merit and that it has substantial meritorious defenses to the claims set forth in the Consolidated Amended Petition. The three actions filed in the Civil District Court for Orleans Parish are captioned as follows: * Butler v. Cleco Corporation, No. 2014-10776 (filed November 7, 2014), * Creative Life Services, Inc. v. Cleco Corporation, No. 2014-11098 (filed November 19, 2014), and * Cashen v. Cleco Corporation, No. 2014-11236 (filed November 21, 2014). Both the Butler and Cashen actions name Cleco Corporation, its directors, Cleco Partners, Merger Sub, MIRA, BCI, and John Hancock Financial as defendants. The Creative Life Services action names Cleco Corporation, its directors, Cleco Partners, Merger Sub, MIRA, and Macquarie Infrastructure Partners III, L.P., as defendants. In December 2014, the plaintiff in the Butler action filed an Amended Class Action Petition for Damages. Each petition alleged, among other things, that the members of Cleco Corporation's Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties to Cleco's shareholders by approving the Merger Agreement because it allegedly does not value Cleco adequately, failing to structure a process through which shareholder value would be maximized and engaging in self-dealing by ignoring conflicts of interest. The Butler and Creative Life Services petitions also allege that the directors breached their fiduciary duties by failing to disclose material information about the Merger. Each petition further alleged that Cleco, Cleco Partners, Merger Sub, and certain of the investors in Cleco Partners aided and abetted the directors' breaches of fiduciary duty. In December 2014, the directors and Cleco filed declinatory exceptions in each action on the basis that each action was improperly brought in Orleans Parish and should either be transferred to the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish or dismissed. Also in December 2014, the plaintiffs in each action jointly filed a motion to consolidate the three actions pending in Orleans Parish and to appoint interim co-lead plaintiffs and co-lead counsel. In January 2015, the Court in the Creative Life Services case sustained the defendants' declinatory exceptions and dismissed the case so that it could be transferred to the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish. In February 2015, the plaintiffs in Butler and Cashen also consented to the dismissal of their cases from Orleans Parish so they could be transferred to the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish. In February 2015, the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish held a hearing on a motion for preliminary injunction filed by plaintiffs Moore, L'Herisson, and Trahan seeking to enjoin the shareholder vote for approval of the Merger Agreement. Following the hearing, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion. In June 2015, three of the plaintiffs filed their Second Consolidated Amended Verified Derivative and Class Action Petition. Cleco Corporate said "This will be considered according to a schedule established by the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish. Cleco filed exceptions seeking dismissal of the amended petition in July 2015." In March 2016 and May 2016, the plaintiffs filed their Third Consolidated Amended Verified Derivative Petition for Damages and Preliminary and Permanent Injunction and their Fourth Verified Consolidated Amended Class Action Petition, respectively. The fourth petition eliminated the request for preliminary and permanent injunction and also named an additional executive officer as a defendant. Cleco filed exceptions seeking dismissal of the amended Petition. A hearing was held in September 2016, and the District Court granted the exceptions filed by Cleco and dismissed all claims asserted by the former shareholders. The plaintiffs appealed the District Court's ruling to the Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeal. The Third Circuit Court of Appeal heard oral arguments in the case in September 2017. In December 2017, the Third Circuit Court of Appeal issued an order reversing and remanding the case to the District Court for further proceedings. In January 2018, Cleco filed a writ with the Louisiana Supreme Court seeking review of the Third Circuit Court of Appeal's decision. The writ was denied in March 2018. Cleco believes that the allegations of the petitions in each action are without merit and that it has substantial meritorious defenses to the claims set forth in each of the petitions. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Cleco Corporate Holdings LLC operates as a public utility holding company primarily in Louisiana. The company, through its subsidiary, operates as a regulated electric utility, which owns nine generating units with a total capacity of 3,310 megawatts and serves approximately 290,000 customers in Louisiana through its retail business; supplies wholesale power in Louisiana and Mississippi; and owns 86 active transmission substations and 239 active distribution substations. Cleco Corporate Holdings LLC was founded in 1934 and is based in Pineville, Louisiana. CLIENT SERVICES: Court Certifies Class in Steffek FDCPA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, SARAH M. STEFFEK and JILL VANDENWYNGAARD, Plaintiffs, v. CLIENT SERVICES INC., Defendant, Case No. 18-C-160 (E.D. Wis.), Judge William C. Griesbach of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin granted the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Steffek and andenwyngaard allege that the Defendant violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), by sending each of them a debt collection letter that failed to identify the creditor. Their allegations arise from letters they received from Defendant dated Feb. 22, 2017. They allege that the letters are computer generated, template form letters the Defendant uses to collect debts from Wisconsin residents. The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendant violated the FDCPA by mailing letters that fail to identify a creditor, the name of the entity to whom the debt is owed, or the name of the entity who placed the accounts for collection. They seek statutory damages on behalf of themselves and the proposed class for this purported violation. The Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on May 25, 2018. They propose to represent a class consisting of all persons with addresses in the State of Wisconsin to whom Client Services, Inc. mailed an initial written communication, between Jan. 30, 2017 and Feb. 20, 2018, which was not returned as undeliverable, and which lists "RE: CHASE BANK USA, N.A." and states "The above account has been placed with our organization for collections." Judge Griesbach finds that the Plaintiffs have fulfilled the requirements of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Therefore, he granted the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. He certified the proposed class. The counsel of record for the Plaintiffs is appointed as the class counsel. Within 30 days of the date of the order, the class counsel will provide the Court with a proposed notice to be provided to potential class members consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2)(B). The class counsel will consult with the Defendant before submitting the proposed notice. A full-text copy of the Court's July 31, 2018 Order is available at https://bit.ly/2x62X9D from Leagle.com. Christopher J. Fleischman, Plaintiff, pro se. COMPLYRIGHT INC: Faces Christiansen Suit over Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------- PAUL CHRISTIANSEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COMPLYRIGHT, INC.; and DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 30-2018-01010711-CU-BT-CXC (Cal. Super., Orange Cty., Aug. 7, 2018) seeks injunctive relief requiring the Defendants to implement and maintain security practices to comply with regulations designed to prevent and remedy data breaches. The Plaintiff also seeks restitution, damages, and other reliefs. According to the complaint, on May 22, 2018, thousands of individuals were the victims of a massive data breach that resulted in the unauthorized disclosure of tax-related personal information records. Among other things, the data breach resulted in the individuals' names, home and email addresses, telephone numbers, Social Security numbers, salary/income information, 1099 Forms, W-2 Forms, and other tax related information being released and viewed by unauthorized persons. The breach occurred because the Defendants failed to maintain reasonable and adequate security measures to protect the individuals' information from access and disclosure. The Defendants has a statutory duty to protect the tax and personal information of third-parties from unauthorized access, yet failed at numerous opportunities to prevent, detect, end, or limit the scope the breach. ComplyRight, Inc. provides human resource products and services for businesses in the United States. ComplyRight, Inc. was formerly known as Everglades Direct, Inc. The company was founded in 1984 and is based in Pompano Beach, Florida. As of May 14, 2003, ComplyRight, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Taylor Corporation. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: FINKELSTEIN & KRINSK LLP Jeffrey R. Krinsk, Esq. Trenton R. Kashima, Esq. 550 West C St., Suite 1760 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 238-1333 Facsimile: (619) 238-5425 E-mail: jrk@classactionlaw.com trk@classactionlaw.com CONTINENTAL SERVICE: Goldson Seeks Damages Under FDCPA ------------------------------------------------------ Mikki Goldson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Continental Service Group, Inc. dba Conserve and John Does 1-25, Case No. 8:18-cv-02129 (D. S.C., August 2, 2018), seeks damages and declaratory relief under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is a resident of the State of South Carolina, County of Anderson, residing at 8 Vineyard Way, Williamson, SC 29697. The Defendant is a debt collector with an address at 200 Crosskeys Office Park, Fairport, NY 14450. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ken Norsworthy, Esq. NORSWORTHY LAW, LTD. CO. 505 Pettigru Street Greenville, SC 29601 Tel: (864) 804-0581 E-mail: norsworthylaw@gmail.com DENONE LLC: Callaway Sues Over Illegal Tip-credit, Missing Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Barbara Callaway on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiffs, v. DenOne, LLC, Nelda, LLC and Erick Martinez, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-01981, (N.D. Ohio, August 27, 2018) seeks to recover compensation for the full minimum wage at an hourly rate, liquidated damages, together with interest, reasonable attorneys' fees, and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants own and operate a chain of Denny's restaurants, where Callaway was employed as a tipped server at their Independence, Ohio location. Callaway claims to have received a sub-minimum wage but took out a tip-credit. Plaintiff also performs a number of non-tipped duties unrelated to their tipped occupations exceeding 20% of her time rendered, notes the complaint. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clifford P. Bendau II, Esq. Christopher J. Bendau, Esq. THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC P.O. Box 97066 Phoenix, AZ 85060 Telephone: (480) 382-5176 Email: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com - and - James L. Simon, Esq. 6000 Freedom Square Dr. Independence, OH 44131 Telephone: (216) 525-8890 Facsimile: (216) 642-5814 Email: jameslsimonlaw@yahoo.com DERREL'S MINI: Court Denies Bid to Remand Kutzman FCRA Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Judge Anthony W. Ishii of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California denied the Plaintiffs' motion to remand the case, RICK KUTZMAN and JAMIE LEONARDO, individuals, and on behalf of themselves, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. DERREL'S MINI STORAGE, INC., a California corporation Defendant, Case No. 1:18-CV-396 AWI-JLT (E.D. Cal.). Kutzman and Leonardo allege that the Defendant required them and others to sign, as part of the Defendant's employment-application procedures, a background-check authorization that included a liability release clause in the same document. They contend the inclusion of the liability clause violates the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FDCA"). The Plaintiffs filed a class-action Complaint in Kern County Superior Court (California state court) alleging two FCRA causes of action, as well as violations of the California Labor Code. The Defendant removed to the Court due to the presence of a federal question. The Plaintiffs now seek remand, arguing the Defendant has not met its burden to show the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the FCRA claims -- in that the Defendant did not demonstrate the Plaintiffs pleaded a concrete injury to show Article III standing per Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins. The Defendant counters that te Plaintiffs' argument is contrary to the allegations in the Complaint, which clearly demonstrate a concrete injury as defined by Ninth Circuit precedent. It maintains that even though it denies the truth of the Plaintiffs' claims, the Court must treat the allegations in the Complaint as true at this stage, indicating subject matter jurisdiction exists. Since the Complaint sufficiently contains a short and plain statement alleging facts giving rise to subject matter jurisdiction, and the Defendant references Exhibit A -- the Complaint -- in their short-and-plain notice of removal, Judge Ishii finds the Plaintiffs' motion to remand is without merit. The Plaintiffs raise additional arguments for the first time in the reply brief, which the Judge declined to consider. He finds that insomuch as these arguments go to the heart of a federal court's subject matter jurisdiction over the FCRA claims, such that they should be examined sua sponte, he is not left with any doubt as to the Defendant's right to remove the case. Accordingly, Judge Ishii denied the Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand. He referred back the remainder of the case to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. A full-text copy of the Court's July 31, 2018 Order is available at https://bit.ly/2NyINyE from Leagle.com. Rick Kutzman, individuals, on behalf of themselves, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated & Jamie Leonardo, individuals, on behalf of themselves, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Aparajit Bhowmik -- aj@bamlawlj.com -- Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik, Kyle R. Nordrehaug -- kyle@bamlawca.com -- Blumenthal Nordrehaug and Bhowmik, Molly Ann DeSario, Blumenthal Nordrehaug & Bhowmik, Norman Blumenthal -- norm@bamlawca.com -- Blumenthal Nordrehaug & Bhowmik, LLP, Ruchira Piya Mukherjee -- piya@bamlawlj.com -- Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik & Victoria Bree Rivapalacio , Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. Derrel's Mini Storage, Inc., a California Corporation, Defendant, represented by Charles Paul Hamamjian, Sagaser Watkins Wieland PC, Howard A. Sagaser, Sagaser, Watkins & Wieland, PC & Ian Blade Wieland -- ian@sw2law.com -- Sagaser, Watkins & Wieland, PC. DIRECT ENERGY: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Shackelford Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- KAYLA SHACKELFORD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DIRECT ENERGY LP, Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-02727 (S.D. Tex., Aug. 8, 2018) seeks to stop the Defendant from violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by making unsolicited, autodialed calls to consumers without the Plaintiff's consent. Direct Energy, LP provides electricity, natural gas, and home services for residential and commercial customers in North America. Direct Energy, LP was founded in 1997 and is based in Houston, Texas with regional offices in the United States. Direct Energy, LP operates as a subsidiary of Centrica plc. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Johnson, Esq. TERREL LAW GROUP 8303 Southwest Freeway, Suite 450 Houston, TX 77074 Telephone: 346-718-8286 E-mail: Jjohnson@terrellawgroup.com - and - Stefan Coleman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A. 201 S. Biscayne Blvd, 28 th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (877) 333-9427 Facsimile: (888) 498-8946 E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com - and - Avi R. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 400 NW 26th Street Miami, FL 33127 Telephone: (305) 469-5881 E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com DIVERSIFIED RESTAURANT: Cross Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Monique Cross and America Thomas, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiffs, v. Diversified Restaurant Holdings, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-03595, (E.D. Mich., June 21, 2018), seeks recovery of unpaid wages owed to them, an award of liquidated damages in an amount equal to the unpaid wages owed to them and an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, as provided for in the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant is a franchisee of Buffalo Wild Wings restaurants and has 65 Buffalo Wild Wings restaurants located in Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan and Missouri. Plaintiffs worked at Buffalo Wild Wings restaurant located at 1218 Randolph St, Detroit, MI 48226. They spend roughly more than 20 percent of their time performing untipped work unrelated to their tipped occupation and are paid a sub-minimum, tipped wage rate, says the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Bryan Yaldou, Esq. Elaina Bailey, Esq. Omar Badr, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF BRYAN YALDOU, PLLC 23000 Telegraph, Suite 5 Brownstown, MI 48134 Phone: (734) 692-9200 Fax: (734) 692-9201 Email: Bryan@yaldoulaw.com DOCTORS ASSOCIATES: Greenburg Hits Illegal Telemarketing SMS ------------------------------------------------------------ Charles Greenberg, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Doctors Associates, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-22505 (S.D. Fla., June 21, 2018), seeks an injunction prohibiting Oasis from continuing to engage in illegal telemarketing. The lawsuit also seeks attorneys' fees and costs for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Defendant operates a Subway franchise. It regularly sends unsolicited text messages to consumers promoting their sandwiches and other menu offerings, often without express content, notes the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: 305-479-2299 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com DYNAMIC MEDICAL: Underpays Administrators, Castellano Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- DANIA CASTELLANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. DYNAMIC MEDICAL SERVICES, INC., and DENNIS NOBBE, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-23200-FAM (S.D. Fla., Aug. 7, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages and minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff Castellano was employed by the Defendants as administrator from November 1995 to July 30, 2018. Dynamic Medical Services, Inc. is a corporation transacting business within Dade County, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J.H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: (305) 865-7167 Email: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM EDDIE BAUER: Court Compels Veridian to Produce Factual Work Product ------------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, granted in part and denied in part Defendant's Motion to Compel in the case captioned VERIDIAN CREDIT UNION, Plaintiff, v. EDDIE BAUER, LLC, Defendant. Case No. C17-0356JLR. (W.D. Wash.). This is a putative class action on behalf of credit unions, banks, and other financial institutions that suffered injury as a result of a security breach involving Eddie Bauer. Veridian alleges that the breach compromised the financial data of thousands of customers at all of Eddie Bauer's 370 retail stores in the United States and Canada. Veridian further alleges that the breach occurred because Eddie Bauer failed to adequately secure its data networks. Eddie Bauer moved to compel the production of documents responsive to its requests for production (RFPs) No. 18 and 19. RFPs No. 18 and 19 ask Veridian to produce the following: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18: Documents memorializing all communications with the former Information Security Manager (IS Manager) referred to in paragraph 41 of Veridian's Amended Class Action Complaint. Eddie Bauer argues that Veridian has waived the work product privilege by making affirmative allegations regarding the IS Manager and the IT Consultant. Thus, Veridian has made its communications with those people discoverable by placing the communications in issue. Although Veridian has since identified the IS Manager and IT Consultant, Eddie Bauer claims that deposing them is insufficient because memories fade. Veridian counters that the privilege protects the communications because they occurred solely because of the instant litigation.Veridian states that responsive documents include (1) communications between Veridian and its counsel (2) communications among Veridian's counsel reflecting mental impressions regarding their investigation and litigation strategy and (3) documents reflecting the mental impressions of Veridian's counsel in preparing the complaint.Veridian argues that Eddie Bauer has not demonstrated a substantial need for those documents. Moreover, Veridian contends that it has not waived the privilege. The work product doctrine is a qualified protection limiting discovery of documents and tangible things prepared by a party or its attorney in anticipation of litigation. The party claiming work product protection bears the burden of establishing that the work product doctrine applies. A party may obtain discovery of work product only by showing a substantial need and an inability to obtain the same information elsewhere. Based on the allegations in the complaint, the court concludes that Veridian has placed its communications with the IS Manager and IT Consultant in issue. Even though Veridian also relies on other sources, the fact remains that Veridian explicitly relies on the communications to state its claims. Specifically, Veridian alleges that Eddie Bauer knew its security measures were substandard and nonetheless chose not to implement necessary improvements. The allegations involving the IS Manager and the IT Consultant are directed squarely at proving that contention. Although Eddie Bauer knows those individuals' identities and therefore may depose them, documentary evidence is often necessary even if a deposition may be useful and informative. The court grants Eddie Bauer's motion in part. Veridian must produce any factual work product responsive to RFPs No. 18 and 19. By way of example, Veridian is not required to produce documents falling within the three categories Veridian identifies: (1) communications between Veridian and its counsel (2) Veridian's counsel's mental impressions regarding their investigation and litigation strategy, and (3) Veridian's counsel's mental impressions in preparing the complaint. However, to the extent that Veridian also possesses factual work product related to the communications, it must produce that material to Eddie Bauer within 14 days of the date of this order. If any material contains both factual and opinion work product, Veridian may appropriately redact the opinion work product before production. By the same date, Veridian must also produce a privilege log detailing any material withheld as opinion work product. The privilege log must describe the nature of the documents, communications, or tangible things not produced or disclosed and do so in a manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable Eddie Bauer to assess the claim of privilege. The court grants in part and denies in part Eddie Bauer's motion to compel. In response to RFPs No. 18 and 19, Veridian must produce responsive documents comprising factual work product no later than fourteen (14) days of the date of this order. If any material contains both factual and opinion work product, Veridian may appropriately redact the opinion work product before production. By the same deadline, Veridian must also produce a privilege log and supplement its responses to Eddie Bauer's RFPs No. 18 and 19. A full-text copy of the District Court's August 23, 2018 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8owk83c from Leagle.com. Veridian Credit Union, on behalf of itself and a class of similarly situated financial institutions, Plaintiff, represented by Arthur Mahony Murray , MURRAY LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Brian C. Gudmundson -- brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com -- ZIMMERMAN REED LLP, pro hac vice, Bryan L. Bleichner -- bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com -- CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA, pro hac vice, Caroline Thomas White, MURRAY LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Chase Christian Alvord -- calvord@tousley.com -- TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS, Christopher P. Renz -- crenz@chestnutcambronne.com -- CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA, pro hac vice, Erin Green Comite --ECOMITE@SCOTT-SCOTT.COM -- SCOTT + SCOTT LLP, pro hac vice, Gary F. Lynch --glynch@carlsonlynch.com -- CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP, pro hac vice -- JGUGLIELMO@SCOTT-SCOTT.COM -- SCOTT + SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP, pro hac vice, Karen H. Riebel -- khriebel@locklaw.com -- LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN, pro hac vice, Kate M. Baxter-Kauf -- kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com -- LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN, pro hac vice, Kevin W. Tucker -- ktucker@carlsonlynch.com -- CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER LLP, pro hac vice, Kim D. Stephens -- kstephens@tousley.com -- TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS & Sean C. Russell -- SEAN.RUSSELL@SCOTT-SCOTT.COM -- SCOTT + SCOTT LLP, pro hac vice. Eddie Bauer LLC, Defendant, represented by Dyanne Cho -- Dyanne.Cho@lewisbrisbois.com --LEWIS BRISBOIS BIGAARD & SMITH LLP, pro hac vice, Gordon Calhoun -- Gordon.Calhoun@lewisbrisbois.com -- LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP, pro hac vice, Jon P. Kardassakis -- Jon.Kardassakis@lewisbrisbois.com -- LEWIS BRISBOIS BIGAARD & SMITH LLP, pro hac vice, Ethan A. Smith -- Ethan.Smith@lewisbrisbois.com -- LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP, Kathleen A. Nelson -- Kathleen.Nelson@lewisbrisbois.com -- LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP & Sarah Demaree Macklin -- Sarah.Macklin@lewisbrisbois.com -- LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP. EGALET CORP: Bid to Dismiss ARYMO ER-Related Suit Granted --------------------------------------------------------- Egalet Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2018, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that a Pennsylvania court has granted the defendants' motion to dismiss in the ARYMO ER-related lawsuit. On January 27, 2017 and February 10, 2017, respectively, two putative securities class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania that named as defendants Egalet Corporation and current officers Robert S. Radie and Stanley J. Musial, and former officer Jeffrey M. Dayno (the "Officer Defendants" and together with Egalet Corporation, the "Defendants"). These two complaints, captioned Mineff v. Egalet Corp. et al., No. 2:17-cv-00390-MMB and Klein v. Egalet Corp. et al., No. 2:17-cv-00617-MMB, assert securities fraud claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") on behalf of putative classes of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Egalet Corporation securities between December 15, 2015 and January 9, 2017. On May 1, 2017, the Court entered an order consolidating the two cases (the "Securities Class Action Litigation") before it, appointing the Egalet Investor Group (consisting of Joseph Spizzirri, Abdul Rahiman and Kyle Kobold) as lead plaintiff and approving their selection of lead and liaison counsel. On July 3, 2017, the plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended complaint, which named the same Defendants and also asserts claims for purported violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Plaintiffs brought their claims individually and on behalf of a putative class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of the Company between November 4, 2015 and January 9, 2017 inclusive. The consolidated amended complaint based its claims on allegedly false and/or misleading statements and/or failures to disclose information about the likelihood that ARYMO ER would be approved for intranasal abuse-deterrent labeling. The Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on September 1, 2017 (the "Motion to Dismiss"), the plaintiffs filed their opposition on October 31, 2017, and the Defendants filed their reply on December 8, 2017. The Court heard oral arguments on the Motion to Dismiss on February 20, 2018, and entered an order pursuant to which the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint on March 6, 2018. The Defendants responded on March 20, 2018 and the plaintiffs filed their reply on March 27, 2018. The Court heard oral arguments on the plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second amended complaint on July 12, 2018. On August 2, 2018, the Court granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and dismissed the Securities Class Action Litigation with prejudice. Plaintiffs have 30 days to appeal the decision or 28 days to move under Rule 59 for reconsideration. Egalet Corporation, a specialty pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, and commercializes treatments for patients with pain and other conditions. Egalet Corporation was founded in 2010 and is headquartered in Wayne, Pennsylvania. ELITE FUNDING: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Abante Rooter Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- ABANTE ROOTER AND PLUMBING, INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. ELITE FUNDING GROUP, INC. d/b/a ONE WAY FUNDING, LLC, and DOES 1 through 10, Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-04753 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 7, 2018) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. Elite Funding Corporation was founded in 1991. The company's line of business includes originating mortgage loans, selling mortgage loans to permanent investors, and servicing loans. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. Tom E. Wheeler, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@ toddflaw.com abacon@ toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com twheeler@toddflaw.com ENERGY TRANSFER: Sept. 2019 Trial Set in Regency-ETP Merger Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2018, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that trial is currently set for September 23-27, 2019 in the Regency-ETP merger related suit. Purported Regency unitholders filed lawsuits in state and federal courts in Dallas and Delaware asserting claims relating to the Regency-ETP merger (the "Regency Merger"). All but one Regency Merger-related lawsuits have been dismissed. On June 10, 2015, Adrian Dieckman ("Dieckman"), a purported Regency unitholder, filed a class action complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Regency Merger Litigation"), on behalf of Regency's common unitholders against Regency GP, LP; Regency GP LLC; ETE, ETP, ETP GP, and the members of Regency's board of directors ("Defendants"). The Regency Merger Litigation alleges that the Regency Merger breached the Regency partnership agreement because Regency's conflicts committee was not properly formed, and the Regency Merger was not approved in good faith. On March 29, 2016, the Delaware Court of Chancery granted Defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit in its entirety. Dieckman appealed. On January 20, 2017, the Delaware Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Chancery. On May 5, 2017, Plaintiff filed an Amended Verified Class Action Complaint. Defendants then filed Motions to Dismiss the Amended Complaint and a Motion to Stay Discovery on May 19, 2017. On February 20, 2018, the Court of Chancery issued an Order granting in part and denying in part the motions to dismiss, dismissing the claims against all defendants other than Regency GP, LP and Regency GP LLC (the "Regency Defendants"). On March 6, 2018, the Regency Defendants filed their Answer to Plaintiff's Verified Amended Class Action Complaint. Trial is currently set for September 23-27, 2019. Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. engages in the natural gas midstream, and intrastate transportation and storage businesses in the United States. The company's Intrastate Transportation and Storage segment transports natural gas from various natural gas producing areas through connections with other pipeline systems, as well as through its ET Fuel System and HPL System. Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. was founded in 1995 and is based in Dallas, Texas. ENERGY XXI GULF: Faces Franchi Suit over Cox Oil Merger ------------------------------------------------------- ANTHONY FRANCHI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ENERGY XXI GULF COAST, INC.; GARY HANNA; DOUGLAS E. BROOKS; MICHAEL S. BAHORICH; GABRIEL L. ELLISOR; STANFORD SPRINGEL; and CHARLES W. WAMPLER, Defendants, Case No. 1;18-cv-01203-UNA (D. Del., Aug. 7, 2018) alleges that the Defendants omit material information with respect to a merger transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and misleading in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, Energy XXI Gulf Coast, Inc. will be acquired by Cox Oil and its affiliates. On June 18, 2018, Energy XXI's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with MLCJR LLC and its wholly-owned subsidiary, YHIMONE, Inc. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, if the Proposed Transaction is approved by Energy XXI's shareholders and completed, Energy XXI's stockholders will receive $9.10 in cash for each share of the Energy XXI common stock they hold. On August 3, 2018, defendants filed a proxy statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Proxy Statement omits material information regarding the Company's financial projections as well as the valuation analyses performed by the Company's financial advisor, Intrepid Partners, LLC, in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The omission of the above-referenced material information renders the Proxy Statement false and misleading, including, inter alia, the following sections of the Proxy Statement: (i) Background of the Merger; (ii) Energy XXI's Reasons for the Merger; Recommendation of the Energy XXI Board of Directors; (iii) Opinion of Energy XXI's Financial Advisor; and (iv) Certain Prospective Unaudited Financial and Operating Information of Energy XXI. Energy XXI Gulf Coast, Inc., an exploration and production company, engages in the acquisition, development, exploitation, and operation of oil and natural gas properties in the United States Gulf Coast region. Energy XXI Gulf Coast, Inc. was incorporated in 2006 and is headquartered in Houston, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (484) 324-6800 Facsimile: (484) 631-1305 E-mail: rm@maniskas.com - and - Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Davis Sues over Background Checks ------------------------------------------------------ DANA DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC; KROSS, LIEBERMAN & STONE, INC.; CREDIT SOLUTIONS CORPORATION; and WYNDHAM RESORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, d/b/a WORLDMARK BY WYNDHAM, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00436-MOC-DSC (W.D.N.C., Aug. 7, 2018) alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants negligently, recklessly and knowingly falsely reported that the Plaintiff owes them a balance, despite being on actual notice that these accounts were opened by an identity thief, and that these entities failed to correct this information after being advised of the Plaintiff's dispute. The Plaintiff further alleges that the Defendants have negligently and recklessly disseminated false information regarding the Plaintiff's credit, namely by continuing to associate the Plaintiff with these fraudulent accounts, particularly after the Plaintiff mailed letters to the Defendants specifically advising it of its error and submitting extensive supporting documentation. Equifax Information Services Inc. provides information solutions and human resources business process outsourcing services for businesses, governments, and consumers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josef C. Culik, Esq. FAIRVIEW LAW 6000 Fairview Rd., Ste. 6000 Charlotte, NC 28210 Telephone: (980) 999-3557 Facsimile: (980) 999-3537 E-mail: jc@fairview-law.com - and - Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Telephone: (732) 695-3282 Facsimile: (732) 298-6256 E-mail: yzelman@MarcusZelman.com EQUITY RESIDENTIAL: R. Baker's Suit Remains in Mass. District Court ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Patti B. Harris of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts the Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand the case, RACHELLE BAKER and JASON DITTMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. EQUITY RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT, L.L.C., and EQR-WALDEN PARK, L.L.C., Defendants, Civil Action No. 18-11175-PBS (C. Mass.). Baker and Dittmann, the class representatives, have moved to remand the action under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA"). The class action complaint was originally filed in Massachusetts Superior Court on Aug. 15, 2013. Defendants ERM removed the case on Sept. 6, 2013, and the Plaintiffs successfully moved to remand back to state court in February of 2014 where the case has proceeded until recently. On May 30, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed an expert report alleging damages over $5 million. Within 30 days, on June 5, 2018, ERM removed the case to federal court for the second time. The Plaintiffs have moved to remand on the basis of untimeliness, alleging that ERM could have easily figured out that damages exceeded $5 million from past court documents and communications, and that the 30-day clock on removal has therefore already run. Judge Harris finds that the Plaintiffs have not presented any paper from which an amount in controversy equal to more than $5 million was ascertainable through straightforward calculation prior to the expert report. The Plaintiffs argue that recent filings in 2017 made it a matter of simple math that the class action involved over $5 million. However, the Defendants point out that the math is not straightforward. In addition, the damages due to tenants in both of the classes may be duplicative. This "double dipping" problem makes the calculations more complex. Hence, the Defendants' removal within 30 days of the expert report was therefore proper. Accordingly, Judge Harris denied the Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand. In the case, RACHELLE BAKER and JASON DITTMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. EQUITY RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT, L.L.C., and EQR-WALDEN PARK, L.L.C., Defendants, A full-text copy of the Court's July 31, 2018 Memorandum and Order is available at https://bit.ly/2wZyMzW from Leagle.com. Rachelle Baker, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated & Jason Dittmann, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Joshua N. Garick -- Joshua@GarickLaw.com -- Law Offices of Joshua N. Garick, P.C. & David Pastor -- info@pastorlawoffice.com -- Pastor Law Office, LLP. Equity Residential Management, L.L.C. & EQR-Walden Park, L.L.C., Defendants, represented by Thomas H. Wintner -- twintner@mintz.com -- Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, PC & Mathilda McGee-Tubb -- MSMcGee-Tubb@mintz.com -- Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, PC. ETRADE FINANCIAL: 2d Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Ryner Suit --------------------------------------------------------- In the case, TY RAYNER, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. E*TRADE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, E*TRADE SECURITIES LLC, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 17-1487 (2d Cir.), Judge Debra Ann Livingston of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York's dismissal of all of Rayner's claims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rayner filed a class action complaint raising state law claims against E*TRADE. Rayner's claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief were each based on the same allegation that E*TRADE violated its duty of best execution. E*TRADE provides brokerage and related services to individual retail investors. Clients place orders to buy and sell securities with E*TRADE, and then E*TRADE executes those orders by delivering them to trading venues such as stock exchanges, hedge funds, banks, electronic communications networks, and third-party market makers. One such client, Rayner, placed a non-directed, standing limit order as recently as January 2014, and E*TRADE executed that order on his behalf. On March 25, 2015, Rayner filed the Complaint on behalf of himself and other E*TRADE clients who have placed non-directed, standing limit orders. Specifically, he complains that, in breach of its duty of best execution, E*TRADE prioritizes choosing the trading venues that are willing to pay the largest "kickbacks" in exchange for order flow. Such a practice creates a conflict of interest between E*TRADE and its clients by incentivizing E*TRADE to choose trading venues that may be most cost-effective for E*TRADE, but which may not be the best method of execution for its clients. E*TRADE filed a motion to dismiss, arguing inter alia that Rayner's class action suit is precluded by SLUSA. In response, Rayner argued that SLUSA preclusion does not apply because (1) his Complaint does not allege that E*TRADE made a misrepresentation or omission, or employed any manipulative or deceptive device; and (2) even assuming that the Complaint alleges fraud, any such fraud was not in connection with" the purchase or sale of covered securities. In a memorandum opinion and order dated April 1, 2017, the district court granted E*TRADE's motion to dismiss, concluding that Rayner's arguments against preclusion are unpersuasive. Judge Livingston agrees with the district court that the gravamen of Rayner's Complaint is that E*TRADE made material misrepresentations and omissions that were designed to induce clients to execute non-directed, standing limit orders with E*TRADE even though E*TRADE allegedly had no intention of fulfilling its purported fiduciary obligations. The substance of Rayner's Complaint plainly alleges fraudulent conduct. She joins the sister circuits in concluding that best execution claims alleging misrepresentations or omissions relating to: (1) a broker's receipt of "kickbacks" from trading venues; and (2) the execution of trades so as to take advantage of such arrangements, satisfy the third element of SLUSA, by alleging securities claims based on fraudulent conduct. As to SLUSA's fourth element, the Judge also agrees with the district court that E*TRADE's alleged fraudulent conduct arose "in connection with" the purchase or sale of covered securities. She says it is frivolous to suggest that negatively influencing the price and quantity at which clients may buy and sell securities would not make a significant difference to someone's decision to purchase or to sell a covered security. That E*TRADE fraudulently failed to follow through on its promise to place the investments in covered securities based on best execution standards does not in any respect remove this case from the ambit of SLUSA. The Judge has considered all of Rayner's remaining arguments and finds them to be meritless. For the foregoing reasons, she affirmed judgment of the district court. A full-text copy of the Court's July 31, 2018 Order is available at https://bit.ly/2oZnb0u from Leagle.com. LESLIE E. HURST (Timothy G. Blood -- tblood@bholaw.com -- Paula R. Brown -- pbrown@sakg.com -- on the brief), Blood Hurst & O'Reardon, LLP, San Diego, CA., for Plaintiff-Appellant. Brian J. Robbins -- notice@robbinsarroyo.com -- Kevin A. Seely -- kseely@robbinsarroyo.com -- Ashley R. Rifkin -- arifkin@robbinsarroyo.com -- Leonid Kandinov -- lkandinov@robbinsarroyo.com -- Robbins Arroyo LLP, San Diego, CA. COREY WORCESTER -- coreyworcester@quinnemanuel.com -- (Faith E. Gay -- faithgay@quinnemanuel.com -- Marc L. Greenwald -- marcgreenwald@quinnemanuel.com -- on the brief), Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, New York, NY., for Defendants-Appellees. FCA US: Court Grants Dismissal of Swanigan's LMRA Suit ------------------------------------------------------ The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, granted Defendants' Motions to Dismiss the Second Amended Class Action Complaint in the case captioned BEVERLY L. SWANIGAN, BRIAN LEE KELLER, and SHERI ANOLICK, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FCA US, LLC, a foreign limited liability company, and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, ("UAW"), jointly and severally, Defendants. Case No. 18-cv-10319. (E.D. Mich.). The Plaintiffs and the potential class members are all past or current employees of FCA, as well as past or current members of the UAW, a labor union that represents employees of several automakers. Plaintiffs characterize the instant action as a hybrid claim under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA). Standard of Review Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) allows the court to make an assessment as to whether the plaintiff has stated a claim upon which relief may be granted. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests. FCA's Motion to Dismiss First, FCA argues that the Plaintiffs have failed to allege an actionable violation of the LMRA because: (1) there is no viable Section 301 claim based on the alleged dissatisfaction with the price at which the UAW Trust sold certain securities to FCA because the UAW Trust is not a labor organization and has nothing to do with collective bargaining or any terms or conditions of Plaintiffs' employment, (2) Plaintiffs fail to allege a breach of any collective bargaining agreement and lastly, (3) Plaintiffs cannot transform a Section 302 claim improper payoffs to union officials into a Section 301 claim because Section 302 does not create a private right of action. Violation of the LMRA Employee actions under Section 301 are characterized as hybrid claims and to recover employee-union members must prove both (1) that the employer breached the collective bargaining agreement and (2) that the union breached its duty of fair representation. FCA first argues that the Purchase Agreement between the UAW Trust and the FCA does not fall within the purview of Section 301 for the following reasons: (1) the UAW Trust is not a labor organization, rather it is an entirely separate entity from the UAW, thus it is not an agreement between an employer and a labor organization, and (2) has nothing to do with collective bargaining. The Plaintiffs fail to address this argument in their Responsive Brief. At the hearing in this matter, the Plaintiffs asserted that they had not waived this aspect of their claim. Plaintiffs failure to address FCA's argument in their Responsive brief "constitutes waiver or abandonment. It appears to the Court that the Plaintiffs failure to respond to FCA's argument may be due to the apparent meritorious argument advanced. The LMRA defines labor organizations as any organization in which employees participate and which exists for the purpose, in whole or in part, of dealing with employers concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or conditions of work. The UAW Trust does not fall within this definition because it is a voluntary employees beneficiary association trust and union benefit trust funds are not labor organizations as a matter of law. Therefore, the Plaintiffs cannot allege that the UAW Trust is a labor organization; rather it is a separate legal entity from the UAW that is an employee benefits trust. FCA next argues that dismissal is appropriate because Plaintiffs fail to allege any specific provision of any collective bargaining agreement that was breached by FCA's conduct. In their Responsive Brief, Plaintiffs concede that their Second Amended Class Action Complaint fails to allege a breach of any provision of the operative collective bargaining agreement. Plaintiffs maintain that since they have alleged FCA bribed the UAW, an unfair labor practice under the NLRA, they have sufficiently alleged a breach of contract to withstand Rule 12(b)(6) scrutiny. Plaintiffs' argument is without merit. Lastly, Defendant FCA argues that Plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged a Section 301 claim because they are attempting to bring a disguised Section 302 claim for bribery and collusion, which does not provide a private right of action pursuant to Sixth Circuit authority. Defendants are correct. Here, the Plaintiffs characterize their claim as a hybrid Section 301 claim but their allegations stem from collusion between FCA and the UAW whereby the FCA transferred prohibited payments and things of value to UAW officers to obtain company-friendly positions at the bargaining table and elsewhere. However, allegations of improper payoffs to union officials may not be redressed pursuant to Section 301. The Plaintiffs have not alleged a breach of any provision in the operative collective bargaining agreement. Additionally, the UAW Trust is a separate entity that is not a labor organization and its Agreement does not qualify as a labor contract. Lastly, their purported §301 claim is a disguised Section 302 claim, which does not give them a private cause of action. For all of these reasons, Plaintiffs claims for breach of contract against FCA (Count I) and for breach of the duty of fair representation against the UAW (Count II) fail to state a viable cause of action and are dismissed. Exhaustion of Contractual and Internal Union Remedies Even if the Plaintiffs sufficiently alleged a Section 301 claim, this action must also be dismissed because Plaintiffs failed to adequately allege they are excused from attempting to exhaust both the grievance procedure established by the operative collective bargaining agreement, as well as the internal union remedies established by the UAW Constitution. In their Second Amended Class Action Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that FCA's and the UAW's prolonged and expansive collusive conduct [renders] exhaustion of internal remedies futile if not impossible. Before aggrieved employees may bring a Section 301 action, they must satisfy two separate exhaustion requirements. Specifically, they must exhaust (1) contractual grievance and arbitration procedures set forth in the collective bargaining agreement and (2) internal union appeal procedure[s] established in the UAW Constitution. Exhaustion of internal union remedies and resort to exclusive contractual remedies are separate prerequisites to an employee suit. In their Responsive Brief, Plaintiffs assert that their contractual duty to invoke the grievance procedure under the operable collective bargaining agreement is excused because employees are not required to utilize these internal union procedures when the union has breached its duty of fair representation. Plaintiffs cite to Jackson v. Local Union 992, 991 F.Supp.2d 71, 81 (D.D.C. 2014), but mainly rely on Hines v. Anchor Freight, Inc., 424 U.S. 554 (1976) for this proposition. Both cases do not demonstrate that Plaintiffs are excused from invoking the grievance process set forth in the collective bargaining agreement. Lastly, Plaintiffs argue, without any substantive allegations set forth in the Second Amended Class Action Complaint that a final reason to excuse exhaustion is that it will cause undue delay. Plaintiffs do not allege this in their pleading and this assertion is conclusory without any factual support. Accordingly, the Court agrees that this action must be dismissed for the additional reason that Plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged they should be excused from exhausting their contractual remedies and internal union procedures. A full-text copy of the District Court's August 23, 2018 Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y82jcfg3 from Leagle.com. Beverly L. Swanigan, Brian Lee Keller & Sheri Anolick, Plaintiffs, represented by Brian Farrar , Sterling Attorneys at Law, P.C., James C. Baker , Sterling Attorneys at Law & Raymond J. Sterling , Sterling Attorneys at Law. FCA US, LLC, Defendant, represented by Brian M. Schwartz -- schwartzb@canfieldmiller.com -- Miller, Canfield, David D. O'Brien -- Obrien@millercanfield.com -- Miller, Canfield, Jacob Eden Cohen -- cohenja@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, Julia Marie Jordan -- jordanjm@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, Steven L. Holley -- holleys@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan & Cromwell LLP & Thomas W. Cranmer -- cranner@millercanfield.com -- Miller Canfield Paddock and Stone PLC. INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, Defendant, represented by Abigail V. Carter , Bredhoff & Kaiser, PLLC, Elisabeth Oppenheimer , Bredhoff and Kaiser, PLLC, StreetJeffrey D. Sodko , UAW Legal Dept. & William J. Karges, III , International Union, UAW. FLEETCOR TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Georgia Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- FleetCor Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2018, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company continues to defend a class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. On June 14, 2017, a shareholder filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against the Company and certain of its officers and directors on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's stock between February 5, 2016 and May 2, 2017. On October 13, 2017, the shareholder filed an amended complaint asserting claims on behalf of a putative class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between February 4, 2016 and May 3, 2017. The complaint alleges that the defendants made false or misleading statements regarding fee charges and the reasons for its earnings and growth in certain press releases and other public statements in violation of the federal securities laws. Plaintiff seeks class certification, unspecified monetary damages, costs, and attorneys' fees. The Company disputes the allegations in the complaint and intends to vigorously defend against the claims. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. FleetCor Technologies, Inc. provides commercial payment solutions in North America, Latin America, Europe, and Australasia. The company offers fuel payment solutions to businesses and government entities that operate vehicle fleets, as well as to oil and leasing companies, and fuel marketers. Its fuel payment products are in the form of plastic cards, electronic RFID tags, and paper vouchers to purchase fuel, oil, vehicle maintenance supplies and services, and building supplies. FleetCor Technologies, Inc. was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Peachtree Corners, Georgia. FLORIDA: Court Dismisses Lee County Prisoners' Suit --------------------------------------------------- Judge John E. Steele of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division, dismissed without prejudice the case, CHARLIE JACKSON, DAVID BAKER, JR., WILLIAM COLE, DANIEL BROWN, JESUS M. CRUZ, BLAINE E. WILLIAMS, DANIEL THOMAS, RODRIGUEZ DURAN, REGINALD R. GRIFFIN, IAN WAGNER, TYRONE CAMBELL, JAVON SMITH, STANLEY HALL KRABILL, MADESTO GARCIA BAUTTIA, and JAIMIE MALDANADO, Plaintiffs, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, KATHLEEN A. SMITH, MIKE SCOTT, RICK SCOTT, STEPHEN B. RUSSELL, and LINDA DOGGETT, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-295-FtM-29CM (M.D. Fla.). The matter comes before the Court on initial review of the file. The Plaintiffs, 15 pretrial detainees in the Lee County Jail, filed a putative class action complaint for violation of civil rights on April 30, 2018. Plaintiffs Jackson, Duran, and Bauttia seek leave to proceed in forma pauperis on the Complaint. At the outset, the Court notes that the Complaint was not signed by any of the 15 Plaintiffs listed on the complaint. Thus, the pleading fails to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 and M.D. Fla. R. 1.05(d). Here, the warning would be futile because Eleventh Circuit law prohibits prisoner Plaintiffs from proceeding in forma pauperis in the same civil action. Additionally, while a pro se litigant has a right to litigate his individual claims in federal court, it is plain error to permit an imprisoned litigant who is unassisted by counsel to represent his fellow inmates in a class action. Consequently, pro se prisoner Plaintiff's cannot jointly prosecute the action or proceed on their putative class action complaint. Consequently, Judge Steele dismissed the Complaint without prejudice. To the extent each individual Plaintiff wishes to prosecute a claim, they will file a separate complaint in their own action. If, upon review of the individual complaints, the Judge concludes that the interests of judicial economy require the joinder of any claim(s), it may so order at that time. The Clerk of Court will enter judgment and terminate any pending motions and close the action. A full-text copy of the Court's July 31, 2018 Order is available at https://bit.ly/2N8b2Vt from Leagle.com. Charlie Jackson, Plaintiff, pro se. David Baker, Jr., Plaintiff, pro se. William Cole, Plaintiff, pro se. Daniel Brown, Plaintiff, pro se. Jesus M. Cruz, Plaintiff, pro se. Blaine E. Williams, Plaintiff, pro se. Daniel Thomas, Plaintiff, pro se. Rodriguez Duran, Plaintiff, pro se. Reginald R. Griffin, Plaintiff, pro se. Ian Wagner, Plaintiff, pro se. GC SERVICES: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Neuman Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against GC Services Limited Partnership. The case is titled as Sarah Neuman, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers v. GC Services Limited Partnership, Case No. 1:18-cv-04980 (E.D.N.Y., September 3, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. GC Services LP provides adjustment services on claims and other insurance related issues. The Company offers customer care call handling, sales order, entry taking, and tracking, also debt collection, early delinquency, letter, and mailing.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq. ADAM J. FISHBEIN, P.C. 735 Central Avenue Woodmere, NY 11598 Telephone: (516) 668-6945 E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com GLOBALSCAPE INC: Continues to Defend Giovagnoli Class Action Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- GlobalSCAPE, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2018, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company continues to defend itself in a class action suit entitled, Anthony Giovagnoli v. GlobalSCAPE, Inc., et. al. On November 15, 2017, on August 9, 2017, a securities class action complaint, Anthony Giovagnoli v. GlobalSCAPE, Inc., et. al., Case No. 5:17-cv-00753, was filed against the Company in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. On November 6, 2017, the Court appointed Irfan Rahman as lead plaintiff, and he filed the First Amended Complaint on July 26, 2018. The Amended Complaint names the Company, Matthew Goulet, James Albrecht, Thomas Brown, David Mann, Frank Morgan, and Thomas Hicks as defendants for allegedly making materially false and misleading statements regarding, inter alia, the Company's previously reported financial statements. The Amended Complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The Amended Complaint seeks unspecified damages, costs, attorneys' fees, and equitable relief. GlobalSCAPE said, "Management intends to vigorously defend against this action. At this time, the Company cannot predict how the courts will rule on the merits of the claims and/or the scope of the potential loss in the event of an adverse outcome. Should the Company ultimately be found liable, the resulting damages could have a material adverse effect on its financial position, liquidity, or results of operations. GlobalSCAPE, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, develops and distributes software, delivers managed and hosted solutions, and provides associated services for secure information exchange, and data transfer and sharing for enterprises and consumers worldwide. GlobalSCAPE, Inc. was founded in 1996 and is based in San Antonio, Texas. GOLDEN GATE: Settlement in Jama Suit Has Final Approval ------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ABDIKHADAR JAMA an individual, JEES JEES, an individual, and MOHAMED MOHAMED, an individual, Plaintiffs, v. GOLDEN GATE AMERICA LLC, a foreign limited liability company and EAN HOLDINGS LLC, ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS, INC., a foreign corporation, and VANGUARD AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, a foreign business entity d/b/a NATIONAL CAR RENTAL, ALAMO RENT A CAR, and ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-611 RSL (W.D. Wash.), Judge Robert S. Lasnik of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of the proposed class settlement. The proposed Settlement resolves all of the Settlement Class Members' claims against the Defendants in exchange for EAN's agreement to provide monetary relief to Settlement Class Members as set forth in the Settlement Agreement and Release of Claims. On July 31, 2018, the Court held a Settlement Hearing to consider whether to grant final approval to the Settlement and to consider Class Counsel's Motion for Attorney's Fees, Costs, and Class Representative Incentive Awards. The Court heard argument from counsel and allowed others to appear to voice their support for, or objection to, the Settlement, the Fee Application, or both. Having read, reviewed, and considered the papers filed in support of and any in opposition to final approval of the Settlement, including supporting declarations; oral arguments of the counsel and presentations by any Settlement Class Members who appeared at the hearing; the Class Counsel's Fee and Cost Application; the Agreement; and the pleadings, Judge Lasnik granted final approval to the Settlement. He dismissed with prejudice all claims of members of the Settlement Class against EAN and other released parties as described in the Agreement. As of the hearing date for the Plaintiffs' motion, the Parties reported that 81 Class Members had been provided supplemental notice based on updated identification data, but that these Class Members would likely benefit from an extension of the opt-out period and of the date for reversion to Defendant EAN of unclaimed funds. Accordingly, with respect to those 81 Class Members only, the Judge extended the opt-out date by 180 days from today's date and extended the date on which uncashed checks to those Class Members revert to EAN to 360 days from today's date. With these modifications, he has afforded a full opportunity to all Settlement Class Members to be heard. Accordingly, he determined that all members of the Settlement Class are bound by the Final Judgment. Within 30 days of the full filing of the proposed Agreement in the Court, EAN caused to be served a notice of the proposed Settlement upon the appropriate state official of each State in which a Class Member resides and upon the Attorney General of the United States. As an incentive payment in compensation for the time, effort, and risk they undertook as representatives of the Class, Judge Lasnik awarded $1,000 to Abdikhadar Jama; $1,000 to Jees Jees; and $1,000 to Mohamed Mohamed. He also approved the Class Counsel's attorney's fees in the amount of $180,000. These fees and costs are in lieu of statutory fees and costs that either the Representative Plaintiffs or the Settlement Class might otherwise have been entitled to recover. EAN will pay, through the Settlement Administrator, the fee and cost award to the Class Counsel and the Service Awards to the Representative Plaintiff, as well as make available to the Settlement Class members the amounts provided in the Agreement, in accordance with and at the times prescribed by the Agreement. A full-text copy of the Court's July 31, 2018 Order is available at https://bit.ly/2MnFfKK from Leagle.com. Abdikhadar Jama, an individual, Jees Jees, an individual & Mohamed Mohamed, an individual, Plaintiffs, represented by Daniel R. Whitmore & Duncan Calvert Turner -- dturner@badgleymullins.com -- BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER PLLC. EAN Holdings LLC, Defendant, represented by Harry James Franklyn Korrell, III -- harrykorrell@dwt.com -- Laura Turczanski -- lauraturczanski@dwt.com -- Taylor S. Ball -- taylorball@dwt.com -- at DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE. GOOGLE LLC: Court Denies Class Certification in Woods' AdWords Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in the case captioned RICK WOODS, Plaintiff, v. GOOGLE LLC, Defendant. Case No. 11-cv-01263-EJD. (N.D. Cal.) Plaintiff Rick Woods (Woods) is the sole class representative in this putative class action against Defendant Google LLC (Google). Woods contends that Google bilked him and his fellow advertisers into overpaying for advertising services. His lawsuit focuses on Google's alleged promises and misrepresentations as to two particular features of its AdWords program -- the Smart Pricing feature and the Location Targeting feature. As the sole class representative, Woods proposes to represent two classes, one with respect to the Smart Pricing feature and the other with respect to the Location Targeting feature. The Smart Pricing Class is defined as: All persons and entities located within the United States who, between August 22, 2006 and February 20, 2013, advertised through Google's AdWords program and paid for clicks on their Google AdWords advertisement(s), where such clicks were not Smart Priced because they (1) originated from a property on Google's Display Network and Google applied no Smart Pricing measurement, or (2) were AFMA Clicks, Search Bundled Clicks, or mGDN Clicks. The Location Targeting Class is defined as: All persons and entities located within the United States who, between January 1, 2004 and March 22, 2011, advertised through Google's AdWords program and paid for clicks on their Google AdWords advertisement(s), where such clicks did not originate from the location selected by the advertiser. LEGAL STANDARD Class Certification Rule 23(a) provides that a class may only be certified if (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Adequacy of Representation Under Rule 23(a)(4) Google devotes its entire motion to deny certification to an examination of the conflict between Woods, the sole class representative, and the classes based on Woods's relationship with the attorneys representing the classes. Although Woods attempts to downplay this conflict in his opposition, there is a serious mismatch between Woods's interests in this case and the classes' interests in this case. The Court finds that this disparity in interests is large enough that Woods does not provide adequate representation of the classes. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(4) mandates that the class representative fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. As a general matter, the adequacy inquiry under Rule 23(a)(4) serves to uncover conflicts of interest between named parties and the class they seek to represent. Scrutinizing for conflicts is essential to guard the due-process right of absent class members not to be bound to a judgment without adequate representation by the parties participating in the litigation. In the instant case, Woods's business connection with class counsel creates an intolerable conflict of interests. The way that this case unfolded (and that Woods became entangled with the lawyers) is somewhat unusual. Before being recruited as the class representative in this case, Woods was a debt collection and personal injury lawyer in Arkansas. In February 2011, just over a month before filing the complaint in this case, Woods signed a joint retainer agreement for Taylor Law Partners LLP (TLP) and Nix, Patterson & Roach, LLP (Nix Patterson) to represent him in the prosecution of an action against Google. The engagement letter, written on TLP letterhead, provided that TLP's founding partner and Nix Patterson would file a class action lawsuit against Google on behalf of Woods and others similarly situated to Woods, with Woods serving as a representative of the class. In accordance with that agreement, on March 15, 2011, Nix Patterson along with Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (Kessler Topaz) filed the class action complaint in this case naming Woods as the class representative. After Woods agreed to serve as the class representative here, TLP hired him as a partner at the firm. As Woods explained in his deposition, TLP called him out of the blue in December 2012 and asked him to join the firm as a partner. Woods immediately accepted and became an equity partner the next month, in January 2013. Woods originally owned a 1/10 partnership interest in TLP. At present, Woods owns a 1/9 partnership interest in TLP. Woods's 1/9 partnership interest does not translate to a 1/9 equity interest, as the firm's unwritten compensation scheme is quite convoluted. In Woods's opposition to Google's motion to deny class certification, he summarizes his interest as follows: Woods has a 1/9 interest in 50% of the balance of TLP's overhead account after firm overhead is paidand after the originating partner has collected the lion's share (55% to 75%) of the fees earned by the firm. For present purposes, it suffices to note that Woods has a partnership interest in TLP and receives compensation pursuant to a complex payment scheme. Once Woods became a partner at TLP, he signed a new retainer agreement with Nix Patterson and Kessler Topaz that confirmed that Woods's retention of the founding partner at TLP as counsel in any matters pertaining to Google ha[d] been mutually terminated at Woods's request. But crucial details are hazy. For example, although some places in the record suggest that the new retainer agreement was executed in early 2013, the agreement itself does not appear to be dated and the signatories did not include dates of signature, At a minimum, this missing fact clouds Woods's contention that TLP immediately ceased representing him and withdrew as counsel when Woods joined the firm. More troubling, however, is that the new retainer agreement does not mention TLP's fees and that Woods does not identify any documentation or other concrete evidence conclusively establishing that TLP relinquished any fee interest in this action. In a request for admission, Woods admitted that no Document exists in which TLP or its founding partner relinquished any interest, right, fees or proceeds of this litigation. Instead, Woods attempts to rely on an informal renunciation of fees, but the evidence on this point varies. For example, while TLP's founding partner has submitted an affidavit stating that TLP gave up the right to any fee in the case when Woods became a partner, his deposition testimony tells a murkier story. Indeed, the founding partner conceded that he does not recall telling Woods or other counsel that TLP was renouncing any fee recovery but that it was just a given. In other cases with the same lawyers, he understood that there was an informal agreement that TLP would receive a referral fee if the case was successful. Woods was not in a position to rehabilitate these statements, and he testified accordingly. If TLP stands to earn a fee if this case is successful, Woods's status as equity partner at TLP presents a plain conflict of interests with the class because Woods could receive a portion of that possibly sizeable fee. In the end, the class representative must play a principal role in ensuring protection of absent class members' interests. It is not true that reliance on the court's control of settlement and attorney's fees renders strict enforcement of the requirements of Rule 23(a)(4) unnecessary. For the reasons described above, the Court finds that because of Woods's close connection to Nix Patterson and Kessler Topaz through his partnership at TLP, his interests diverge too sharply from the classes so that he does not "fairly and adequately protect the interests of the classes. Although this conclusion also means that Nix Patterson and Kessler Topaz cannot adequately represent the classes so long as Woods remains at the helm, the Court does not find that the conflict would continue to taint this case if a new class representative is added. Accordingly, the Court denies Woods's motion for class certification and grants Google's motion to deny class certification. A full-text copy of the District Court's August 23, 2018 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7gfgrqw from Leagle.com. Rick Woods, individually and on behalf of Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brad Edward Seidel -- bradseidel@nixlawfirm.com -- Daniel Christopher Mulveny -- dmulveny@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer and Check, LLP, Margaret Elin Mazzeo -- mmazzeo@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer and Check, LLP, Matthew Leo Mustokoff -- mmustokoff@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer and Check, LLP, Andrew Gordon Pate -- dpate@nixlaw.com -- Nix, Patterson and Roach, LLP, Bradley E. Beckworth -- bbeckworth@nixlaw.com -- Nix, Patterson & Roach, pro hac vice, Chad Ethan Ihrig -- cihrig@nixlaw.com -- Nix, Patterson and Roach, LLP, Christopher Robert Johnson -- cjohnson@nixlaw.com -- Nix, Patterson and Roach, LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey John Angelovich -- jangelovich@nixlaw.com -- Nix, Patterson & Roach, LLP, pro hac vice, Joseph H. Meltzer -- jmeltzer@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Louis Bradon Paddock -- bpaddock@nixlawfirm.com -- Nix, Patterson, Roach, LLP, pro hac vice, Michael Bryan Angelovich -- mangelovich@nixlaw.com -- Nix Patterson and Roach, LLP, pro hac vice, Michelle Newcomer -- mnewcomer@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Naumon A. Amjed -- namjed@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer Check, LLP, Ramzi Abadou -- ramzi.abadou@ksfcounsel.com -- Kahn Swick Foti LLP, Richard A. Russo, Jr. -- rrusso@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer and Check, LLP, pro hac vice, Robin Winchester -- rwinchester@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, pro hac vice, Ryan Thomas Degnan -- rdegnan@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer Check, LLP, Sean M. Handler, Esq. -- shandler@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP & Stacey Marie Kaplan -- skaplan@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. Google LLC, Defendant, represented by Edward D. Johnson -- wjohnson@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP, pro hac vice, Eric Evans -- tevans@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP, Daniel Edward Jones -- djones@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP, Donald M. Falk -- dfalk@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP, Lee H. Rubin -- lrubin@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP, Matthew Henry Marmolejo -- mmarmolejo@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP & Sarah Eileen Reynolds -- sreynolds@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP Litigation. HP HOOD LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Phillips Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL PHILLIPS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HP HOOD LLC; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 34-2018-00238311 (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., Aug. 7, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods. Mr. Phillips was employed by the Defendants as an hourly-paid, non exempt employee from October 2012 to January 2015. HP Hood LLC is an American dairy company based in Lynnfield, Massachusetts. Hood was founded in 1846 in Charlestown, Massachusetts by Harvey Perley Hood. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edwin Aiwazian, Esq. LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 265-1020 Facsimile: (818) 265-1021 INNATE INTELLIGENCE: Profax Allowed to Answer in Levine's TCPA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, LEVINE HAT CO., on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. INNATE INTELLIGENCE, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-01132 SNLJ (E.D. Mo.), Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, granted Profax, Inc.'s motion for leave to file an Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses to the Plaintiff's First Amended Class Action Complaint. The Plaintiff filed the action on July 13, 2016 against two Defendants and alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). On Jan. 3, 2017, the Plaintiff amended the complaint to add an additional nine Defendants, including Profax. That same date was the deadline for amended pleadings under the case's Case Management Order. Profax filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses on Feb. 24, 2017. The Court certified a class on Feb. 9, 2018 and then entered a Phase II CMO on March 16, 2018. Profax substituted new counsel on May 22, 2018. On June 13, 2018, Profax moved for leave to file an Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses to plaintiff's First Amended Class Action Complaint. The Plaintiff opposes the motion. Profax points out that it was never given an opportunity to amend its pleading in the time allowed by the CMO because it was added as a party on the last permissible day under the CMO. It that discovery will not close until Aug. 31, 2018, and Profax's Rule 30(b)(6) deposition had not at that time taken place. Profax seeks to assert lack of jurisdiction over the non-Missouri-resident class members under a line of cases that have evolved since the United States Supreme Court's decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco City, 137 S.Ct. It also seeks to amend its affirmative defense of lack of standing. Profax similarly seeks to add detail to its affirmative defense pertaining to Profax's argument that plaintiff has not met the requirements of Rule 23. Although it acknowledges that the class has already been certified, Profax states that its amendment is pertinent to a class definition. Further, it adds constitutional defenses to its affirmative defenses, a laches defense, prior business relationship and consent defenses, unclean hands and waiver/estoppel defenses. Judge Limbaugh holds that although some of Profax's defenses have been unsuccessful in other cases, ultimately there is no prejudice to the Plaintiff in light of the fact that discovery remains open, and Profax had not yet been deposed at the time of amendment. There remains plenty of time until trial, as well, allowing for an extension of deadlines to the extent more discovery time is required. Accordingly, he granted Profax, Inc.'s motion. A full-text copy of the Court's July 31, 2018 Memorandum and Order is available at https://bit.ly/2MlPgYP from Leagle.com. Levine Hat Co., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander L. Braitberg -- alex@keanelawllc.com -- KEANE LAW LLC, Kimberly Starr Morr, POTESTIVO AND ASSOCIATES P.C. & Ryan A. Keane -- ryan@keanelawllc.com -- KEANE LAW LLC. Innate Intelligence, LLC, doing business as Innate Wellness Centers, Defendant, pro se. Nepute Enterprises LLC, Defendant, represented by Christopher Douglas Longo -- longo@mklaw.us.com -- LONGO BIGGS, LLC. ProFax, Inc., Defendant, represented by Abby L. Risner -- alr@greensfelder.com -- GREENSFELDER AND HEMKER, PC, Mary Ann L. Wymore -- mlw@greensfelder.com -- GREENSFELDER AND HEMKER, PC & Dawn Morville Johnson -- dmj@greensfelder.com -- GREENSFELDER AND HEMKER, PC. IQ DATA: Illegally Charged Interest on Bonds, Esposito Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Esposito, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. I.Q. Data International, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00437, (M.D. Fla., June 21, 2018), seeks damages, restitution, and all other relief resulting from unjust enrichment and violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act. Plaintiff and Class Members have entered residential leases in Florida and, in lieu of tendering security deposits for them, executed surety bonds. I.Q. Data is a debt collector that companies have hired to collect monies from Plaintiff allegedly due on those bonds and leases secured by them. I.Q. Data sent tenants letters demanding they pay not only debts allegedly due, but also interest on those bond debts despite the lack of judgment issued or prior agreement, notes the complaint. [BN] Plaintiffs are represented by: Jordan Shaw, Esq. Mark S. Fistos, Esq. Kimberly A. Slaven, Esq. ZEBERSKY PAYNE, LLP 110 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 2150 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 989-6333 Facsimile: (954) 989-7781 Email: jshaw@zplIp.com mperez@zpllp.com mfistos@zplIp.com kslaven@zplIp.com - and - Dennis Card Jr., Esq. Darren R. Newhart, Esq. CONSUMER LAW ORGANIZATION, P.A. 721 US Highway 1, Suite 201 North Palm Beach, FL 33408 Telephone: (561) 692-6013 Facsimile: (305) 574-0132 Email: DCard@cloorg.com Darren@cloorg.com IRISH INVASION: Gonzales Sues Over Illegal Tip Credit ----------------------------------------------------- Linda E. Gonzalez, on her own behalf and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Irish Invasion, Inc., Edel Asklund and Hugh Jackson, individually, Case No. 18-cv-81160, (S.D. Fla., August 28, 2018), seeks redress for Defendant's failure to pay minimum wages to all servers/waitpersons pursuant to the Florida Minimum Wage Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants operate as Paddy Mac's Irish Pub in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida in Palm Beach County where Gonzales worked as a server. Defendants claimed a tip-credit despite the fact that Gonzales was paid below the minimum wage rate, notes the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Keith M. Stern, Esq. Hazel Solis Rojas, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A. One Flagler, 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 901-1379 Facsimile: (561) 288-9031 E-mail: employlaw@keithstern.com hsolis@workingforyou.com J CHOO USA: Luc Burbon Files ADA Suit in N.Y. --------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against J Choo USA, Inc. The case is styled as Luc Burbon, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. J Choo USA, Inc., doing business as: Jimmy Choo, Case No. 1:18-cv-08012 (S.D.N.Y., September 3, 2018). The Plaintiff accuses the Defendant of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act. J Choo USA, Inc., doing business as Jimmy Choo, manufactures footwear products. The Company offers sandals, wedges, boots, shoulder bags, and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Telephone: (917) 299-6612 Facsimile: (929) 575-4195 E-mail: joseph@cml.legal J. RECKNER: Judgment on Pleadings Bid in Lyngaas TCPA Suit Denied ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, BRIAN LYNGAAS, D.D.S., Plaintiff, v. J. RECKNER ASSOCIATES, INC. D/B/A RECKNER HEALTHCARE, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-CV-12867-TGB (E.D. Mich.), Judge Terrence G. Berg of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, denied the Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings. The Plaintiff is a dentist in Livonia, Michigan. On Jan. 5, 2017, Dr. Lyngaas was unpleasantly surprised to discover the unsolicited faxed communication on his office fax machine. As can be seen from the face of the fax, the Defendant sought to enlist Dr. Lyngaas as a survey taker. In exchange for 20 minutes of Dr. Lyngaas's time, Reckner Healthcare offered to pay Dr. Lyngaas $30. The Plaintiff alleges, which for purposes of the motion the Court must presume to be true, that the Defendant is a for-profit pharmaceutical marketing research firm. He claims that the Defendant collects data from medical professionals, and then sells that data to clients in the health care, pharmaceutical, and medical device industries. The Defendant, for its part, does not deny that it sent the fax. Rather, it contends that, as a matter of law, the fax is not an advertisement for purposes of the TCPA. Judge Berg finds that the fax calls to the attention of the public the fact that the service of survey-takers is desired by the Defendant. The fax communicates that it is seeking to employ survey-takers. In exchange for this service, the Defendant is willing to pay $30 to dentists for 20 minutes of their time. It is of no import that the Defendant is not seeking to sell a good or a service to the Plaintiff. The Defendant is offering to buy a service from the Plaintiff. Thus, the Defendant sent the fax with profit as an aim. The Defendant is announcing its desire to hire the Plaintiff to take its survey, in exchange for $30. As a matter of law, that's an advertisement. Accordingly, the Judge denied the Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings. A full-text copy of the Court's July 31, 2018 Order is available at https://bit.ly/2oYR8gX from Leagle.com. Brian Lyngaas, D.D.S., Plaintiff, represented by Richard Shenkan -- rshenkan@shenkanlaw.com -- Shenkan Injury Lawyers, LLC, Tod A. Lewis -- tod@classlawyers.com -- Bock Law Firm, LLC dba Bock, Hatch, Lewis & Oppenheim, LLC & Phillip A. Bock -- phil@bockhatchllc.com -- Bock Law Firm, LLC dba Bock, Hatch, Lewis & Oppenheim, LLC. J. Reckner Associates, Inc. d/b/a Reckner Healthcare, Defendant, represented by Andrew M. Lammert -- alammert@mlklaw.com -- McCarthy, Leonard & Kaemmerer, L.C., Brian E. McGovern -- bmcgovern@mlklaw.com -- McCarthy, Leonard & Kaemmerer LLC & David E. Plunkett -- dep@wwrplaw.com -- Williams, Williams. JAMBA INC: Fu Suit Seeks to Halt Focus Merger, Seeks Projections ---------------------------------------------------------------- Wei-Hsin Fu, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Jamba, Inc., Michael A. Depatie, Lorna Donatone, Richard L. Federico, Andrew R. Heyer, David A. Pace, James C. Pappas, Glenn W. Welling, Focus Brands Inc. and Jay Merger Sub, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-01337, (D. Del., August 28, 2018), seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating or closing the acquisition of Jamba Inc. by Focus Brands Inc., through its affiliate Jay Merger Sub, Inc.; 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. Focus will acquire Jamba for $13.00 per share in cash in a transaction valued at approximately $200 million. According to the complaint, the merger documents omitted material information, as well as the valuation analyses performed by North Point Advisors LLC. 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. Jamba, Inc., through its subsidiary, Jamba Juice Company, owns, operates, and franchises Jamba Juice stores. The company's restaurants provides blended whole fruit and vegetable smoothies, bowls, juices, cold-pressed shots, boosts, snacks, and meal replacements. Focus Brands is an affiliate of the Atlanta-based private equity firm, Roark Capital Group which currently owns the Schlotzsky's, Carvel, Cinnabon, Moe's Southwest Grill, McAlister's Deli and Auntie Anne's brands. It is based in Sandy Springs, Georgia and operates over 5,000 stores. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Juan E. Monteverde, 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 - and - Blake A. Bennett, Esq. COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A. The Brandywine Building 1000 West Street, 10th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Tel: (302) 984-3800 Email: bbennett@coochtaylor.com JB RAILROAD: Collins Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------- Demarious Collins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JB Railroad Contracting, Inc., Case No. 3:18-cv-00165 (D. N.D., August 2, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages, including overtime wages, and all other available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff Demarious Collins is an adult resident of Illinois. The Defendant employed the Plaintiff as an hourly non-exempt laborer. The Defendant JB is a North Dakota corporation doing business in multiple states. Upon information and belief, its principal place of business is located in Fargo, North Dakota. The Defendant is in the business of providing track and transit systems construction and maintenance services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hans A. Nilges, Esq. Shannon M. Draher, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 7266 Portage Street, NW, Suite D Massillon, OH 44646 Tel: (330) 470-4428 Fax: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Richardson Sues over Sale of Talc Products ------------------------------------------------------------- MARIE RICHARDSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No. 18CV332704 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., Aug. 7, 2018) seeks recovery for damages as a result of the Plaintiff's ovarian cancer, which was directly and proximately caused by the wrongful conduct of the Defendants, the false and fraudulent representations, omissions, and concealments of the defective nature of talcum powder, the main ingredient of the Defendants' product. The Plaintiff alleged that she developed ovarian cancer, and suffered effects and sequelae therefrom, as a direct and proximate result of the unreasonably dangerous and defective nature of talcum powder, the main ingredient of the Defendants' products. The Defendants also committed wrongful and negligent conduct in the research, development, testing, manufacture, production, formulation, processing, packaging, promotion, distribution, marketing, and sale of the their products and the talcum powder that comprises the products. Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health care field worldwide. Johnson & Johnson was founded in 1885 and is based in New Brunswick, New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lee Cirsch, Esq. Michael Akselrud, Esq. THE LANIER LAW FIRM, PC 21550 Oxnard Street, 3rd Floor Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (310) 277-5100 Facsimile: (310) 277-5103 E-mail: lee.cirsch@lanierlawfirm.com michael.akselrud@lanierlawfirm.com KERYX BIOPHARMA: Asks Court to Reconsider Order on Dismissal Bid ---------------------------------------------------------------- Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2018, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that defendants are asking a Massachusetts court to reconsider its July 19, 2018 order on the defendants' motion to dismiss a class action complaint. Four purported class action lawsuits have been filed against the company and certain of its current and former officers (Gregory P. Madison, Scott A. Holmes, Ron Bentsur, and James Oliviero). Three of these actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned respectively Terrell Jackson v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:16-cv-06131, filed on August 2, 2016, Richard J. Erickson v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. No. 1:16-cv-06218, filed on August 4, 2016, and Richard King v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:16-cv-06233, filed on August 5, 2016. The Jackson complaint purports to be brought on behalf of stockholders who purchased the company's common stock between February 25, 2016 and August 1, 2016; the Erickson complaint purports to be brought on behalf of stockholders who purchased the company's common stock between March 2, 2016 and July 29, 2016; and the King complaint purports to be brought on behalf of stockholders who purchased the company's common stock between February 25, 2016 and July 29, 2016. On August 26, 2016, the fourth complaint, captioned Tim Karth v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:16-cv-11745, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, which complaint was subsequently amended. The Karth complaint purports to be brought on behalf of stockholders who purchased our common stock between May 8, 2013 and August 1, 2016. The Jackson, Erickson and King matters were transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on April 5, 2017 and subsequently consolidated with the Karth action. Each complaint generally alleges that the company and certain of its current and former officers violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly false and/or misleading statements concerning the company and its business operations and future prospects in light of the August 1, 2016 announcement of an interruption in its supply of Auryxia. By order dated July 19, 2018, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. On August 2, 2018, Defendants filed an answer to the complaint and a motion for partial reconsideration of the Court's July 19, 2018 order. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., a commercial stage biopharmaceutical company, focuses on providing medicines for patients with kidney disease in the United States. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 1997 and is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. KITH RETAIL: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Delacruz Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- EMANUEL DELACRUZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KITH RETAIL, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-07099 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 7, 2018) is an action against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's website, www.kith.com, is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Kith Retail, LLC is a New York Limited liability company doing business in 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 - GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb (DG6151) 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, N.Y. 10003-2461 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 E-mail: nyjg@aol.com danalgottlieb@aol.com KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Petition for Rehearing in Chowning Suit Denied ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, WENDY CHOWNING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KOHL'S DEPARTMENT STORES, INC.; KOHL'S CORPORATION; DOES, 1-20, inclusive, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 16-56272 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied the petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc. Chowning appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment to Kohl's in her putative class action regarding alleged advertising misrepresentations. The Appellate Court finds that the proper calculation of restitution in the case is price paid versus value received. Chowning admits that she received value. Therefore, the appropriate calculation for restitution is the price Chowning paid for the articles versus the value of the articles she received. It finds that Chowning failed to meet her burden to prove she was entitled to restitution. First, Chowning's expert testified that he was not expressing an opinion on retail value. Second, Chowning introduced no competent evidence regarding the value of articles of clothing of similar style, quality, etc. Without evidence of the value received, that calculation is impossible. Therefore, Kohl's is entitled to summary judgment. It also finds that rescission or full refund is unavailable in the case. Chowning admits that she received some value from the articles of clothing and, thus, rescission is not available. Disgorgement is also unavailable in the case. Since the focus is on Chowning's loss, the appropriate calculation for restitution is the traditional restitution formula. Finally, transaction percentage or actual discount is not available as a method for calculating restitution. First, this measure would effectively seek damages sounding in contract, not equity. Second, Chowning's argument for this form of restitution is based on standing cases. Standing and the calculation of restitution have different standards. For these reasons, the Appellate Court affirmed. The panel has voted to deny the petition for panel rehearing. Judge Norman Randy Smith and Judge Michelle Friedland have voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc, and Chief Judge Barbara M. G. Lynnn has so recommended. The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc and no judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Accordingly, the petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc are denied. No further petitions for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc may be filed. A full-text copy of the Court's July 31, 2018 Order is available at https://bit.ly/2x8kNZ0 from Leagle.com. L'OREAL USA: Cosmetic Bottle Dispenser Defective, Consumers Say --------------------------------------------------------------- Mary Tullie Critcher, Twoana Clark-Sheppard, Victoria Marynovsky, and Patricia Belbot, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, vs. L'Oreal USA, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-05639 (S.D. N.Y., June 21, 2018), seeks redress for Defendant's misrepresentation of the usable amount of cosmetic product sold in the defective manual pumping bottles for its liquid cosmetic products in violation of various state consumer protection laws and common law. L'Oreal is a manufacturer and seller of cosmetic products. Their containers accurately state the total amount of product contained but failed to disclose the actual amount of product that can be dispensed, says the complaint. Critcher and Belbot purchased Visible Lift Serum Absolute while Marynovsky purchased Age Perfect Eye Renewal Cream. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence D. King, Esq. Matthew B. George, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 350 Sansome Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 772-4700 Facsimile: (415) 772-4707 Email: lking@kaplanfox.com mgeorge@kaplanfox.com - and - Ralph E. Labaton, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor New York, NY 10022 Tel: (212) 687-1980 Fax: (212) 687-7714 Email: rlabaton@kaplanfox.com - and - Karen E. Snyder, Esq. Paul D. Snyder, Esq. SNYDER LAW FIRM LLC 13401 Mission Road, Suite 207 Leawood, KS 66209 Telephone: (913) 685-3900 Facsimile: (913) 440-0724 Email: ksnyder@snyderlawfirmllc.com psnyder@snyderlawfirmllc.com - and - Matthew L. Dameron, Esq. WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC 1100 Main Street, Suite 2600 Kansas City, MO 64105 Telephone: (816) 945-7135 Facsimile: (816) 945-7118 Email: matt@williamsdirks.com LANGHAM HOTELS: Faces Burbon Suit Asserting ADA Violation --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Langham Hotels Pacific Corporation. The case is titled as Luc Burbon, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Langham Hotels Pacific Corporation, Case No. 1:18-cv-08015 (S.D.N.Y., September 3, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Langham Hotels Pacific Corporation was incorporated in the state of Delaware. The Company is licensed to operate hotels.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Telephone: (917) 299-6612 Facsimile: (929) 575-4195 E-mail: joseph@cml.legal LUMICO LIFE: Foote Suit Alleges TCPA Violation ---------------------------------------------- Hilton Foote, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lumico Life Insurance Company, Case No. 1:18-cv-03719 (N.D. Ga., August 2, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff is a resident of Atlanta, Georgia. The Defendant Lumico Life Insurance Company is a Missouri corporation with its principal place of business of 237 East High Street, Jefferson, Missouri. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven H. Koval, Esq. THE KOVAL FIRM, LLC 3575 Piedmont Road Building 15, Suite 120 Atlanta, GA 30305 Tel: (404) 513-6651 Fax: (404) 549-4654 E-mail: shkoval@aol.com MARGE GROUP: Figueroa Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Nelson Figueroa, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. The Marge Group, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 18-CV-01613, (D. P.R., August 28, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, meal and rest period, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Puerto Rico Wage Payment Statute. Defendant operates a construction company conducting disaster relief work throughout Puerto Rico where Figueroa worked as a manual laborer, performing construction tasks for houses in Puerto Rico. He claims to have regularly worked more than 8 hours per day and 40 hours per week but not paid any additional wages for overtime due to being misclassified as independent contractors. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Don J. Foty, Esq. KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P. 4409 Montrose Blvd, Ste. 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 Email: DFoty@kennedyhodges.com - and - Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq. SHELLIST LAZARZ & SLOBIN LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515 Houston, TX 77046 Tel: (713) 621-2277 Fax: (713) 621-0993 Email: rprieto@eeoc.net - and - Andres W. Lopez, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF ANDRES W. LOPEZ, P.S.C. P.O. Box 13909 San Juan, PR 00908 Tel: (787) 294-9508 Fax: (787) 294-9519 Email: andres@awllaw.com MARICOPA, AZ: Injunction/Compensation Order in Melendres Affirmed ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge J. Clifford Wallace of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's second supplemental injunction and victim compensation order in the case, MANUEL DE JESUS ORTEGA MELENDRES; JESSICA QUITUGUA RODRIGUEZ; DAVID RODRIGUEZ; VELIA MERAZ; MANUEL NIETO, JR.; SOMOS AMERICA, Plaintiffs-Appellees, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARICOPA COUNTY, Defendant-Appellant, and JOSEPH M. ARPAIO, Defendant, Case No. 16-16661 (9th Cir.). The Plaintiffs filed te class action alleging that the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office ("MCSO") racially profiled Latino drivers and passengers under the guise of enforcing federal and state immigration laws. Following a bench trial, the district court found that MCSO's conduct violated the Plaintiffs' constitutional rights. It entered an injunction, ordering MCSO to take a variety of remedial measures including appointing an independent monitor to assess and report on MCSO's compliance with the injunction, increasing the training of MCSO employees, improving traffic-stop documentation, and developing an early identification system for racial-profiling problems. The Appellate Court affirmed the injunction, except for certain provisions dealing with internal investigations and reports of officer misconduct, which it remanded for the district court to tailor more precisely to the constitutional violations at issue. It also dismissed MCSO and substituted Maricopa County in its place. The district court later discovered that MCSO had deliberately violated the injunction and committed new constitutional violations. After 21 days of contempt proceedings, the district court found that MCSO's sheriff and his command staff knowingly failed to implement the injunction, deliberately withheld evidence in violation of court orders, and manipulated all aspects of the internal affairs process to minimize discipline on MCSO deputies and command staff. Finally, the district court found that MCSO employees did not make a good faith effort to fairly and impartially investigate and discipline misconduct. The discipline imposed was inadequate. The district court entered a second supplemental injunction to remedy the misconduct and protect the Plaintiffs' constitutional rights. Among other things, the injunction revised MCSO's disciplinary matrix, conflict of interest and whistleblower policies, training requirements for internal affairs staff, and complaint intake and tracking procedures. The injunction also vested the independent monitor with the authority to supervise and direct internal investigations related to the Plaintiff class and to inquire and report on other internal investigations. It ordered the appointment of an independent investigator with disciplinary authority to investigate and decide discipline for internal investigations deemed invalid by the court. The district court also directed the County to implement a victim compensation program for individuals injured by MCSO's violations of the first injunction. The County timely appealed. The County argues that the district court failed to tailor the terms of the second supplemental injunction to remedy the constitutional and court order violations it found. It also argues that the injunction violates federalism principles. The County asks that the Court strikes the second supplemental injunction "in its entirety." It contends that it is not a proper party to the action because MCSO and its sheriff do not act on behalf of the County. Finally, the County argues that it has no authority under Arizona law to fund compliance with an injunction, such as this one, that arises from willful misconduct. Judge Wallace holds that the district court did not abuse its discretion in formulating the terms of the second supplemental injunction. He is satisfied that the challenged provisions flow from MCSO's violations of court orders, constitutional violations, or both. Each challenged provision addresses the internal affairs and employee discipline process, which the district court found based on ample evidence MCSO had manipulated to minimize or entirely avoid imposing discipline on MCSO deputies and command staff. The Judge says MCSO's repeated bad-faith violations of court orders and Judge Snow's seven years of experience with the case at the time he issued the challenged orders lead him to believe that the district court chose the remedy best suited to cure MCSO's violations of court orders and to supplement prior orders that had proven inadequate to protect the Plaintiff class. The Judge also holds that the County is a proper party to the action. Arizona state law makes clear that the MCSO sheriff's law-enforcement acts constitute County policy because he has final policymaking authority. Finally, he holds that the state law does not bar the County from funding the injunction. The County previously admitted its responsibility to remedy harm from MCSO's intentional misconduct in Melendres III. There, it conceded that it was required, by Arizona state statute, to provide funding for the massive changes the district court has imposed and conceded that even if the Court had never substituted it in place of MCSO, it would have nonetheless had to bear the financial costs associated with complying with the district court's injunction. It cannot change its position now. For these reasons, Judge Wallace affirmed the district court's orders. The County will bear the Plaintiffs' costs of appeal. A full-text copy of the Court's July 31, 2018 Opinion is available at https://bit.ly/2oWKgkj from Leagle.com. Richard Walker -- rkw@azlawpartner.com -- (argued), Walker & Peskind PLLC, Scottsdale, Arizona, for Defendant-Appellant. Andre Segura -- asegura@aclu.org -- (argued), ACLU Foundation of Texas, Houston, Texas; Kathleen E. Brody and Brenda Muñoz Furnish, ACLU Foundation of Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona; Cecilia D. Wang -- cwang@aclu.org -- and Katrina L. Eiland, ACLU Foundation, San Francisco, California; Stanley Young -- syoung@cov.com -- Covington & Burling LLP, Redwood Shores, California; Anne Lai Irving -- alai@law.uci.org -- California; Julia Gomez , Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Los Angeles, California; for Plaintiffs-Appellees. John M. Gore (argued), Acting Assistant Attorney General; Thomas E. Chandler, Attorney; Appellate Section, Civil Rights Section, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; for Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellee. MARKETSOURCE INC: Court Issues Protective Order in Brum's Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California issued a Protective Order in the case captioned JENNIFER BRUM and MICHAEL CAMERO, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MARKETSOURCE, INC. WHICH WILL DO BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA AS MARYLAND MARKETSOURCE, INC., a, Maryland corporation; ALLEGIS GROUP; INC., a Maryland corporation; and DOES, 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. 2:17-cv-00241-JAM-EFB. (E.D. Cal.). Disclosure and discovery activity in this action are likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties stipulate to and petition the court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. A full-text copy of the District Court's August 23, 2018 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9jtarpk from Leagle.com. Jennifer Brum & Michael Camero, Plaintiffs, represented by Arnab Banerjee , Capstone Law APC -- Brandon.Brouillette@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC, Jonathan Michael Lebe , Lebe Law, A Professional Law Corporation, Ruhandy Glezakos -- Ruhandy.Glezakos@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC & Rodney Mesriani -- rodney@mesriani.com -- Mesriani Law Group. MarketSource, Inc., Doing business as & Allegis Group, Inc., a Maryland Corporation, Defendants, represented by Mike S. Kun -- mkun@ebglaw.com -- Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. & Kevin Dennis Sullivan -- ksullivan@ebglaw.com -- Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. MASSACHUSETTS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Union Alleges ------------------------------------------------------- LOCAL 589; AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION; WILLIAM MCLEOD; MARYELLEN SHIELDS; JOSEPH URNEK; and ANA WIDMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MASSACHUSETTS BAY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, Defendants, Case No. 18-2469D (Mass. Super., Suffolk Cty., Aug. 7, 2018) alleges that the Defendants failed and refused to provide any wages at all for all work hours of many employees, and continues to do so, without providing a clear and accessible administrative mechanism to correct under payments. The Plaintiffs represent the employees of the Defendants in the collective bargaining agreement. The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority is the public agency responsible for operating most public transportation services in Greater Boston, Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Taylor, Esq. Brian Connolly, Esq. GROMFINE TAYLOR & TYLER 1420 King Street, Suite 500 Alexandria, VA 22314 Tel: (703) 683-7782 E-mail: dtaylor@lbgt.com - and - Paul T. Hynes, Esq. Brian Rogal, Esq. ANGOFF GOLDMAN MANNING HYNES & DUNLAP, PC 100 River Ridge Drive, Suite 203 Norwood, MA 02062 Telephone: (781) 255-7700 E-mail: Phynes@AngoffGoldman.com MASSIMO DUTTI: Violates Disabilities Act, Burbon Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Massimo Dutti USA, Inc. The case is captioned as Luc Burbon, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Massimo Dutti USA, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-08013 (S.D.N.Y., September 3, 2018). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Based in New York City, Massimo Dutti USA, Inc., is part of Inditex group. Massimo Dutti is a Spanish clothes manufacturing company, which started off offering men's clothing but has expanded to include clothing for women and children as well.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Telephone: (917) 299-6612 Facsimile: (929) 575-4195 E-mail: joseph@cml.legal MERCANTILE ADJUSTMENT: Lopez Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections -------------------------------------------------------------- SUHEIL LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MERCANTILE ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, LLC; LVNV FUNDING, LLC; and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-12490-AET-LHG (D.N.J., Aug. 7, 2018) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The case is assigned to Judge Anne E. Thompson and referred to Magistrate Judge Lois H. Goodman. Mercantile Adjustment Bureau, LLC provides collection and accounts receivable management services to lenders, debt purchasers, and universities in the United States. Mercantile Adjustment Bureau LLC was founded in 1934 and is headquartered in Williamsville, New York with an additional office in Rochester, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ben A. Kaplan, Esq. 280 Prospect Ave. 6G6G Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 803-6611 Facsimile: (866) 596-4973 E-mail: benkap232@aol.com NATERA INC: Defendants' Bid for Judgment on Pleadings Granted ------------------------------------------------------------- Natera, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2018, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that a judge has granted the Company's motion for judgment on the pleadings, without leave to amend, and ordered that judgment be entered in favor of the defendants in the class actions pending in the San Mateo Superior Court. On each of February 17, 2016, March 10, 2016, March 28, 2016 and April 4, 2016, purported class action lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Mateo (the "San Mateo Superior Court"), against Natera, its directors, certain of its officers and 5% stockholders and their affiliates, and each of the underwriters of the Company's July 1, 2015 initial public offering (the "IPO"). The complaints assert claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The complaints allege, among other things, that the Registration Statement and Prospectus for the Company's IPO contained materially false or misleading statements, and/or omitted material information that was required to be disclosed, about the Company's business and prospects. Among other relief, the complaints seek class certification, unspecified compensatory damages, rescission, attorneys' fees, and costs. The Company removed these actions to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and the actions were subsequently remanded back to the San Mateo Superior Court. The Company has appealed the remand and discovery has been stayed, or held, pending the appeal. The Company also filed a demurrer, or a request for dismissal as a matter of law, in the San Mateo Superior Court, which was granted on October 23, 2017. The San Mateo Superior Court demurred the claims under Sections 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, without leave to re-file. The San Mateo Superior Court granted the demurrer as to Section 11 of the Act with leave to re-file. Plaintiffs refiled an amended complaint on November 22, 2017. The Company filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings under the amended complaint on January 25, 2018, which the plaintiffs opposed. Hearings on the motion were held in May and July of 2018. On August 7, 2018 the judge granted the Company's motion for judgment on the pleadings, without leave to amend, and ordered that judgment be entered in favor of the defendants. Plaintifs may seek appellate review of the judgment. Natera said, "The Company intends to continue to defend the matter vigorously, but cannot provide any assurance as to the ultimate outcome or that an adverse resolution would not have a material adverse effect on its financial condition and results of operations. The Company is unable to predict the ultimate outcome and is unable to make a meaningful estimate of the amount or range of loss, if any, that could result from any unfavorable outcome." Natera, Inc., a diagnostics company, provides preconception and prenatal genetic testing services. The company was formerly known as Gene Security Network, Inc. and changed its name to Natera, Inc. in 2012. Natera, Inc. was founded in 2003 and is headquartered in San Carlos, California. NC KKA LLC: Han Files Fraud Class Action in N.Y. ------------------------------------------------- Janet Han, individually, and on behalf of all of the investors of Sweetcatch KKA LLC, v. Robert Kwak, Joseph Ko, Scott Alling and NC KKA LLC, Defendants, Case No. 654281/2018 (N.Y. Sup, August 28, 2018), claims compensatory damages, interest thereon, attorneys' fees and punitive damages, imposition a constructive trust for the benefit of Sweetcatch and Han over all improperly diverted assets resulting from fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of duty of loyalty. Kwak, Ko and Ailing (until his death on May 18, 2018) have together owned and operated, directly or indirectly, a number of restaurants, nightclubs, and event spaces in New York City, including Arena Event Space, Baekjeong Korean Barbeque, Toi et Moi Catering, Pulse Karaoke Bar, Mamouns Falafel, Third Floor Cafe, Circle Nightclub and Brigitte Restaurant and on November 12, 2014, fast casual cafe store locations in Manhattan under the name "Sweetcatch." Han and her husband were invited to invest in a few Sweetcatch branches. Han tendered a check payable to Sweetcatch KKA LLC in the amount of $1,000,000. However, says the complaint, the first planned store was never constructed or opened, at a loss of approximately $492,000. The Lexington Store, while open, was not operating profitably, and the Bryant Park Store was not completely constructed or opened. Defendants had insufficient funds to complete construction of new stores and used her money to pay off its loans, the Plaintiff contends. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Gildin, Esq. Kevin M. Shelley, Esq. KAUFMANN GILDIN & ROBBINS LLP 767 Third Avenue, 30th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 755-3100 (212) 705-0840 Fax: (212) 755-3174 Email: dgildin@kaufmanngildin.com NEVRO CORP: Holzer & Holzer Files Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------ Holzer & Holzer, LLC disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased Nevro Corp. securities between January 8, 2018 and July 12, 2018. The complaint alleges that Nevro made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that (1) the Company had engaged in a fraudulent scheme by using protected confidential and proprietary trade secrets and stolen documents from its competitors to develop and enhance the Company's Senza I and Senza II systems; (2) as a result, the Company's Senza I and Senza II systems were not "novel" or "proprietary;" (3) these practices caused Nevro to be vulnerable to increased litigation expenses and adverse legal and regulatory action; and (4) as a result, Nevro's U.S. sales growth was not sustainable. If you purchased Nevro shares in between January 8, 2018 and July 12, 2018 and suffered losses on that investment, you are encouraged to contact Corey D. Holzer, Esq. -- cholzer@holzerlaw.com -- or Alexandria P. Rankin, Esq. -- arankin@holzerlaw.com -- call the firm by toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832, or visit the firm's website at www.holzerlaw.com to receive additional information about your legal rights The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and the deadline to move for appointment as lead plaintiff is October 22, 2018. Corey D. Holzer, Esq. Holzer & Holzer, LLC Telephone: 888-508-6832 (toll-free) Email: cholzer@holzerlaw.com [GN] NEVRO CORP: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, disclosed the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Nevro Corp. from January 8, 2018 through July 12, 2018, inclusive. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Nevro investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Nevro class action, go to https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1403.html or call Phillip Kim, Esq. or Zachary Halper, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. According to the lawsuit, defendants during the Class Period made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Nevro had engaged in a fraudulent scheme by using protected confidential and proprietary trade secrets and stolen documents from its competitors to develop and enhance the company's Senza I and Senza II systems; (2) thus, Nevro's Senza I and Senza II systems were not "novel" or "proprietary;" (3) these practices caused Nevro to be vulnerable to increased litigation expenses and adverse legal and regulatory action; (4) as a result, Nevro's U.S. sales growth was not sustainable; and (5) consequently, defendants' statements about Nevro's business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 22, 2018. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1403.html or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Zachary Halper, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com. Follow us for updates on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm or on Twitter: https://twitter.com/rosen—firm. View source version on businesswire.com:https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20180824005244/en/ Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. Zachary Halper, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: 212-686-1060 Toll Free: 866-767-3653 Fax: 212-202-3827 Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com [GN] NORTHERN OIL: Awaits Court OK on Bid to Dismiss Fries Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Northern Oil and Gas, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2018, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the Company is awaiting the court's decision on its motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in the lawsuit by Jeffrey Fries. On August 18, 2016, Fries, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company, Michael Reger (the Company's former chief executive officer), and Thomas Stoelk (the Company's former chief financial officer and interim chief executive officer) as defendants. An amended complaint was filed by plaintiffs in July 2017. Defendants (including the Company) filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in August 2017. The court granted the Company's motion to dismiss in January 2018, but permitted plaintiff the opportunity to further amend the complaint. A second amended complaint was filed by plaintiffs in January 2018. Defendants (including the Company) filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in March 2018, and the Company is awaiting the court's decision on that motion to dismiss. The complaint purports to bring a federal securities class action on behalf of a class of persons who acquired the Company's securities between March 1, 2013 and August 15, 2016, and seeks to recover damages caused by 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. On May 25, Plaintiff filed a Response in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. Northern Oil filed a Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of its Motion. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend itself in this matter. Northern Oil and Gas, Inc., an independent energy company, engages in the acquisition, exploration, exploitation, development, and production of crude oil and natural gas properties in the United States. The company is based in Minnetonka, Minnesota. OHIO: Court Dismisses Class Claim in RCI Prisoners Suit ------------------------------------------------------- In the case, RAY SCOTT HEID, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MARK HOOKS, at al., Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-650 (S.D. Ohio), Judge Algenon L. Marbley of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, dismissed the Plaintiffs' Fourteenth Amendment Claim and class action allegation, and permitted them to proceed on their Eighth Amendment Claim. Heid and James E. Damron, inmates at the Ross Correctional Institute ("RCI"), brought the action under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 against Mark Hooks, the Warden of RCI, and Jeffrey Howard, the Deputy Warden of Operations of RCI. Specifically, Mr. Heid and Mr. Damron seek to represent approximately 1,000 similarly-situated white inmates, alleging violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Mr. Heid and Mr. Damron allege that they and other white inmates are denied equal privileges of telephone access at RCI because, in their view, the phones are controlled by black supremacists. They allege that prison officials allow the control of telephones to occur and have enacted no remedies to the problems in spite of having sufficient notice of these occurrences. This lack of action on the part of Mr. Hooks and Mr. Howard has, purportedly, emboldened non-white inmates to visit acts of violence against the Plaintiffs and other white inmates. Consequently, they filed this Complaint on Sept. 14, 2017, alleging violations of both the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, attempting to represent as a class all similarly-situated white inmates. Following the filing of the Complaint, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation, which recommended that Mr. Heid's and Mr. Damron's Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection) Claim and class action allegation be dismissed per 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2) and that they be permitted to proceed on their Claim of deliberate indifference to a risk of serious harm under the Eighth Amendment. Mr. Heid and Mr. Damron filed an Objection to the Report and Recommendation on Sept. 29, 2017, objecting to the recommendation of dismissal of the Fourteenth Amendment Claim. Judge Marbely agreed that neither the Complaint nor the Objection to the Report and Recommendation allege an intentional act of discrimination. The facts, as alleged, do not support such an inference: nothing in the record suggests that Mr. Hooks or Mr. Howard harbored any discriminatory intent whatsoever. As a result, he adopted the Report and Recommendation and dismissed the Plaintiffs' Fourteenth Amendment Claim. The Magistrate Judge recommended permitting Mr. Heid and Mr. Damron's Eighth Amendment Claim, as they alleged plausible facts in support of their claim under the Eighth Amendment that Defendants Hooks and Howard were deliberately indifferent to a known risk of serious harm in the form of violence among inmates over telephone access. Such a situation appears to impose a substantial risk of harm, which prison officials have a duty to mitigate. The Judge therefore adopted the Report and Recommendation as to the Plaintiffs Heid's and Damron's Eighth Amendment Claim. Finally, the Judge finds because neither Mr. Heid nor Mr. Damron are attorneys, they are unable to fairly and adequately protect the interests of a class of similarly-situated inmates. Thus, he adopted the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation with regard to the Plaintiffs Heid's and Damron's class action allegation. He dismissed the Plaintiffs' class allegation claim. A full-text copy of the Court's July 31, 2018 Order is available at https://bit.ly/2x132dW from Leagle.com. Ray Scott Heid, Plaintiff, pro se. James E. Damron, Plaintiff, pro se. OPEN DOOR: Court Requires Supplemental Brief in Conde FLSA Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CARLOS CONDE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. OPEN DOOR MARKETING, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-cv-04080-KAW (N.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ordered the Plaintiffs to provide a supplemental briefing to their motion for settlement approval. The Plaintiffs will provide a supplemental brief regarding these issues: A. Number of Opt-In Plaintiffs: It is unclear how many opt-in Plaintiffs are affected by the Settlement Agreement. The Plaintiffs will clarify the number of the opt-in Plaintiffs. B. Calculation of Workweeks: The settlement will be allocated based on the number of weeks worked. The Plaintiffs must explain why the California weeks are being doubled. C. Released Claims: The Settlement Agreement defines Released Claims as the wage and hour claims, known or unknown, that could be asserted under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") or any state law, as defined in Section III A. This suggests a broader release than the wage and hour claims only. The Plaintiffs will confirm that the Settlement Agreement is limited to wage and hour claims as to the opt-in Plaintiffs who are not named Plaintiffs. Additionally, they must explain how the Court can approve the settlement when the release is broader than the FLSA claims pled. D. Reasonableness of the Settlement: The Plaintiffs estimate the maximum liability in the case to be $511,379.05 (excluding civil penalties under California's Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA")). The $125,000 settlement amount is 24.4% of the full verdict value. First, the Plaintiff must explain how maximum liability was calculated, sufficient for the Court to determine that this number is a reasonable estimate of the Defendants' potential liability. Second, the Court requires further information on the litigation risks faced by the Plaintiffs with respect to the outside salespeople exemption under both the FLSA and the California Labor Code.case. E. Non-Disclosure Requirements: The Settlement Agreement provides that the parties and their counsel will not discuss the litigation or settlement with any person, except in limited circumstances. In light of Gonzalez-Rodriguez v. Mariana's Enterprises and the authority cited therein, and the fact that the settlement agreement has already been filed in the public record, the Plaintiffs must explain whether the non-disclosure provision should be enforced. F. Binding Effect on California: The Plaintiffs state that the release will be equally binding on the State of California, and will preclude it from seeking to recover civil penalties from 2020 with respect to any violation of the California Labor Code arising out of such allegations. They will clarify whether this is limited to the PAGA claims only. Additionally, they will state whether they received any response from the California Labor Workforce Development Agency regarding the PAGA settlement, and if so, what response was received. G. Dismissal of Class Action Claims: The settlement agreement requires that Plaintiff Jennings dismiss the Rule 23 claims of the putative California class members without prejudice. The Plaintiffs must address the Diaz v. Tr. Territory of Pac. Islands factors, and explain whether voluntary dismissal of the class claims is appropriate in the case, citing to relevant legal authority. Additionally, they must address whether notice of the proposed dismissal or compromise will be given to all members of the class in such manner as the court directs. A full-text copy of the Court's July 31, 2018 Amended Order is available at https://bit.ly/2N5Ya1R from Leagle.com. Carlos Conde, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Shikwana Jennings, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated & Lisa Drake, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Shannon Liss-Riordan -- sliss@llrlaw.com -- Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C. Open Door Marketing, LLC, Larry Dale Clark & Jerrimy Farris, Defendants, represented by Kristin Alexandria Smith -- ksmith@fosteremploymentlaw.com -- Foster Employment Law & Michael Leslie Thompson, Lehr Middlebrooks Vreeland and Thompson, P.C. 20/20 Communications, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christopher William Decker -- christopher.decker@ogletree.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart PC & Wendy V. Miller -- wendy.miller@ogletree.com -- Ogletree Deakins Law Firm, pro hac vice. OVERSTOCK.COM: Consolidated Utah Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------------------- Overstock.com, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2018, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the plaintiffs in the consolidated class action lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in the Central District of Utah voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice. On March 29, 2018, a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed against the company and two of its executives in the United States District Court in the Central District of Utah, alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act"). On April 6, 2018, a substantially similar lawsuit was filed in the same court also naming the Company, and two of its executives as defendants, bringing the same claims under the Exchange Act, and seeking substantially similar relief. On June 20, 2018, the Court consolidated the two cases and appointed a lead plaintiff in the case. On August 7, 2018, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice. Overstock.com, Inc. operates as an online retailer in the United States. It operates in two segments, Direct and Partner. Overstock.com, Inc. was founded in 1997 and is headquartered in Midvale, Utah. PALM BEACH CTY, FL: Sheriff Illegally Detained Minors, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- H.C., a minor, by and through his parent and natural guardian, Jenny C., M.F., a minor, by and through his parent and natural guardian, Asisa Rolle, T.M., by and through his parent and natural guardian, Jessica Joiner, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Ric Bradshaw, Palm Beach County Sheriff, in his individual and official capacity, Michael Gauger, Chief Deputy of the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office, in his individual capacity, Alfonso Starling, Corrections Operation Major for the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office, in his individual capacity, Frank Milo, Corrections Security Major for the Palm Beach County Sheriffs Office, in his individual capacity, School Board of Palm Beach County, Defendants, Case No. 9:18-cv-80810 (S.D. Fla., June 21, 2018) seeks all necessary and appropriate injunctive relief under the Cruel and Unusual Punishment clause of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. This class action civil rights lawsuit challenges the solitary confinement of children who are charged as adults, most of whom have not been convicted of any crime, at the Main Detention Center of the Palm Beach County Jail. Defendants are also alleged of denying these incarcerated children educational services, including services needed to address their disabilities. Unnamed Plaintiffs are minors detained at the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office. [BN] Plaintiffs are represented by: Theodore J. Leopold, Esq. Diana L. Martin. Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC 2925 PGA Boulevard, Ste. 200 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Telephone: (561) 515-1400 Facsimile: (561) 515-1401 Email: tleopold@cohenmilstein.com dmartin@cohenmilstein.com - and - Sabarish P. Neelakanta, Esq. HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER 1028 N. Federal Highway Lake Worth, FL 33460 Telephone: (561) 360-2523 Facsimile: 866-73 5-7136 Email: sneelakanta@hrdc-law.org - and - Melissa Duncan, Esq. LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF PALM BEACH CO., INC. EDUCATION ADVOCACY PROJECT West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: (561) 655-8944, ext. 243 Facsimile: (561) 655-5269 423 Fem St, Ste. 200 Email: mduncan@legalaidpbc.org PERRIGO CO: Awaits Attorney General's Opinion on Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------- Perrigo Company plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2018, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the the parties in the Eltroxin-related lawsuit await the Attorney General's opinion to the settlement agreement. During October and November 2011, nine applications to certify a class action lawsuit were filed in various courts in Israel related to Eltroxin, a prescription thyroid medication manufactured by a third party and distributed in Israel by the company's subsidiary, Perrigo Israel Agencies Ltd. The respondents included the company's subsidiaries, Perrigo Israel Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and/or Perrigo Israel Agencies Ltd., the manufacturers of the product, and various healthcare providers who provide healthcare services as part of the compulsory healthcare system in Israel. One of the applications was dismissed and the remaining eight applications were consolidated into one application. The applications arose from the 2011 launch of a reformulated version of Eltroxin in Israel. The consolidated application generally alleges that the respondents (a) failed to timely inform patients, pharmacists and physicians about the change in the formulation; and (b) failed to inform physicians about the need to monitor patients taking the new formulation in order to confirm patients were receiving the appropriate dose of the drug. As a result, claimants allege they incurred the following damages: (a) purchases of product that otherwise would not have been made by patients had they been aware of the reformulation; (b) adverse events to some patients resulting from an imbalance of thyroid functions that could have been avoided; and (c) harm resulting from the patients' lack of informed consent prior to the use of the reformulation. Several hearings on whether or not to certify the consolidated application took place in December 2013 and January 2014. On May 17, 2015, the District Court certified the motion against Perrigo Israel Agencies Ltd. and dismissed it against the remaining respondents, including Perrigo Israel Pharmaceuticals Ltd. On June 16, 2015, the company submitted a motion for permission to appeal the decision to certify to the Israeli Supreme Court together with a motion to stay the proceedings of the class action until the motion for permission to appeal is adjudicated. The company has filed its statement of defense to the underlying proceedings. The underlying proceedings have been stayed pending the outcome of the mediation process and, if necessary, a decision on the motion to appeal. On November 14, 2017 the parties submitted the agreed settlement agreement to the approval of the Supreme Court, which referred the approval back to the District Court. During three hearings that took place on November 29, 2017, December 13, 2017 and January 11, 2018 the District Court opined that it would approve the settlement agreement subject to certain amendments to be proposed by the Court (which would not impact the monetary settlement reached) and set a hearing for January 30, 2018 to discuss and finalize the proposed changes. Meanwhile, the Court ordered the settlement to be (1) provided to the Attorney General for review (standard procedure); and (2) published in the written media (newspapers), to enable the class members to submit any objections or "opt-out" to the proposed settlement by February 15, 2018. On February 21, 2018, the District Court held a hearing to, among others, review objections received from class members who had notified the District Court of their desire to opt out of the settlement. In addition, a representative of the Israeli Attorney General's office notified the District Court that, based upon their preliminary examination of the settlement, they intend to object to the settlement in its current form. The District Court recommended that the parties continue to discuss and minimize objections to the settlement and scheduled another hearing for May 13, 2018. The District Court Justice was appointed as a Supreme Court Justice and ordered to move the case to a different panel. In an effort to reach a decision before the appointment, an additional hearing was held on March 12, 2018 in which the court urged the parties to try and exhaust their negotiations to the fullest and provide an update by May 13, 2018. In addition, the Court ordered the Attorney General to submit its opinion to the settlement agreement by May 30, 2018, which was extended until July 23, 2018. Perrigo Company plc, a healthcare company, manufactures and supplies over-the-counter (OTC) healthcare products, infant formulas, branded OTC products, and generic pharmaceutical products worldwide. The company operates through Consumer Healthcare Americas, Consumer Healthcare International, and Prescription Pharmaceuticals segments. Perrigo Company plc was founded in 1887 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland. PETCO ANIMAL: Gamez Files Suit Over Personal Info Disclosure ------------------------------------------------------------ David Gamez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Petco Animal Supplies Stores, Inc. and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-05530, (C.D. Cal., June 21, 2018), seeks injunctive relief, statutory and punitive damages, prejudgment interest on all amounts awarded, reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses and costs of suit and such other and further relief pursuant to California's "Shine the Light" law. The complaint says the Plaintiff shared personal information with Petco Animal Supplies Stores who then shared it with affiliates and/or other third parties for their direct marketing purposes. Gamez made a written request asking to what extent Defendant had utilized his personal information but was ignored, it adds. [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 PLAIN GREEN: Galloway Sues over Usurious Loan Rates --------------------------------------------------- RENEE GALLOWAY; and ISABEL DELEON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PLAIN GREEN, LLC; and GREAT PLAINS LENDING, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00540-MHL (E.D. Va., Aug. 7, 2018) alleges violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and the Virginia Usury Laws. The complaint alleges that the Defendants had established what is commonly referred to as a "rent-a-tribe" business model, where a payday lending scheme associates with a Native American tribe in an attempt to cloak itself in the privileges and immunities enjoyed by the tribe, or to at least create the illusion that it enjoys tribal immunity. The Defendants are engaged in lending loans exceeding 12% annual percentage rate which is usurious. Such loans are null and void and neither the lender nor any third party may collect, obtain, or receive any principal, interest, or charges on such loans. Plain Green, LLC is a tribal lending entity wholly owned by the Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy's Indian Reservation, Montana, a sovereign nation located within the United States of America operates within the Tribe's Reservation. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kristi C. Kelly, Esq. Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq. KELLY & CRANDALL, PLC 3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202 Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 424-7572 Facsimile: (703) 591-0167 E-mail: kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com aguzzo@kellyandcrandall.com - and - Leonard A. Bennett, Esq. Craig C. Marchiando, Esq. Elizabeth W. Hanes, Esq. CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C. 763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd., Ste. 1-A Newport News, VA 23601 Telephone: (757) 930-3660 Facsimile: (757) 930-3662 E-mail: lenbennett@clalegal.com craig@clalegal.com elizabeth@clalegal.com POLLACK & ROSEN: Silberman Sues in S.D. Fla. Over FDCPA Violation ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pollack & Rosen, P.A., et al. The case is styled as Sharon Silberman, also known as: Sharon Ashkenazi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pollack & Rosen, P.A., Midland Funding, LLC and John Does 1-25, Case No. 1:18-cv-23596-KMW (S.D. Fla., September 3, 2018). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Pollack & Rosen, P.A., operates as a law firm. The Company serves clients in the areas of law, such as liquidation of accounts receivables and collections for both consumer and business accounts, commercial and general litigation, and family law. Midland Funding, LLC, provides debt collection services. Midland was incorporated in 2005 and is based in San Diego, California. Midland operates as a subsidiary of Midland Portfolio Services, Inc.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin E. Zeig, Esq. ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC 3595 Sheridan Street, Suite 103 Hollywood, FL 33021 Telephone: (754) 217-3084 Facsimile: (954) 272-7807 E-mail: justin@zeiglawfirm.com RAYONIER ADVANCED: Bid to Dismiss Transferred Class Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rayonier Advanced Materials Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2018, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company is awaiting court ruling on its motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit that was transferred to Tennessee. On August 17, 2017, the City of Warren General Employees' Retirement System filed a putative class action complaint against the Company, Paul Boynton, and Frank Ruperto in the United States District Court, Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division. The plaintiffs allege the Company made false statements in filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") and other public statements related to certain litigation with Eastman Chemical, a customer of the Company, in third quarter and fourth quarter 2015, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, causing unspecified damages to stockholders of the Company who purchased stock in the Company between October 29, 2014 and August 19, 2015. The applicable Eastman litigation was resolved via settlement in 2015. The Company was served with the complaint on August 28, 2017. On November 13, 2017, the Court appointed the Michigan Carpenters' Pension Fund and Local 295 IBT Employer Group Pension Trust Fund as lead plaintiff, and a law firm to act as lead counsel. On January 10, 2018, the Company and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case for improper venue or, in the alternative, asked the court to transfer it to the U. S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Per the court scheduling order, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint (the "CAC") on January 12, 2018. The CAC added Benson Woo, former CFO of the Company, as an additional defendant. On June 15, 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee granted the Company's motion to transfer the case to the Middle District of Florida, and on July 16, 2018 the Company filed a motion to dismiss the case. Rayonier Advanced said, "After all papers have been filed and a hearing on the motion held in the U.S. District Court, we expect a ruling on our motion in the first half of 2019. The Company strongly disagrees with the allegations set forth in the complaint, believes the lawsuit is without merit and will continue to vigorously defend itself in this matter." Rayonier Advanced Materials Inc. manufactures and sells cellulose specialty products in the United States, China, Japan, Europe, Latin America, other Asian countries, Canada, and internationally. The company operates through High Purity Cellulose, Forest Products, and Pulp & Paper segments. RESTORATION ROBOTICS: Guerrini Hits Stock Drop from Low Sales ------------------------------------------------------------- Edgardo Guerrini, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. Restoration Robotics, Inc., Ryan Rhodes, Charlotte Holland, Frederic Moll, Jeffrey Bird, Gil Kliman, Emmett Cunningham, Jr., Craig Taylor, Shelley Thunen, Sutter Hill Ventures, L.P., Clarus Lifesciences II, L.P., Clarus Ventures II, LLC, Alloy Ventures 2002, L.P., Alloy Ventures 2005, L.P., Alloy Ventures 2002, LLC, Alloy Ventures 2005, LLC, Interwest Partners IV, L.P., Interwest Management Partners IX, LLC, National Securities Corporation, Roth Capital Partners, LLC and Craighallum Capital Group, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-03712 (N.D. Ca., June 21, 2018) seeks damages, including interest, reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this action, and attorneys' fees pursuant to the Securities and Exchange Act. On October 13, 2017, Restoration Robotics commenced the public offering of 3,575,000 shares at $7.00 per share, with an underwriter over-allotment option to purchase up to an additional 536,250 shares. Robotics is a medical technology company that develops and commercializes a robotic device that assists physicians in performing many of the repetitive tasks that are a part of a follicular unit extraction surgery, the ARTAS System. ARTAS system sales dwindled as potential customers have continued to forego the purchase of an existing, limited ARTAS system in favor of waiting for the forthcoming update. Company stock has since consistently traded lower than $7.00 offering price, notes the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 291-2420 Facsimile: (415) 484-1294 Email: rrivas@zlk.com RIDLEY'S FAMILY: Esparsen Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ Jonathan Esparsen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Ridley's Family Markets, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-01556, (D. Colo., June 21, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs as a result of willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant operates multiple retail grocery stores in states including Colorado, Idaho and Utah. Esparsen worked at Defendant's location in Gypsum, Colorado from approximately November 2017 to March 2018. The Defendant improperly classified its "Assistant Managers" as salary-exempt employees, paying them a fixed salary regardless of how many hours they worked, says the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin Lin, Esq. Jason T. Brown, Esq. JTB LAW GROUP, LLC 155 2nd St., Suite 4 Jersey City, NJ 07302 Tel: (877) 561-0000 Fax: (855) 582-5297 Email: ben.lin@jtblawgroup.com jtb@jtblawgroup.com ROBERT W BAIRD: Faces Mendez Suit Alleging ADA Violation -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Robert W. Baird & Co., Incorporated. The case is captioned as Himelda Mendez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Robert W. Baird & Co., Incorporated, Case No. 1:18-cv-08017 (S.D.N.Y., September 3, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Robert W. Baird & Co. Incorporated provides wealth management, investment banking, asset management, and private equity services to individuals, financial institutions, and corporate clients. The Company's services include fixed income investment management, M&A advisory, equity underwriting, private equity placements, and research.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Telephone: (917) 299-6612 Facsimile: (929) 575-4195 E-mail: joseph@cml.legal SCHELL & KAMPETER: Dog Food Contaminated, Grossman Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------ Martin E. Grossman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Schell & Kampeter, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-02344 (E.D. Cal., August 27, 2018), seeks redress over Defendant's violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California False Advertising Law and California Unfair Competition Law including for negligent misrepresentation, breach of express warranty and breach of implied warranty. Schell & Kampeter manufacture, distribute and sell their dog food throughout the United States. Grossman purchased the Taste of the Wild (R) Grain Free Pacific Stream Canine Formula Smoked Salmon Dry Dog Food and claims it contains heavy metals, pesticides, acrylamide and/or bisphenol A. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq. Robert K. Shelquist, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP 100 Washington Ave. S Ste. 2200 MPLS, MN 55401−2179 Tel: (612) 339−6900 Fax: (612) 339−0981 Email: rkshelquist@locklaw.com rapeterson@locklaw.com - and - Joseph DePalma, Esq. Susana Cruz Hodge, Esq. Steven J. Greenfogel, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC 570 Broad Street, Suite 1201 Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 623-3000 E-mail: jdepalma@litedepalma.com scruzhodge@litedepalma.com sgreenfogel@litedepalma.com - and - Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Karla M. Gluek, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC Canadian Pacific Plaza 120 S. Sixth St., Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Tel: (612) 333-8844 Fax: (612) 339-6622 Email: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com kgluek@gustafsongluek.com rborrelli@gustafsongluek.com - and - Kevin A. Seely, Esq. Steven M. McKany, Esq. ROBBINS ARROYO LLP 600 B Street, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 525-3990 Facsimile: (619) 525-3991 E-mail: kseely@robbinsarroyo.com smckany@robbinsarroyo.com SCYNEXIS INC: Continues to Defend Gibson Class Action ----------------------------------------------------- Scynexis, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2018, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company continues to defend itself in a purported stockholder class action lawsuit entitled, Gibson v. Scynexis, Inc., et al. On March 8, 2017, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company and certain of its current and former officers, captioned Gibson v. Scynexis, Inc., et al. The action was filed on behalf of a putative class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities (1) pursuant or traceable to the Company's IPO, or (2) on the open market between May 2, 2014, and March 2, 2017. It asserts claims for violation of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint seeks, among other things, compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of the putative class. The Company believes that the claims lack merit and intends to defend the litigation vigorously. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Scynexis, Inc. is a drug development company, develops and commercializes anti-infectives to address unmet therapeutic needs. The company was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in Jersey City, New Jersey. SEQUEL NATURAL: Faces Bland Suit over Contaminated Protein Shakes ----------------------------------------------------------------- ANDREW BLAND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SEQUEL NATURAL LTD. D/B/A VEGA; and WHITEWAVE FOODS CO., Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-04767-JCS (N.D. Cal., Aug. 7, 2018) seeks to recover damages and remedy against the Defendants' continuing failure to warn individuals that Vega Protein Powders and Protein Shakes expose consumers to heightened levels of lead and cadmium. According to the complaint, the heightened levels of lead and cadmium found in the Vega Products are known by the State of California to cause cancer, birth defects, and other health risks. The amount of these toxic heavy metals present in a single serving of the Vega Products is sufficient to expose consumers to a substantial risk of birth defects and other reproductive harm. Despite the heightened levels of toxic heavy metals present in the Vega Products, the Defendants provide no warning whatsoever about their presence, or the health risks, birth defects and reproductive harm associated with their consumption. Sequel Natural Ltd., doing business as Vega, provides plant-based nutritional products in Canada and the United States. The company was founded in 2001 and is headquartered in Burnaby, Canada. As of August 1, 2015, Sequel Natural Ltd. operates as a subsidiary of The WhiteWave Foods Company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Joel D. Smith, Esq. Thomas A. Reyda, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-Mail: ltfisher@bursor.com jsmith@bursor.com treyda@bursor.com SETERUS INC: Court Narrows Claims in Baxa FCRA/RESPA Suit --------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JOHN BAXA ET AL., v. SETERUS, INC., SECTION "H"(5), Civil Action No. 17-5434 (E.D. La.), Judge Jane Triche Milazzo of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana granted in part the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint. John Baxa and Linda Baxa filed their Initial Complaint in the Court on May 31, 2017 asserting claims for state law breach of contract, negligence, conversion, and fraud, and for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), and Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"). They alleged that the Defendant, the servicer of the Plaintiffs' home mortgage, failed to timely pay property taxes on their home resulting in the home being sold at a public tax sale, attempted to recover the resulting tax penalties from them via an increase in their escrow payment, failed to notify them of the increased payment, and improperly reported their failure to pay that increase to credit agencies. The Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint on June 7, 2017, asserting the same claims. On Dec. 1, 2017, the Plaintiffs sought and were granted leave of Court to amend their First Amended Complaint to assert the existence of a class of similarly situated Plaintiffs and make claims on their behalf. The Plaintiffs filed their Amended Class Action Complaint on Dec. 4, 2017. The Amended Class Action Complaint does not include a statement incorporating either of the previous complaints filed by the Plaintiffs. With respect to the named Plaintiffs, the Amended Class Action Complaint alleges that the Defendant negligently and fraudulently mismanaged the Plaintiffs' loans, causing the Plaintiffs to suffer mental anguish, negative impacts to their credit, and the improper default of their home loan. The Amended Class Action Complaint reframes some of the factual allegations of the First Amended Complaint as allegations concerning the entire class. The Defendant now moves to dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for the failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. It argues that the Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for breach of contract, fraud, or violations of RESPA or the FCRA, and that the Plaintiffs' negligence and conversion claims are prescribed. The Plaintiffs oppose the Motion. Because the Plaintiffs have not alleged which specific provision of the FCRA that the Defendant violated, Judge Milazzo will dismiss without prejudice their claim under the FCRA. With respect to the Plaintiffs' RESPA claim, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs fail to allege that their loan was federally related or that they were current in their mortgage payments. Accordingly, they've failed to state a claim under Section 2605(g). Having failed to sufficiently allege a claim under either Section 2605(e) or Section 2605(g), the Plaintiffs' claim for violations of RESPA will be dismissed without prejudice. The Judge finds that the Plaintiffs' Amended Class Action Complaint alleges that the Defendant undertook the obligation to pay escrow items in a timely manner, that it failed to do so, and that the Plaintiffs suffered damages as a result. The Plaintiffs have therefore stated a claim for breach of contract. Accordingly, he will deny the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim. The Plaintiffs allege that at least some of the damage that they incurred from the Defendant's failure to make timely escrow payments resulted from the mere publication of notices identifying them as tax debtors. They do not contest that they also had constructive notice of the tax delinquency as of the publication of the notices. The publication thus created injury and notice as of May 26, 2016, triggering prescription. That the Plaintiffs suffered additional injury later on does not change the time at which prescription began to run. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' claims for negligence and conversion will be dismissed with prejudice. Finally, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs' fraud allegation fails to specify the particular statements contended to be fraudulent or state when and where the statements were made. Accordingly, their claim for fraud will be dismissed without prejudice. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Milazzo granted in part the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. She dismissed with prejudice the Plaintiffs' claims for negligence and conversion; and dismissed without prejudice their claims for fraud and under RESPA and the FCRA. The Judge denied the Defendant's Motion with respect to the Plaintiffs' claim for breach of contract. The Plaintiffs may amend their Amended Class Action Complaint within 20 days of the Order to correct the deficiencies identified. A full-text copy of the Court's July 31, 2018 Order and Reasons is available at https://bit.ly/2x537NO from Leagle.com. John Baxa & Linda Baxa, Plaintiffs, represented by David S. Moyer -- davidmoyerlaw@gmail.com -- David S. Moyer, LLC, Charles M. Raymond -- charles@raymondlaw.us -- Law Offices of Charles M. Raymond & S. Eliza James -- eliza@davidmoyerlaw.com -- David S. Moyer, LLC. Seterus, Inc., Defendant, represented by Godfrey Bruce Parkerson -- bparkerson@pmpllp.com -- Plauche, Maselli, Parkerson, LLP, Christina M. Seanor -- cseanor@bradley.com -- Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP & Conrad C. Rolling -- crolling@pmpllp.com -- Plauche, Maselli, Parkerson, LLP. SHERWIN-WILLIAMS: NJ Superfund Neighbors Can't Sue Over Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Carol Comegno, writing for Cherry Hill Courier-Post, reports that a federal judge has tossed out a lawsuit claiming toxic waste from a former Sherwin-Williams Co. paint plant in Gibbsboro caused cancer and other health problems for area residents. Brad Lafferty and eight other families or individuals last year filed the class-action lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Camden against the Fortune 500 paint maker. The Environmental Protection Agency continues to oversee the cleanup of a Sherwin-Williams Superfund site stretching for 1.5 miles through Gibbsboro and Voorhees. The site includes the former plant, a paint burn site, a separate dump, Kirkwood Lake, lakeside properties, and multiple connected streams and their banks. U.S. District Judge Robert Kugler said the suit's claims were too broad. "Plaintiffs are essentially asking this court to green light a class area defined as anywhere there is contamination. This court declines to do so," he ruled. Though the judge said contamination and the EPA cleanup mandate are undisputed, the defendants failed to identify specific substances to which they were exposed and failed to identify any of the following: -- Diseases they are at an increased risk of developing -- Potential risks -- Types of medical monitoring program required -- How program monitoring would operate -- How monitoring would detect diseases. "Plaintiffs vaguely allege increased health risks from potential lead, arsenic, benzene, and benzo(a)pyrene exposures ... (but) have simply not properly alleged that on a class-wide basis they have suffered an increased risk of disease," Kugler concluded, adding that even the named plaintiffs don't allege their individual properties contained hazardous substances. "The class itself is rendered impossible to identify without extensive and individualized fact-finding or mini-trials," he said. The defendants' lawyer said he will continue to move his clients claims forward in either federal or state courts as individual personal injury claims rather than as a single class action. "This is surely not the end of this case for the cancer-stricken residents of this New Jersey town nor is it the end of the story for Sherwin-Williams" said Haddonfield defense attorney Craig Mitnick, Esq. -- craig@mitnicklegal.com "This decision wasn't a huge surprise because we knew when we filed that there could be obstacles to a class action," he continued, "but it is still our belief there are elevated levels of chemicals and we''ll have some additional evidence to present in the the future."[GN] SHUTTERFLY INC: Continues to Defend Monroy Suit ----------------------------------------------- Shutterfly, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2018, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company continues to defend a class action lawsuit initiated by Alejandro Monroy. On November 30, 2016, Alejandro Monroy on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, filed a complaint against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The complaint asserts that the Company violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act by extracting his and others' biometric identifiers from photographs and seeks statutory damages and an injunction. The Company believes the suit is without merit and intends to vigorously defend against it. Shutterfly, Inc. manufactures and retails personalized products and services primarily in the United States, Canada, and the European Community. The company operates through Consumer and Shutterfly Business Solutions segments. The company was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in Redwood City, California. SHUTTERFLY INC: Taylor Class Action Still Ongoing ------------------------------------------------- Shutterfly, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2018, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company continues to defend itself in a purported class action suit filed by Megan Taylor. On December 12, 2017, Megan Taylor filed a purported class action complaint on behalf of herself and other customers in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Taylor alleges that the Company misrepresents a deal it currently offers through Groupon because it does not allow purchasers of the Groupon offer to combine or "stack" it with other promotional codes offered by the Company. Taylor is seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief. The Company believes the suit is without merit and intends to vigorously defend against it. Shutterfly, Inc. manufactures and retails personalized products and services primarily in the United States, Canada, and the European Community. The company operates through Consumer and Shutterfly Business Solutions segments. The company was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in Redwood City, California. SHUTTERFLY INC: Unit Defending Against Vigeant Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Shutterfly, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2018, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that Lifetouch Employee Stock Ownership Plan is facing a purported class action suit entitled, Vigeant v Meek et al. On March 1, 2018, a purported class action complaint was filed against several directors of Lifetouch, Inc. (which became a direct wholly-owned subsidiary of Shutterfly on April 2, 2018) and the trustee of the Lifetouch Employee Stock Ownership Plan (the "ESOP") in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. On April 2, 2018, the complaint was amended to include the prior ESOP trustees and plan sponsor (Lifetouch) as additional named defendants. The complaint alleges violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, including that the ESOP should not have been permitted to continue investing in Lifetouch stock during a period in which the Lifetouch stock price was declining. The plaintiffs seek recovery for damages arising from the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The Company believes this suit is without merit and intends to vigorously defend against it. Shutterfly, Inc. manufactures and retails personalized products and services primarily in the United States, Canada, and the European Community. The company operates through Consumer and Shutterfly Business Solutions segments. The company was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in Redwood City, California. SINCLAIR BROADCAST: Ford Suit Alleges Sherman Act Violation ----------------------------------------------------------- Randal S. Ford dba Ford Firm, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc., Tribune Media Company, Tribune Broadcasting Company, LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-02372 (D. Md., August 2, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Sherman Act. The antitrust class action arises from a conspiracy among Defendants and their co-conspirators to fix prices for commercials to be aired on broadcast television stations throughout the United States. The Plaintiff Randal S. Ford, dba Ford Firm, is a law firm located in Tuscaloosa, AL who purchased television advertising from a marketing consultant at Sinclair. The Defendant Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc., a Maryland corporation headquartered in Hunt Valley, Maryland, is a diversified television broadcasting company. The Defendant Tribune Media Company, a Delaware corporation headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, is a diversified media and entertainment business. The Defendant Tribune Broadcasting Company, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, is a television broadcasting company that operates as a subsidiary of Tribune Media Company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Megan E. Jones, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 600 Montgomery St #3200 San Francisco, CA 94111 Tel: (415) 633-1908 Fax: (415) 358-4980 E-mail: mjones@hausfeld.com SINGER FINANCIAL: Court Denies Class Certification in TCPA Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in the case captioned KHS CORP., Plaintiff, v. SINGER FINANCIAL CORP., et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 16-55. (E.D. Pa.). The Plaintiff KHS Corp. moves to certify a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. KHS brings claims against Defendants Singer Financial Corp. (SFC) and Paul Singer (Singer) under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). KHS moves to certify the following class based on claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA): Each person sent one or more telephone facsimile messages during the period June 24, 2014 to June 22, 2016, from Singer Financial Corp. promoting the availability of commercial loans or real estate. LEGAL STANDARD To meet the requirements of Rule 23(a): (1) the class must be so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable (numerosity) (2) there must be questions of law or fact common to the class' (commonality) (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties' must be typical of the claims or defenses of the class' (typicality) and (4) the named plaintiffs must fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class' (adequacy of representation, or simply adequacy). In this case, KHS seeks certification under Rule 23(b)(3), which imposes the additional requirements that (i) common questions of law or fact predominate (predominance), and (ii) the class action is the superior method for adjudication (superiority). KHS has not established that based on a preponderance of the evidence its putative class meets the requirements of Rule 23. Specifically, KHS' motion for certification fails the predominance prong of Rule 23(b)(3). Therefore, the Court will focus the discussion on predominance and not address the other requirements under Rule 23. To satisfy the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3), a plaintiff must show that questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members. The predominance test asks whether common issues of law or fact in the case predominate over non-common individualized issues of law or fact. If proof of an essential element of the cause of action requires individual treatment, then class certification is unsuitable. In this case, a prediction of how issues will play out makes clear that the individualized question of consent will defeat predominance of common issues because the ultimate question for each class member will be whether a given fax sent by SFC was solicited or unsolicited. A violation of the TCPA only occurs if the fax in question was an unsolicited advertisement. A solicited advertisement is not a violation and does not require an opt-out notice. A fax is a solicited advertisement if it was sent with the recipient's prior express invitation or permission, in writing or otherwise. When a recipient voluntarily provides a contact number, she provides express consent to receive material related to the reason why she provided her number in the first place. Thus, if a fax number is voluntarily provided to a sender by a recipient, a court will have to analyze whether any fax sent to that recipient relates to the reason the contact info was provided in the first place, because if it does, then express consent was provided for the fax, and it cannot be an unsolicited advertisement. Here, the facts demonstrate many reasons why common questions will not predominate leading to the potential for thousands of mini-trials on the individualized issue of consent. For each class member, a fact finder will have to determine whether a received fax was solicited or unsolicited. This is raised because of the unchallenged nature of the evidence of how Singer created his contact list that was used to fax putative class members. Over the 25 years he was in business Singer claims to have added to his list continually by speaking directly to potential contacts, either through networking or on cold calls. Importantly, Singer claims that when he spoke to people and received a fax number, he always would ask for permission to send faxed flyers. Thus, issues of consent are clearly raised even more strongly than those in Gene where the various ways in which contacts were added coupled with the possibility of consent precluded class certification. KHS failed to elicit any common evidence that those who received a fax had not given their consent. A full-text copy of the District Court's August 23, 2018 Memorandum is available at https://tinyurl.com/yawua3uo from Leagle.com. KHS CORP., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF A CLASS OF SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS, Plaintiff, represented by ALAN C. MILSTEIN -- amilstein@shermansilverstein.com -- SHERMAN SILVERSTEIN KOHL ROSE PODOLSKY, JONATHAN B. PIPER -- jon@classlawyers.com -- BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC, KIMBERLY M. WATT -- kimberly@classlawyers.com -- PHILLIP A. BOCK -- phil@classlawyers.com -- BOCK HATCH LEWIS & OPPENHEIM LLC & TOD A. LEWIS -- tod@classlawyers.com -- BOCK & HATCH LLC. SINGER FINANCIAL CORPORATION & PAUL SINGER, Defendants, represented by THOMAS A. MUSI, Jr. -- tam@mmdlawfirm.com -- MUSI & MALONE & DAUBENBERGER, LLP. JOHN DOES 1-12, Defendant, represented by DENNIS COYNE , Litchfield Cavo. SODEXO INC: Settlement in Mejia FLSA Suit Has Final Approval ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, MARIA LUISA MEJIA, ELVIRA MUNGIA LOPEZ, MARIA BENAVIDEZ, and MARTIN MONTER, individually and acting in the interest of other current and former employees, Plaintiffs, v. SODEXO, INC., a Delaware corporation; SDH SERVICES WEST, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (and wholly owned and controlled subsidiary of SODEXO, INC.), and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-02120-LEK (E.D. Cal.), Judge Leslie E. Kobayashi of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California granted the parties' joint motion for final approval of their class settlement and payment to the Settlement Administrator. Having received and considered the Settlement, the supporting papers filed by the parties, and the evidence and argument received by the Court at the hearing before it entered the Preliminary Approval Order and at the final approval hearing on July 9, 2018, the Judge finds that (i) the Notice of Proposed Settlement provided in the case was the best notice practicable and satisfied the requirements of law and due process; (ii) the proposed Class meets all of the legal requirements for class certification; and (iii) the terms of the Settlement are fair, reasonable and adequate to the Class and to each Class Member. For these reasons, Judge Kobayashi finally approved and certified the class for purposes of the Settlement. She finally approved the Settlement and ordered the payment of those amounts to be made to the Class Members who timely submitted valid claim forms out of the Net Settlement Amount in accordance with the Settlement. Finding that the fees and expenses in administrating the Settlement, in the amount of $13,730, are fair and reasonable, the Judge gave final approval to and ordered that amount be paid out of the Maximum Settlement Amount in accordance with the Settlement. She determines by separate order the request by the Plaintiffs and the Class Counsel to the Class Representative Payments and the Class Counsel Fees and Expenses Payment. The parties are ordered to comply with the terms of the Settlement. The Judge entered final judgment in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement filed on March 7, 2018, and the order. The Order will constitute a final judgment (and a separate document constituting the judgment) for purposes of Rule 58, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Parties will bear their own costs and attorneys' fees except as otherwise provided by the Court's order granting the Class Counsel Fees and Expenses Payment. A full-text copy of the Court's July 31, 2018 Order is available at https://bit.ly/2O6ra6k from Leagle.com. Elvira Mungia Lopez, Maria Luisa Mejia, Martin Monter & Maria Benavidez, Plaintiffs, represented by Eric Sebastian Trabucco -- ETrabucco@TheMMLawFirm.com -- Mallison & Martinez, Hector Rodriguez Martinez -- HectorM@TheMMLawFirm.com -- Mallison & Martinez, Joseph Donald Sutton -- JSutton@TheMMLawFirm.com -- Mallison & Martinez, Marco A. Palau -- MPalau@TheMMLawFirm.com -- Mallison & Martinez & Stanley S. Mallison -- StanM@TheMMLawFirm.com -- Mallison & Martinez. Sodexo, Inc., a Delaware Corporation & SDH Services West, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company (and wholly owned and controlled subsidiary of Sodexo, Inc.), Defendants, represented by Zina Deldar -- zinadeldar@paulhastings.com -- Paul Hastings, LLP, Jeffrey D. Wohl -- jeffwohl@paulhastings.com -- Paul Hastings LLP & William Tucker Page -- tuckerpage@paulhastings.com -- Paul Hastings LLP. SOLCO HEALTHCARE: Valsartan Lawsuit Filed Over Contaminant ---------------------------------------------------------- Terry Turner, writing for the Drugwatch, reports that a newly filed class action lawsuit targets companies that distributed or sold valsartan blood pressure medications that were contaminated with NDMA, a chemical believed to cause cancer. Two New Yorkers filed the lawsuit on behalf of people who bought valsartan that was tainted by NDMA. NDMA (N-nitrosodimethylamine) is "reasonably anticipated" to cause cancer in humans, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Environmental Protection Agency classifies NDMA as a probable human carcinogen and says exposure to high levels of NDMA may cause liver damage. Valsartan products recalled in July and August 2018 contained higher than acceptable NDMA levels. The contamination may have been happening since 2012. The lawsuit filed in federal court in New York names four companies as defendants. Two distributed the recalled valsartan. The other two are pharmacies that sold it. The valsartan lawsuit accuses them of negligence, fraud and manufacturing a defective product, among other wrongdoing. Companies named in valsartan class action are: -- Solco Healthcare U.S. LLC -- Prinston Pharmaceutical Inc. -- Walgreens -- Throggs Neck Pharmacy Elizabeth Duffy and John Duffy filed the lawsuit. Both had valsartan prescriptions for high blood pressure. Elizabeth Duffy claims she took contaminated versions of valsartan "for some time." How to Join a Valsartan Class Action Lawsuit The court must first certify the valsartan class action before it moves forward. If that happens, people eligible for it will receive a notification in the mail. People may also join through advertisements posted after the court certifies it. To join the class action lawsuit, people must have had the same experience with the companies as outlined in the complaint. People also must have suffered the same injuries as the Duffys. The lawsuit claims injuries that include the purchase price of the contaminated valsartan. It also mentions non-specific injuries from ingesting NDMA. The lawsuit does not claim either person developed cancer. People may also opt out of the class action and file their own lawsuits. People who suffer serious valsartan injuries may want to pursue their own lawsuits. Class actions tend to cover only minor injuries. These are usually injuries that would not make an individual lawsuit worthwhile. The valsartan class action seeks the full purchase price of the drugs. It also asks for any other payments the law might allow against the four companies named. It does not seek damages that would cover costs associated with cancer. Valsartan Recall Expanded Quickly In July 2018, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced that three companies voluntarily recalled generic valsartan. By early August, the number of companies announcing valsartan recalls grew to 10. As of Aug. 20, 2018, 16 companies had announced recalls, according to a list by the FDA. Most of those companies used the same China-based manufacturer to supply valsartan. Zhejiang Huahai Pharmaceuticals blamed changes to its manufacturing process for the contamination. Those changes took place in 2012. One company used Hetero Labs Limited in India as its manufacturer. The FDA continues to track valsartan production. It is testing samples from other valsartan manufacturers for NDMA beyond acceptable levels. The agency also continues to post updates about the recall.[GN] SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Court Dismisses Miller's BIPA Suit ------------------------------------------------------ The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned JENNIFER MILLER, SCOTT POOLE, and KEVINENGLUND, Plaintiffs, v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO., Defendant. No. 18C86. (N. D. Ill.). Plaintiffs Jennifer Miller, Scott Poole, and Kevin Englund filed this lawsuit against Defendant Southwest Airlines Co. on behalf of themselves and a putative class of similarly situated individuals. Plaintiffs assert a claim for violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), as well as various common law claims. The Defendant argues the Plaintiffs' BIPA claim should be dismissed because Plaintiffs have not alleged an injury sufficient to make them persons aggrieved under BIPA. The Defendant also contends the Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for any of their common law causes of action under Illinois law. Additionally, the Defendants argue all of the Plaintiffs' claims are pre-empted by the RLA, and the Plaintiffs' complaint must therefore be dismissed for improper venue. ARTICLE III STANDING The Illinois legislature passed BIPA in 2008 in response to concerns about the growing use of biometric identifiers and information in financial transactions and security screening procedures. BIPA regulat[es] the collection, use, safeguarding, handling, storage, retention, and destruction of biometric identifiers and information and provides a private right of action to any person aggrieved by a violation. Despite arguing the Plaintiffs have not alleged an actual injury, as the party removing this action to federal court, the Defendant predictably does not take the position that Plaintiffs have failed to meet the injury-in-fact requirement for Article III standing, a finding that would require remand to state court. Similarly, the Plaintiffs have not requested a remand to state court based on lack of standing, instead characterizing the Defendant's no-injury argument as a sham and contending Plaintiffs have alleged a concrete injury sufficient to escape dismissal. A violation of BIPA's notice and consent provisions does not create a concrete risk of harm to a plaintiff's right of privacy in his or her biometric data unless the information is collected or disseminated without the plaintiff's knowledge or consent. Thus, disclosure to a third party of information in which a person has a right of privacy constitutes a sufficiently concrete injury for standing purposes where the information is disclosed without the person's knowledge or consent. Here, the Plaintiffs have alleged violations of BIPA's notice and consent provisions, but they have also alleged that Defendant disseminated their biometrics to unknown third parties, such as payroll vendors or timekeeping vendors, without knowledge or consent. Because the alleged violation of Plaintiffs' right to privacy in their biometric data is a sufficiently concrete injury for Article III standing, we are satisfied have subject matter jurisdiction over this case and need not remand it to state court. RULE 12(B)(3) MOTION TO DISMISS FOR IMPROPER VENUE The Defendant also argues the Plaintiffs' claims should be dismissed for lack of proper venue under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3). The Defendants contend the Plaintiffs' claims are subject to mandatory arbitration or collective bargaining negotiations under the relevant CBAs and the RLA, and therefore, this Court is an improper venue. Legal Standard Rule 12(b)(3) permits dismissal for improper venue. A motion to dismiss based on a contractual arbitration clause is appropriately conceptualized as an objection to venue, and hence properly raised under Rule 12(b)(3). The Defendant primarily argues that all of the Plaintiffs' state-law claims constitute minor disputes as they are dependent on an interpretation of the CBAs governing the Plaintiffs' conditions of employment. To succeed on its theory that the Plaintiffs' claims raise minor disputes under the RLA and are therefore subject to mandatory and exclusive arbitration, Defendant may show that the resolution of Plaintiffs' claims requires interpretation of the CBAs. Here, the Court agrees with the Defendant that the Plaintiffs' claims are minor disputes preempted by the RLA because the claims require interpretation of the CBAs negotiated by Defendant and TWU 555 governing Plaintiffs' terms of employment. First, with respect to their BIPA claim, Plaintiffs assert compensation-related injuries as a result of Defendant's implementation and use of the biometric timekeeping system, alleging that given the invasive nature of the finger scans and the risks associated with providing and storing biometric information, Defendant did not sufficiently compensate Plaintiffs for the capture, collection, storage, retention, and/or use of their biometric information. Plaintiffs further allege they would not have agreed to work for Defendant, at least not for the compensation they received, had they been informed pursuant to BIPA of the nature of Defendant's biometric timekeeping system. Among the relief Plaintiffs seek is compensation for the commercial value of their biometric information. Because the CBAs govern the rates of pay, rules, and working conditions of Plaintiffs' employment, Plaintiffs' BIPA claim requires interpretation of the CBA to determine whether Defendant has the authority to use a particular timekeeping system for employees. Specifically, the CBAs dictate employees' wage rules, rates of pay, and bonuses. Defendant and TWU 555 negotiated the wage scales applicable to Plaintiffs, as well as other pay provisions relating to premium pay. Additionally, under the terms of the CBAs, TWU 555 is the sole and exclusive bargaining agent for all of Defendant's United States-based ramp, operations, provisioning, and freight agents including Plaintiffs, and Defendant broadly retains the right to manage and direct the work force subject to the labor agreements. The CBAs further establish a grievance system and arbitration procedure to resolve disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the agreements as required by the RLA. Plaintiffs' BIPA claim cannot be resolved without interpreting the wage provisions of the CBAs and the relevant bargaining history to determine whether the wages TWU 555 and Defendant negotiated were intended to compensate employees for all conditions of their employment, including use of the biometric timekeeping system. Likewise, Plaintiffs' challenge to Defendant's decision to implement the biometric timekeeping system requires an interpretation as to whether the decision falls within the scope of Defendant's right to manage and direct the work force. The Defendant's motion to dismiss for improper venue under Rule 12(b)(3) is granted. A full-text copy of the District Court's August 23, 2018 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y79zv3lz from Leagle.com. Jennifer Miller, Scott Poole & Kevin Englund, Plaintiffs, represented by Steven Alan Hart, Hart McLaughlin & Eldridge, LLC, Antonio Maurizio Romanucci , Romanucci & Blandin, LLC, Brian H. Eldridge, Hart McLaughlin & Eldridge, LLC, John Shannon Marrese, Hart McLaughlin & Eldridge, LLC, Kyle Pozan, Hart McLaughlin & Eldridge, LLC & Robert John McLaughlin, Hart McLaughlin & Eldridge, LLC. Southwest Airlines Co., a Texas corporation, Defendant, represented by Melissa Anne Siebert -- msiebert@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler LLP, Bonnie Keane DelGobbo -- bdelgobbo@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler LLP, Erin Bolan Hines -- ehines@bakerlaw.com -- Baker Hostetler LLP, Jeremiah Leon Hart -- jhart@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler LLP & Suzanne Marie Alton de Eraso -- saltondeeraso@bakerlaw.com -- Baker Hostetler. ST JOHN KNITS: Burbon Suit Asserts ADA Breach --------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against St. John Knits, Inc. The case is titled as Luc Burbon, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. St. John Knits, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-08014 (S.D.N.Y., September 3, 2018). The Plaintiff alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. St. John Knits, Inc., designs, manufactures, and markets women's clothing and accessories. The Company offers a variety of products such as jackets, tops, dresses, bottoms, evening and swim wear, jewelry, shoes, handbags, scarves, belts, and travel accessories. St. John Knits markets its products worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Telephone: (917) 299-6612 Facsimile: (929) 575-4195 E-mail: joseph@cml.legal SURGERY PARTNERS: Hearing Today on Bid to Dismiss Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Surgery Partners, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2018, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that a hearing has been set for September 13, 2018, on the motion to dismiss the Delaware class action lawsuit against the Company and others. On December 4, 2017, the Company, certain current and former members of the Company's board of directors, H.I.G. Capital LLC and certain of its affiliates and Bain Capital Private Equity, L.P. and certain of its affiliates and advised funds (collectively, the "Defendants") were named as defendants in a suit filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the "Delaware Action") by a purported Company stockholder relating to the Transactions. The plaintiff in the Delaware Action claims that the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Transactions, and that, in the alternative, Bain Capital aided and abetted those purported breaches. The plaintiff in the Delaware Action purports to assert those claims on the Company's behalf, as well as on behalf of a putative class of Company stockholders and requests that the Court award monetary damages to the purported class and/or the Company. On January 2, 2018 the defendants in the Delaware Action moved to dismiss all of the claims asserted in that suit. Briefing on that motion concluded on May 21, 2018. A hearing date on the motion has been set for September 13, 2018. Surgery Partners, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates surgical facilities in the United States. The company operates through three segments: Surgical Facility Services, Ancillary Services, and Optical Services. Surgery Partners, Inc. was founded in 2004 and is headquartered in Brentwood, Tennessee. SYMANTEC CORP: Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Suits -------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted the Motion to Consolidate Actions in the case captioned JAMES FELIX, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SYMANTEC CORPORATION, GREGORY S. CLARK, and NICHOLAS R. NOVIELLO, Defendants. No. C 18-02902 WHA. (N.D. Cal.), and pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, appointed SEB Investment Management AB lead plaintiff. Individual investor James Felix filed this putative securities class action against defendant Symantec Corporation and individual defendants Gregory S. Clark, CEO of Symantec, and Nicholas R. Noviello, CFO and Principal Accounting Officer of Symantec, alleging false and misleading statements in violation of federal securities laws. Plaintiff alleges that Symantec revealed in May 2018 that its audit committee was investigating Symantec's accounting practices in connection with concerns raised by a former employee and that Symantec had contacted the SEC to advise the SEC of its investigation. Under FRCP 42(a), the district court may consolidate actions where the actions involve a common question of law or fact. The district court has broad discretion under this rule to consolidate cases pending in the same district. Here, both complaints allege claims under Sections 10(b), Rule 10(b)(5), and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and include allegations concerning Symantec's May 2018 announcement regarding its audit committee's investigation into the company's public disclosures. Both class periods end on May 10, 2018, but begin one day apart, the Felix class period begins on May 20, 2017, while the Broda class period begins on May 19, 2017. FRCP 42(a), however, does not require the complaints to be identical for purposes of consolidation. Because the complaints involve common questions of fact and law, the motion to consolidate is granted. A full-text copy of the District Court's August 23, 2018 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7djdc29 from Leagle.com. James Felix, Plaintiff, represented by Laurence M. Rosen -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. Symantec Corporation, Defendant, represented by Catherine Eugenia Moreno -- cmoreno@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati A Professional Corporation, Caz Hashemi -- chashemi@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, Jerome F. Birn, Jr. JBirn@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati & Stephen Bruce Strain -- sstrain@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich Rosati Litigation. Gregory S. Clark & Nicholas R. Noviello, Defendants, represented by Alyse Jennings Rivett -- ali.rivett@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP & Susan Diane Resley -- susan.resley@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius. Pedro Reyes, Movant, represented by Rosemary M. Rivas -- rrivas@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky LLP. Image Securities Ltd., Movant, represented by Laurence M. Rosen , The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES: Bid to Drop New Jersey Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2018, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the motion to dismiss the consolidated securities class action lawsuit in the District of New Jersey is still pending. On May 1, 2017, May 2, 2017, June 8, 2017 and June 14, 2017, four putative class actions were filed against the Company and certain of its officers and directors in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (the "Securities Law Action"). After these cases were consolidated, the court appointed as lead plaintiff Employees' Retirement System of the State of Hawaii, which filed, on November 20, 2017, a consolidated amended complaint purportedly on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between February 3, 2016 and June 13, 2017. The consolidated amended complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and it alleges, among other things, that the defendants made false and misleading statements of material information concerning the Company's financial results, business operations, and prospects. The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, fees, interest, and costs. On February 2, 2018, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint in its entirety, with prejudice, which remains pending. Synchronoss said, "The Company believes that the asserted claims lack merit, and the Company intends to defend against all of the claims vigorously. Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the Company cannot predict the outcome of the actions at this time, and can give no assurance that the asserted claims will not have a material adverse effect on the financial position or results of operations of the Company." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. provides cloud, digital, messaging, and Internet of things platforms, products, and solutions worldwide. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in Bridgewater, New Jersey. TECHTRONIC INDUSTRIES: Selling Illegal Knives, Says Lakatosh Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Gabriel Lakatosh, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Techtronic Industries Company, Ltd., Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation, The Home Depot, Inc. and Does 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-05527, (C.D. Cal., June 21, 2018), seeks awards of actual, compensatory, statutory and punitive damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest on any amounts awarded, reasonable attorney's fees and costs, injunctive relief and such other and further relief resulting from negligence per se, fraud, intentional failure to disclose or concealment, negligent failure to disclose or concealment, unjust enrichment, and violation of California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California False Advertising Law and various State Consumer Protection/Fraud Acts. Techtronic Industries Company manufactures, markets and sells a popular model of utility knife known as Milwaukee Fastback which is illegal to possess or carry in many jurisdictions. Defendants, nevertheless, market and sell Milwaukee Fastback Products through The Home Depot, Inc. stores and various other retail outlets. The Home Depot, Inc. sells its own house-branded knives under the "Husky" name, that operate similarly to the Milwaukee Fastback Products, and are similarly illegal in many jurisdictions. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul R. Kiesel, Esq. Jeffrey A. Koncius, Esq. Nicole Ramirez, Esq. KIESEL LAW LLP 8648 Wilshire Boulevard Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2910 Tel: (310) 854-4444 Fax: (310) 854-0812 Email: kiesel@kiesel.law koncius@kiesel.law ramirez@kiesel.law - and - Joseph J. Zonies, Esq. Anthony L. Giacomini, Esq. Gregory D. Bentley, Esq. ZONIES LAW LLC 1700 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Denver, CO 80203 Tel: (720) 464-5300 Fax: (720) 961-9252 Email: jzonies@zonieslaw.com agiacomini@zonieslaw.com gbentley@zonieslaw.com - and - Benjamin B. Lieb, Esq. TALUS LAW GROUP LL 2816 South Adams Street Denver, CO 80210 Tel: (303) 246-4767 TESLA INC: CEO Tweets Under Fire, Horwitz Hits Share Price Drop --------------------------------------------------------------- Joshua Horwitz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Tesla, Inc. and Elon R. Musk, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-05258 (N.D. Cal., August 28, 2018), seeks damages and interest, reasonable costs, including attorneys' fees and equitable/injunctive or other relief for violation of the federal securities laws. Tesla designs, develops, manufactures and sells electric vehicles and energy generation and storage systems in the United States, China, Norway and internationally. On August 8, 2018, it was announced that the SEC was making inquiries regarding the veracity of the tweets sent by its CEO Elon Musk and the reason the disclosures were made via a social media posting rather than a filing with the SEC with regards to taking the company private. As a result of this news, Tesla's stock declined $29.95 per share to close at $305.50 per share on August 17, 2018. Plaintiff purchased Tesla securities at artificially inflated prices, suffering significant losses, notes the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Shawn A. Williams, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP Post Montgomery Center One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 288-4545 Fax: (415) 288-4534 Email: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com - and - David C. Walton, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101-8498 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Fax: (619) 231-7423 Email: davew@rgrdlaw.com - and - Frank J. Johnson, Esq. JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1400 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 230-0063 Fax: (619) 255-1856 Email: FrankJ@JohnsonFistel.com TMCSF INC: Cal. App. Affirms Denial of Arbitration in Fuentes Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division Two, affirmed the trial court's judgment denying Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration in the case captioned ALFREDO FUENTES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TMCSF, INC., Defendant and Appellant. No. E066242. (Cal. App.). Fuentes filed this action against Riverside, alleging that Riverside made various misrepresentations and violated various statutes in connection with the sale of the motorcycle. Riverside filed a petition to compel arbitration. After hearing argument, the trial court denied the petition. It explained: "The arbitration provision is solely in the agreement between Fuentes and Eaglemark, to which Riverside was not a party. The agreement expressly identifies the scope of the obligation to arbitrate as being limited to those between' plaintiff on the one hand, and ESB and/or any of ESB's successors, assigns, parents, subsidiaries, or affiliates on the other hand.' In light of that language, there is no intent that the arbitration provision extend to claims between the plaintiff and a third party like Riverside. Nor is the court persuaded that Fuentes is equitably estopped from denying the application of the arbitration provision to this lawsuit." RIVERSIDE HAS NO STANDING TO INVOKE THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE General Legal Principles Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2 allows a party to an arbitration agreement to petition to compel arbitration. By stating that a party to an arbitration agreement may petition to compel arbitration, the statute assumes that a proceeding to compel arbitration will be between the signatories to the agreement. Nonsignatory defendants may enforce arbitration agreements where there is sufficient identity of parties. Enforcement is permitted where the nonsignatory is the agent for a party to the arbitration agreement or the nonsignatory is a third party beneficiary of the agreement. Standing as a Party Riverside contends that the Purchase Agreement and the Security Agreement constitute a single contract, and hence it is a party to the arbitration clause. Under Civil Code section 1642, several contracts relating to the same matters, between the same parties, and made as parts of substantially one transaction, are to be taken together. Here, the Purchase Agreement and the Security Agreement, by their terms, were not between the same parties; thus, Civil Code section 1642 does not apply. In sum, then, the fact that the Purchase Agreement and the Security Agreement could be considered one transaction is not dispositive. Rather, just as when any issue turns on contractual interpretation, the Court must look to the mutual intent of the parties. The arbitration clause itself specified the entities to which it applied. It applied to Claims between You on the one hand, and ESB and/or any of ESB's successors, assigns, parents, subsidiaries, or affiliates and/or any employees, officers, directors, agents, of the aforementioned on the other hand. To state the obvious, Riverside is not Eaglemark. Also, as far as the record shows, Riverside is not a successor, assign, parent, subsidiary, affiliate,3employee, officer, or director of Eaglemark. In sum, then leaving aside Riverside's claim that it was an agent of Eaglemark, Riverside was not a party to the arbitration clause and was not a nonparty expressly specified as able to invoke the arbitration clause. Standing as an Agent Riverside contends that it is entitled to compel arbitration because it is an agent of Eaglemark. As mentioned, the arbitration clause required arbitration of claims between Fuentes and Eaglemark's agents. And even when an arbitration clause does not expressly extend to agents, an agent for a party may be able to enforce an arbitration clause. The Court disagrees, for three reasons. First, there was no evidence that Riverside actually had this power. Because the existence of agency is generally a question of fact, it logically follows that agency must be established with evidence. Here, all the evidence showed was that Fuentes entered into a financing agreement on Riverside's premises on the same day as he purchased a motorcycle from Riverside. For all the Court know, Riverside had to contact Eaglemark and obtain its approval for each and every financing agreement. Second, as a general rule, a dealer does not act as the agent of the financing agency simply because the dealer used forms supplied by the financing agency. Riverside may be aware of these cases; it appears to be trying to get around them by arguing that Harley-Davidson financing is unique. As already discussed, however, they have not shown that it is unique in any way that would prove agency. Third, even assuming that Riverside was Eaglemark's agent, Fuentes's claims are made against Riverside in its own capacity, not in its supposed capacity as Eaglemark's agent. This precludes Riverside from invoking the arbitration clause. Eaglemark had no reason to give its agents a right to compel arbitration of their own disputes with its borrowers. However broad may be the terms of a contract, it extends only to those things concerning which it appears that the parties intended to contract. Standing as a Third Party Beneficiary Next, Riverside contends that it was entitled to enforce the arbitration clause as a third party beneficiary of the Security Agreement. It points out that it was the intended recipient of the loan proceeds. The Court accepts, for the sake of argument, that Riverside was the third party beneficiary of Eaglemark's promise to pay the loan proceeds to it. The arbitration clause, however, had its own list of intended third party beneficiaries; as we have already discussed, Riverside was not among them. Thus, the contract affirmatively disproves any intent that the arbitration clause should benefit Riverside. What is particularly overreaching about Riverside's third party beneficiary argument is that it is trying to enforce the arbitration clause against Fuentes. However, it was Fuentes who by making a promise to repay, a promise to pay interest, and other promises conferred on Riverside its right to the loan proceeds. If Riverside has any rights as a third party beneficiary, they should run against Eaglemark, not Fuentes. Standing as a Result of Equitable Estoppel Riverside contends that Fuentes is equitably estopped to deny the applicability of the arbitration clause. Riverside points out that its counsel argued that without this Security Agreement, Fuentes would not have a case and the trial court responded, That may be true. However, it immediately went on to rule that Fuentes was not estopped to dispute that. In context, it appears to have been merely accepting counsel's position for the sake of argument. In any event, as our review is de novo, the Court is not bound by any findings much less comments by the trial court. The Court therefore concludes that equitable estoppel does not apply. The order appealed from is affirmed. A full-text copy of the Cal. App.'s August 23, 2018 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycfun9ku from Leagle.com. Arent Fox, Halbert B. Rasmussen -- halbert.rasmussen@arentfox.com -- and George N. Koumbis -- george.koumbis@arentfox.com -- for Defendant and Appellant. Pestotnik and Ross H. Hyslop, for Plaintiff and Respondent. UNITED STATES: Court Dismisses Suit Over Superstorm Sandy --------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Federal Claims granted Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned ROBERT JACOBSEN and CAROL JACOBSEN, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant. No. 18-578C. (Fed Cl.). The United States has moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (RCFC). Plaintiffs Robert and Carol Jacobsen have brought suit seeking monetary and equitable relief against the United States, naming specifically the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA, The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. (Hartford), Citi Mortgage, Inc. (Citi), and several federal and state court judges. Their claims relate to damage caused by Hurricane Irene and Superstorm Sandy, and subsequent decisions by FEMA, insurance companies, and federal and state courts regarding insurance payouts. Plaintiffs allege that Citi improperly foreclosed on their New Jersey property. STANDARDS FOR DECISION Rule 12(b)(1) - Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction The Tucker Act provides this court with jurisdiction over any claim against the United States founded either upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress or any regulation of an executive department, or upon any express or implied contract with the United States, or for liquidated or unliquidated damages in cases not sounding in tort. The Tucker Act does not, however, provide a plaintiff with any substantive rights. To establish this court's jurisdiction under the Tucker Act, a plaintiff must identify a separate source of substantive law that creates the right to money damages. Rule 12(b)(6) - Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can be Granted A complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to `state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. The factual matters alleged must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true. Rule 12(b)(1) - Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction If this court is to exercise jurisdiction over any of Mr. and Mrs. Jacobson's claims, it must do so under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1491(a). Other statutory grants of jurisdiction to this court are inapplicable to Mr. and Mrs. Jacobson's complaint. Saliently, this court can only hear claims against the United States. Thus, it cannot consider claims against Hartford and Citi. Under the Tucker Act, it can only hear claims for monetary compensation resulting from a breach of contract with the government or government violations of constitutional, statutory, or regulatory law, excepting tort cases. This court may not hear criminal complaints nor may it review decisions of state courts or other federal courts. Consequently, none of the allegations of erroneous prior rulings by other courts can be considered. In related vein, the court does not have jurisdiction over claims regarding the conduct of other judges, whether in their official capacity or otherwise. Request to Adjudicate Criminal or Tort Allegations The Tucker Act excludes tort claims from this court's jurisdiction. This court also lacks jurisdiction over criminal claims. While the Jacobsens neither cite criminal statutes nor specify criminal violations, they generally aver illegal, fraudulent, and criminal acts by FEMA, Hartford, Citi, and several judges. This court has no jurisdiction over any of these tortious or criminal allegations. Requests for Equitable Relief The Jacobsens request this Court to dissolve FEMA and declare FEMA criminally inept. The Jacobsens also invite this court to fix the court system fix the FEMA laws/statutes, enjoin FEMA and other insurers from offering or renewing of flood insurance policies, and compel a judge to testify regarding [specified orders. This relief is not collateral to any monetary claim against the United States and must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Constitutional Claims This court has jurisdiction over non-tort claims against the government for violation of constitutional rights, but only when the Constitution requires payment of monetary compensation by the United States. The complaint specifically mentions three violations of the Jacobsens' constitutional rights. The complaint alleges that Mr. and Mrs. Jacobsen received improper notice about pending legal action. Because these constitutional rights are not money-mandating, this court lacks jurisdiction to hear these claims and must dismiss them. Potential Claim Against FEMA for $6,141,900 Finally, what remains is a potential claim against FEMA for $6,141,900 for losses resulting from Superstorm Sandy.The complaint makes general and conclusory allegations that the Jacobsens' rights have been violated. But, the complaint fails to identify a specific statutory, regulatory, or contractual basis for any claim. Though the complaint repeatedly mentions illegal FEMA actions, no facts pled implicate the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, any statutory or regulatory right, or a contract with the government. In sum, there are no facts pled that tie FEMA's conduct to a source of substantive law on which to base jurisdiction. The government's motion to dismiss the Jacobsens' complaint is granted. A full-text copy of the Court of Federal Claims' August 23, 2018 Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9kez7pe from Leagle.com. ROBERT JACOBSEN, Plaintiff, pro se. CAROL JACOBSEN, Plaintiff, pro se. USA, Defendant, represented by Russell James Upton , U.S. Department of Justice - Commercial Lit. Civil Division. UNITED STATES: Providence Mother Reacts to Class-Action Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Caroline Goggin, writng for 12 WPRI Eyewitness News, reports that in a sit-down interview with Eyewitness News on August 24 night, Lilian Calderon, of Providence, said she and her family are grateful a lawsuit filed on her behalf will move forward. In a Boston federal courthouse on August 23, U.S. District Court Judge Mark Wolf ruled a class-action lawsuit brought by the ACLU of Massachusetts against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) can move forward despite the government's attempt to have it dismissed. "With the ruling, it just makes us a little more comfortable again," Luis Gordillo, Calderon's husband, told Eyewitness News. "It's a long process, but we know we should at least be okay for now." Lilian Calderon is the lead plaintiff in the ACLU's lawsuit. It argues non-citizen immigrants should be granted temporary relief to remain in the country while they work to get legal status. Several other New England couples are also named in the suit. "Family separation isn't just happening on the border. It's happening in Warwick," Gabriela Domenzain, a friend of Calderon's, said. "It's happening in Boston. And all around the country." Domenzain is also the former director of The Latino Policy Institute at Roger Williams University. In January, Lilian Calderon was taken into custody by ICE officials after a marriage interview at an immigration office in Johnston. The Guatemalan native, who came to Rhode Island as a toddler, said she thought she was taking the next step to become a lawful, permanent resident. But, the ACLU's lawsuit alleges she was unlawfully arrested and detained for nearly a month in Boston. "We were blind-sighted," Calderon said. "We didn't know our routine interview was going to end up in us being separated." "Even though they give couples specific laws to follow, and that Lilian and Luis and people like them are within their rights to apply and be citizens so they can stay united, [the government] is using their own laws to trap people," Domenzain added. There is no word yet on when Calderon's case will be heard. A spokesperson for ICE has declined to comment on the case, citing pending litigation. Right now, Calderon is still working to become a U.S. citizen. She's currently waiting on a waiver to get approved. which will allow her to make the trip to the U.S. Consulate in Guatemala. "To know that so many other Rhode Islanders have support for us and nothing but love, it's heartwarming," Calderon said. "It's kind of like the silver lining in all this. To know our neighbors, our community, really showed up to help us and didn't let us down."[GN] UNITED STATES: Veterans Can Now File Class-Action Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------- Leo Shane III, writing for Military Times, reports that a federal court ruling opened the possibility for veterans to file suit against the Department of Veterans Affairs as a class rather than individuals, a move that advocates say could dramatically shift how legal cases against the bureaucracy are handled. The ruling, Monk v. Wilkie, came from the U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals. The eight-justice panel ultimately ruled against the plaintiff's claim that their case should proceed as a class-action suit, arguing it failed to meet previously established standards for such legal consideration. But they did say that in "appropriate cases" in the future, class-action lawsuits would be entertained. "This is a watershed decision, and its importance should not be diminished merely because the court declined to certify this proposed class," Chief Judge Robert Davis wrote in the opinion. "On the contrary, the court's decision will shape our jurisprudence for years to come and, I hope, bring about positive change for our nation's veterans." Fellow appeals court Judge Michael Allen said the decision "has been decades in coming and holds great promise as a means to address systemic problems in the VA system." In private lawsuits, individuals must prove specific harm or damage to their personal situation in order to win judgment. But in class-action lawsuits, plaintiffs can show illegal or harmful activity against a larger group, bringing with it different standards for correction. Officials with the Veterans Legal Services Clinic at Yale Law School, which brought the suit on behalf of Vietnam veteran Conley Monk Jr., praised the decision as a historic step forward. "(Allowing class-action suits) will allow our nation's veterans to unite in fighting for prompt answers to their disability benefits claims," said clinic law student Catherine McCarthy said in a statement. "The VA's delays are intolerable, and we hope the court will exercise its class action authority to hold the agency to account." Whether future cases will have an easier time establishing an eligible class remains to be seen. In this case, the panel of judges rejected Monk's claim that all veterans facing lengthy wait times for benefits appeals cases should be able to collectively sue the department to force a quicker response. But the new legal avenue could open the possibility of groups of veterans with the same illness banding together to force VA to respond, or require policy changes based on problems a similar group has reported in navigating VA systems. Specific damages awards are not covered in the new ruling.[GN] VALUE ONE CORPORATION: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Fabricant Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- TERRY FABRICANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VALUE ONE CORPORATION, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-06771 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 7, 2018) is an action against the Defendants in negligently, knowingly, and willfully contacting the Plaintiff on the Plaintiff's cellular telephone without any prior express consent in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Value One Corporation is a commercial loan service company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. Tom E. Wheeler, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@ toddflaw.com abacon@ toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com twheeler@toddflaw.com VISUALSCAPE INC: Underpays Landscapers, Moresca Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ YVENOR MORESCA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VISUALSCAPE, INC.; and IVAN CARLOS VILA, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-23208-KMW (S.D. Fla., Aug. 7, 2018) is an action against the Defendant to recover unpaid wages and overtime compensation, as well as for liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff Moresca was employed by the Defendants as landscaper from May 8, 2017 to August 1, 2018. Visualscape, Inc. is a limited liability company in Miami-Dade County, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J.H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: (305) 865-7167 Email: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM WAL-MART STORES: Workers Sue Over Pregnancy Discrimination ---------------------------------------------------------- Scott Desmit, writing for The Daily News, reports that two women from Albion are at the center of a class-action lawsuit filed against Wal-Mart that accuses the company of discriminating against pregnant workers. Kaitlyn Hoover and Leigha Klopp are named as plaintiffs in the suit, filed in Orleans County Court at the end of July and on behalf of A Better Balance, a New York City-based group. The suit alleges Wal-Mart fired both women as a result of Wal-Mart's "brutal absence control system that punishes workers for any unscheduled absence, regardless of whether it may be protected by law." Hoover was a jewelry associate at Wal-Mart in Albion when she discovered she was pregnant in March 2017. Hoover within weeks began to suffer "severe pregnancy-related nausea," according to the suit. "She vomited continuously for three days and became dehydrated," the suit claims. "She called into her store before her shift and spoke to a manager to let her know she was worried about her pregnancy and needed to go to the hospital. The manager said it would ‘count against [her]'. Nevertheless, Ms. Hoover went to the hospital; she spent four hours there, unable to keep down any medication until she received fluids intravenously. When she returned to work for her next scheduled shift, her manager fired her, telling her that the absence was not excusable and that ‘We [referring to Walmart] don't take doctors' notes.' Klopp worked in apparel and learned she was pregnant in December 2016. A month later Hoover began to feel dizzy at work and feared she was having a miscarriage. "When she told two managers that she needed to go to the hospital, she was told it would be "marked against [her]" if she left her shift early," the suit alleges. "Feeling that she had no choice, she left and went to the hospital. When she returned to work, armed with a doctor's note, one of her managers put up her hand to stop her and said, "I don't want that." Ms. Klopp received half a point for her absence. A few months later, Ms. Klopp woke up vomiting blood. She called the store to tell them that she was going to the hospital, on the advice of her obstetrician, and that she would need to miss her shift. Again, her managers told her she would incur a point for her absence – and this time, she would have "too many points" and would be fired. Nevertheless, she went to the hospital. When she returned for her next shift, Walmart fired her." Wal-Mart's policy is a points-based system where if an employee is late, misses a shift or leaves early without approval, points are assigned toe the employee. If a certain number of points are accumulated, the employee can be disciplined or fired. The lawsuit claims Wal-Mart violates New York's Pregannt Workers Fairness Act. The suit is one of many that have been filed against Wal-Mart in recent years, including one in Illinois that includes more than 20,000 workers or former workers claiming discrimination against pregnant employees. A Better Balance, which has filed similar suits against other companies and fights for workers' rights and reshaping laws, said the suit is the first class action suit brought under New York law. "Walmart's ‘no-fault' absence control policy flouts New York's pregnancy accommodation law by punishing pregnant workers for lawful absences," said Dina Bakst, co-president and co-founder."No pregnant worker, many fearing miscarriage, should be fired for seeking emergency medical care. Walmart must immediately change its policies to comply with this law and ensure that no pregnant worker is forced to choose between a healthy pregnancy and a pink slip." Wal-Mart officials at its Arkansas-based headquarters did not respond to emails regarding the lawsuit.[GN] WINDSTREAM SERVICES: Doppelt Class Action Concluded --------------------------------------------------- Windstream Services, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2018, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the class action lawsuit entitled, Doppelt v. Windstream Holdings, Inc., et al., has been dismissed. On February 9, 2015, a putative stockholder filed a Shareholder Class Action Complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the "Court"), captioned Doppelt v. Windstream Holdings, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10629-VCN, against the Company and its board of directors. This complaint was accompanied by a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the spin-off. The Court, ruling from the bench on February 19, 2015, the day before a special meeting of stockholders was scheduled to vote on a reverse stock split and amended governing documents (the "Proposals"), denied plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, reasoning that much of the information sought by plaintiff had been disclosed in public filings available on the United States Securities and Exchange Commission's website, the Windstream Holdings' board of directors was in no way conflicted, and while approval of the Proposals would facilitate the spin-off, approval was not necessary to effect the spin-off. On March 16, 2015, plaintiff, joined by a second putative Windstream stockholder, filed an Amended Shareholder Class Action Complaint alleging breaches of fiduciary duty by the Company and its Board concerning Windstream's disclosures and seeking to rescind the spin-off and unspecified monetary damages. On February 5, 2016, the Court dismissed Windstream as a named party and also dismissed the plaintiffs' demand to rescind the spin-off, but otherwise denied Windstream's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims. On or about January 27, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking class certification which the Court granted on April 17, 2017. The parties reached a settlement of all claims that was approved by the court at a hearing on June 20, 2018, and the case was dismissed. Windstream Services, LLC, together with its subsidiaries, provides communications and technology solutions in the United States. It operates through four segments: Consumer & Small Business, Enterprise, Wholesale, and Consumer CLEC. he company was founded in 2004 and is based in Little Rock, Arkansas. Windstream Services, LLC is a subsidiary of Windstream Holdings, Inc. WOOD RIVER: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Property Liens ---------------------------------------------------------- Angelica Saylo Pilo, writing for Madison-St. Claire Record, reports that Wood River city officials did not properly serve property owners when recording liens against their land, a lawsuit claims. Maag Holdings LLC filed a complaint on Aug. 14 in Madison County Circuit Court against the City of Wood River, alleging that the municipality failed to comply with Illinois statutes governing liens. According to the complaint, city officials placed a lien on the plaintiff's property for removal costs of neglected weeds and grass. The plaintiff claims the city did not serve the lien by certified mail or personally, which violates Illinois statutes. The plaintiff seeks class action status for its lawsuit to include all Wood River residents with liens on their property that were not properly served. The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and damages. It is represented by Shari L. Murphy, Esq. of the Law Offices of Shari L. Murphy in Wood River.[GN] XBIOTECH INC: Still Defends Rezko Class Action ---------------------------------------------- XBiotech Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2018, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, that the company continues to defend itself in a class action suit entitled, Yogina Rezko v. XBiotech Inc., John Simard, Queena Han and WR Hambrecht & Co., LLC. On December 1, 2015, a purported securities class action complaint captioned Yogina Rezko v. XBiotech Inc., John Simard, Queena Han and WR Hambrecht & Co., LLC was filed against the Company, certain of its officers and directors and the underwriter for its initial public offering in the Superior Court for the State of California, Los Angeles County. On December 2, 2015, a purported securities class action complaint captioned Linh Tran v. XBiotech Inc., John Simard and Queena Han was filed against the Company and certain of its officers and directors in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. The lawsuits are based on substantially similar factual allegations and purport to be class actions brought on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities during the period from April 15, 2015 through November 23, 2015. The complaint filed in California state court alleges that the defendants violated the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), and the complaint filed in federal court alleges that the defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), in each case by making materially false and misleading statements concerning the Company's Phase III clinical trial conducted in Europe to assess Xiloni(TM) as a treatment for colorectal cancer. The California complaint purports to assert claims for violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act, and the federal complaint purports to assert claims for violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Both complaints seek, on behalf of the purported class, an unspecified amount of monetary damages, interest, fees and expenses of attorneys and experts, and other relief. In September 2016, a stay was granted at the Superior Court for the State of California, Los Angeles County, in Yogina Rezko v. XBiotech Inc., John Simard, Queena Han and WR Hambrecht & Co., LLC, in light of the ongoing case, Linh Tran v. XBiotech Inc., John Simard and Queena Han, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, leaving plaintiffs with an opportunity re-file a complaint in Texas. In October 2016, the Texas securities class action lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice. At the June 7, 2017 hearing at the Superior Court for the State of California, Los Angeles County, the Company was granted a motion on the grounds of forum non conveniens. The judge ruled that the case belonged in Texas, not in California. The case is nevertheless stayed, due to California procedural rules, and not dismissed. The plaintiffs re-filed their suit in Travis County district court, located in Austin, Texas, on July 6, 2017. The Company subsequently removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. Following a recent Supreme Court decision holding that the types of claims asserted in this action are non-removable, the suit was remanded back to Travis County district court, where it remains pending. XBiotech said, " The Company believes the claims asserted in the case are without merit and intends to mount a vigorous defense." XBiotech Inc., a pre-market biopharmaceutical company, engages in discovering and developing True Human monoclonal antibodies for treating various diseases. XBiotech, Inc. was founded in 2005 and is headquartered in Austin, Texas. ********* 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 ***