/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/180919.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, September 19, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 188 Headlines 248 HOSPITALITY: Underpays Restaurant Staff, Garcia et al. Claim 9019 LLC: Pena Action to Recover Overtime Pay ADT INC: Settlement Proceedings in Wireless Encryption Suit Stayed ADT INC: Suit over 2G-3G Radio Conversion Project Concluded AIMBRIDGE HOSPITALITY: Faces Rivera Suit over Security Breach ALARM.COM INC: Bid to Exclude Expert Testimonies in Abante Denied AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Accord in Family Medicine's Suit Okayed AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Accord in Solodyn(R) Antitrust Suit Okayed AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Discovery Ongoing in Opana ER Related Suit AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Discovery Ongoing in Williams Suit AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Generic Drugs Pricing Suit Underway AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Says Opiate Litigation Stayed AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Vana and Stone Class Suits Dismissed AMPCO-PITTSBURGH: 3rd Cir. Appeal on Arbitration Order Underway ANGI HOMESERVICES: Faces Costello Class Action BANK OF AMERICA: Heinhart Files Fraud Class Action in Fla. BLUESTEM BRANDS: 8th Cir. Flips Arbitration Ruling in Parm's Suit BOKF NA: Walker Sues over Extended Overdraft Fees BOW TIE CINEMAS: Burbon Suit Asserts Disabilities Act Violation BRANCH BANKING: Court Dismisses Gillam EFTA Suit BROOKLYN BREWERY: Mendez Alleges Disabilities Act Violation BUYER HERO: Court Nixes Default Judgment in Becker Suit CANCER GENETICS: NJ Court Consolidates 2 Securities Suits CARMEL PARTNERS: Fischler Files ADA Suit in New York CASWELL-MASSEY LLC: Conner Class Suit Alleges ADA Violation CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Violates FDCPA, Romanoff Suit Asserts CENTRAL CALIFORNIA ALMOND: Court Strikes FAC in Urena Suit CENTRAL CREDIT: Salisbury Sues over Collection of Consumer Debts CENTURYLINK INC: Sales Practices and Securities Litigation Ongoing CENTURYLINK INC: Tomasulo Case Settlement Remains Pending CITIMORTGAGE INC: Calfee Suit Goes to Massachusetts District Court CJS SOLUTIONS: Underpays Support Consultants, Gray Suit Claims CLIENT SERVICES: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Sargent Says CMRE FINANCIAL: Faces Zevon Suit Alleging FDCPA Violation COLUMBIA: Suit Alleges Americans with Disabilities Act Violation CONNECTICUT WATER: Faces Dunn Class Action over Merger Deal CONNECTICUT WATER: Faces Tillotson Class Action over Merger Deal CREDIT CONTROL: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Gansburg Says CVS HEALTH: Faces Hyams Suit in California Superior Court DAIMLER AG: Faces Pinon Suit in Northern District of Georgia DAVITA HEALTHCARE: Fustero Sues Over Missed Breaks, Unpaid OT Wages DCH TOYOTA: Diaz Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code DICKEY'S BBQ: Website not Blind-friendly, Matzura Suit Says DIPSON THEATRES: Violates Disabilities Act, Burbon Suit Alleges DITECH FINANCIAL: Marcus Sues Over Collection of Discharged Debt DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Martinez Disputes Collection Calls DUNWEIZER FABRICATION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Lopez Claims ENHANCED RECOVERY: Lane Sues Over Auto-dialed Collection Calls EQUIFAX INC: Fond du Lac Band Sues over Background Checks ESSENDANT INC: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Sept. 28 FAMILY RESIDENCES: James-Howell Seeks OT Pay under Labor Law FANEUIL INC: Marshall Remanded to Calif. State Court FC 8 SPRUCE: Fischler Files Suit Asserting ADA Breach FC ONLINE: Mendez Suit Alleges Disabilities Act Violation FIRST CLASS INTERIORS: Martinez Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay FIRST NATIONAL: Summary Judgment Bid in Hordge FDCA Suit Denied FIVE GUYS: Dec. 3 Deadline to File Class Certification Motion FORCE FACTOR: Faces Seiger Suit in Western District of New York FORT SMITH, AR: City Employees' Suit Seeks Damages FRANCISCO PARTNERS: Gilbert Files Suit Over Buyout GATESTONE & CO: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Alenkin Claims GCA SERVICES: Hogg FCRA Suit Removed to Florida District Court GRIDSUM HOLDING: Li Sues Over Share Price Drop HAMID RAFII: Haysbert Sues over Health and Safety Hazards HANGER INC: Continues to Defend Pontiac General Employees Suit HARRISON GLOBAL: $1MM Settlement in Huddestun Has Prelim Approval HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Fails to Protect Classified Info, Aguilar Says HOLLOWAY CREDIT: Yahaira Garcia Sues over Debt Collection HRB DIGITAL: Response to James Murphy Suit Due Sept. 24 IC SYSTEM: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Miller Suit Says IMMEDIATE CREDIT: Rankel Class Suit Alleges FDCPA Violations IPIC ENTERTAINMENT: Ryan-Nielson Class Suit Underway J FLETCHER: Filing of Amended RICO Suit Partly Granted J&B INVESTMENTS: Melendez Remanded to Calif. State Court JERSEY CHAMP: Metzler Sues Over Illegal Text Ad Blasts JUST BORN: Court Denies Bid to File Sur-Reply in Slack-Fill Suit KIDVILLE INC: Settlement Reached in James Murphy Suit KNORR-BREMSE: Lonergan Sues over No-Poach Deal LANDMARK THEATRE: Burbon Class Suit Alleges ADA Violation LOS ANGELES, CA: Class Certification Denied in Gonzalez-Tzita Suit MACHOL & JOHANNES: Blanks Sues Over Alleged FDCPA Violations MADAME PAULETTE: Website Not Accessible, Wu Suit Alleges MARQUEE CINEMAS: Sued by Burbon for Violating Disabilities Act MCKINSEY & CO: Sullivan Alleges Disabilities Act Violation MDL 1203: Denial of Browning's Level 2 Matrix Benefits Claim Upheld MDL 2100: Ct. Rules in Favor of Lead Counsel in Breach of Duty Row MDL 2804: Sardella vs Purdue Pharma et al. Goes to N.D. Ohio MEC GENERAL: Londono Seeks Overtime Wages under Labor Law MENARD INC: Removes Scheffler Suit to D. Minnesota METROPCS NEW YORK: James Murphy Suit Underway MOSES H CONE: N.C. App. Affirms Dismissal of Awartani Suit MSG SPORTS: Murphy Drops Suit over Disabilities Act Violation NATIONAL AMUSEMENTS: Faces Burbon Suit Asserting ADA Violation NATIONAL RESEARCH: Still Defends Suits in Nebraska and Wisconsin NESTLE USA: Pretrial Conference in Murphy Suit Set for Oct. 10 NEW RIVER HOSPITALITY: Needelman Sues Over Illegal SMS Ads NORTH AMERICAN BANCARD: Amended Bid to Certify Junk Fax Class OK'd NORTH AMERICAN POWER: Settlement in Edwards Has Final Approval NORTHCENTRAL UNIVERSITY: Faces Torres Suit in S.D. California OCERA THERAPEUTICS: Sept. 27 Hearing on Bid to Junk Securities Suit OHIO: Sheriff Faces Oscar Washington Class Suit OLD WORLD: Quintanilla Action to Recover Overtime Pay OTG MANAGEMENT: Pugh Seeks Withheld Tips, Unpaid Overtime Wages PAPA MURPHY'S: Court Awards $1.85MM Attorney's Fees PFIZER INC: Faces Sullivan Suit in Southern District of New York PFIZER INC: Settlement with Celbrex Direct Purchasers Approved PIONEER HOMECARE: Rodriguez Action Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay POLARITYTE INC: Moreno Hits Stock Price Drop From Denied Patent PURDUE PHARMA: Faces Hopkins RICO Suit in District of Arizona RANDALL-REILLY LLC: Murphy Sues Over Unsolicited SMS Ads REGAL CINEMAS: Mendez Sues Over Disabilities Act Violations RETRIEVAL-MASTERS: Dismissal of St. Pierre's FDCPA Suit Affirmed SEARS ROEBUCK: $$497K Attorneys' Fees Awarded in Washer Suit SECURITAS CRITICAL: Rodriguez Alleges Labor Code Violation SELECT MARKETING: Azzopardi & Kosoko Sue over Free Meal Periods SHAG SALON: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Hair Stylists, Luce Says SHASTA COUNTY, CA: Settlement in Jewett Suit Has Final Approval SMITH-PALLUCK: Court Denies Leave to Amend Complaint in Thomas SOHO GRAND HOTEL: Mercer Alleges Disabilities Act Violation SPEARMINT RHINO: Failed to Pay Overtime Wages, Garcia Says SUNTRUST BANK: Randle Suit Alleges Racial Discrimination SWITCH INC: Farach Appointed Lead Plaintiff in Securities Suit SYMONS AMBULANCE: Fails to Pay Wages to Paramedics, Marx Alleges TAKEDA PHARMA: Class Certification Bid in Weisberg Suit Denied TALOS ENERGY: Suits by Stone Energy Stockholders Dismissed TELIGENT INC: Continues to Antitrust Suit over Generic Drugs TORY BURCH: Minniti Sues Over Unsolicited SMS Ads TRIBUNE MEDIA: Sued in Illinois & Maryland over Price of TV Ads TRISTAR PRODUCTS: Court Approves Settlement in Chapman Suit TSC OF LOUISIANA: Lainez Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages UNITED STATES: Immigration Director Faces Class Suit in N.D. Cal. UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS CLEVELAND: Mishandled Frozen Eggs, Suit Says USG CORPORATION: Fitzgerald Balks at Merger Deal with Knauf WAL-MART STORES: Mays' Bid to Certify Wage Statement Class Nixed WIDEOPENWEST INC: Faces Suits in New York over IPO WRIGHT WASTE: McCall Action to Recover Overtime Pay XPRESSPA ONLINE: Burbon Alleges Disabilities Act Violation ********* 248 HOSPITALITY: Underpays Restaurant Staff, Garcia et al. Claim ---------------------------------------------------------------- FORTINO GARCIA and ZAIDA CZARNECKA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. 248 HOSPITALITY GROUP, LLC, ELENODOROS THEODOULOU, ANGELO NICASTRO, and EVAN FROST, the Defendants, Case No. 517074/2018 (N.Y. Sup., Ct., Aug. 21, 2018), seeks to recover minimum wages and other damages for Plaintiffs and their similarly situated co-workers, which include servers, bartenders, bussers, barbacks, food runners and other similarly situated tipped employees, who work or have worked at the restaurant known as "Black Tap" previously located at 248 West 14th Street in New York City, pursuant to the New York Labor Law or the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, consistent with Defendants' policy and pattern or practice, Plaintiffs and the FLSA Collective were not paid the full minimum wage rate for all hours worked up to 40 per workweek and premium overtime compensation for all hours worked beyond 40 per workweek.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative Collective: Brian S. Schaffer, Esq. Dana M. Cimera, Esq. Fitapelli & Schaffer, LLP 28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 300-0375 The Defendants are represented by: Kenneth Miller, Esq. FROST & MILLER, LLP 260 Madison Avenue, 16th Floor New York, NY 10016 E-mail: kmiller@frostmillerllp.com 9019 LLC: Pena Action to Recover Overtime Pay --------------------------------------------- Bolivar Pena, Francisco Suriel and Oscar Villalta, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. 9019, LLC d/b/a Caridad Restaurant and Hilda Taveras, Bruno Taveras and Melania Jimenez, individually, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-03713, (E.D. N.Y., June 26, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, spread-of-hours wages, earned wages and overtime compensation together with liquidated damages, compensatory damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. Plaintiffs worked at the restaurant "Caridad" located at 9019 Jamaica Avenue, Woodhaven, NY 11421. 9019 LLC was controlled and operated by Hilda Taveras and the husband-wife team of Bruno Taveras and Melania Jimenez. The Plaintiffs worked more than forty hours per week but were never paid overtime for hours worked in excess of forty hours per week despite being occasionally required to work double shifts. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob Aronauer, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER 225 Broadway, Suite 307 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 323-6980 Facsimile: (212) 233-9238 Email: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com ADT INC: Settlement Proceedings in Wireless Encryption Suit Stayed ------------------------------------------------------------------ ADT 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 proceeding related to the settlement of a class action lawsuit over wireless encryption remains pending. The Company is subject to five class action claims regarding wireless encryption in certain ADT security systems. Jurisdictionally, three of the five cases are in Federal Court (in districts within Illinois, Arizona, and California), and both of the remaining two cases are in Florida State Court (both in Palm Beach County Circuit Court). Each of the five plaintiffs brought a claim under the respective state's consumer fraud statute alleging that The ADT Corporation and each of its consolidated subsidiaries prior to the consummation of the ADT Acquisition) made misrepresentations and material omissions in its advertising regarding the unencrypted wireless signal pathways in certain security systems monitored by The ADT Corporation. The complaints in all five cases further allege that certain security systems monitored by The ADT Corporation are not secure because the wireless signal pathways are unencrypted, and can be easily hacked. On January 10, 2017, the parties agreed to settle all five class action lawsuits. On October 16, 2017, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California entered an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement. Notice to class members was issued November 16, 2017, and the settlement is currently in the administration process. A fairness hearing regarding the settlement was conducted on February 1, 2018. The Court took the matter under advisement and subsequently stayed the settlement proceedings pending an appellate ruling on a related legal issue. The deadline for filing claims expired on February 26, 2018. The settlement administrator will not pay any claims until the Court enters an order granting final approval of the settlement. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. ADT Inc. provides security and automation solutions for homes and businesses in the United States and Canada. It provides a range of burglary, video, access control, fire and smoke alarm, and medical alert solutions to residential, commercial, and multi-site customers. ADT Inc. was founded in 1874 and is headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida. ADT INC: Suit over 2G-3G Radio Conversion Project Concluded ----------------------------------------------------------- ADT 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 class action lawsuit relating to the 2G-3G Radio Conversion Project has been settled for a nominal value. In August 2016, the Company was served with a class action complaint pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia filed by a customer alleging that The ADT Corporation violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 ("TCPA") by calling his cell phone, which was the only telephone number he provided to The ADT Corporation for his customer account, as part of The ADT Corporation's efforts to communicate with customers affected by the Federal Communications Commission order allowing wireless carriers to sunset 2G wireless networks. Plaintiff seeks to represent a nationwide class of all The ADT Corporation customers who received such calls to their cell phones from 2013 to present. The premise of the plaintiff's claim is that The ADT Corporation's calls were telemarketing calls, which require a higher level of consent, and not transactional/business relationship calls because The ADT Corporation used the 2G transactional calls in an attempt to sell additional products and services. Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification. The ADT Corporation filed its opposition to class certification and further filed a motion for summary judgment in September 2017. The case settled for a nominal value in May 2018 prior to the Court ruling on the motions. ADT Inc. provides security and automation solutions for homes and businesses in the United States and Canada. It provides a range of burglary, video, access control, fire and smoke alarm, and medical alert solutions to residential, commercial, and multi-site customers. ADT Inc. was founded in 1874 and is headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida. AIMBRIDGE HOSPITALITY: Faces Rivera Suit over Security Breach ------------------------------------------------------------- ARINDA RIVERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AIMBRIDGE HOSPITALITY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 76411515 (Fla. Cir., Hillsborough Cty., Aug. 14, 2018) is an action against the Defendant for failure to implement or maintain adequate data security measures for personal and non-public information, including names and social security numbers in a massive security breach of the Defendant's computer servers that was discovered on March 21, 2018. Aimbridge Hospitality, L.P., a hotel investment and management company, owns, manages, and operates hotels in the United States. The company was founded in 2003 and is headquartered in Carrollton, Texas. It operates hotels in Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin. As of October 8, 2013, Aimbridge Hospitality, L.P. operates as a subsidiary of Lee Equity Partners, LLC. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon J. Hill, Esq. Luis A. Cabassa, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA , P.A. 1110 N. Florida Avenue, Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 224-0431 Facsimile: (813) 229-8712 E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com lcabassa@wfclaw.com twells@ wfclaw.com ALARM.COM INC: Bid to Exclude Expert Testimonies in Abante Denied ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ABANTE ROOTER AND PLUMBING, INC., ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. ALARM.COM INCORPORATED, ET AL., Defendants, Case No. 15-cv-06314-YGR (N.D. Cal.), Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (i) denied Alarm.com's motion for summary judgment on the issue of whether the Defendants are vicariously liable for the telemarketing calls at issue in the case; (ii) denied both parties' motions for partial summary judgment on whether the Ytel Cloud Contact Center dialer used to place calls to members of one of the two certified classes constitutes an Automatic Telephone Dialing System ("ATDS") within the meaning of the TCPA; (iii) denied Alarm.com's motion to exclude testimony of the Plaintiffs' proffered expert witnesses pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharma-ceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Plaintiffs Abante, Mark Hankins, and Philip Charvat bring the class action against Defendants Alarm.com and Alarm.com Holdings alleging four counts: violations of (i) the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") for calls made to cellular telephones; (ii) the TCPA for calls made to residential telephone lines; (iii) 47 C.F.R. Section 64.1200(c) for calls made to individuals who were on an internal do-no-call list maintained by defendants and/or their affiliates or agents; and (iv) 47 U.S.C. Section 227(c)(5) for calls made to members of the National Do-Not-Call Registry ("DNC Registry"). The Plaintiffs are consumers and a small business who allegedly received telemarketing calls from Alliance Security ("Alliance") or its agents, allegedly on behalf of Alarm.com. They assert that Alliance or its agents made these calls to (i) cell phone numbers using an ATDS or an artificial or prerecorded voice and (ii) numbers on the DNC Registry. On May 5, 2017, the Court certified three classes for damages pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3), which the Court subsequently modified, decertifying one of the three classes. Before the Court are the parties' cross motions for summary judgment and Alarm.com's motion to exclude the Plaintiffs' proffered expert witnesses, Anya Verkhovskaya and Randall Snyder, from testifying in the matter. Judge Rogers finds that the Plaintiffs have presented evidence, which when viewed in a light most favorable to their case, suggests that a reasonable jury may return a verdict finding that Alarm.com is vicariously liable for the telemarketing calls at issue based on a ratification theory. Accordingly, she denide Alarm.com's motion for summary judgment as to vicarious liability. She denied (i) Alarm.com's motion for partial summary judgment as to whether the Ytel Dialer constitutes an ATDS within the meaning of the TCPA and (ii) the Plaintiffs' analogous and opposite motion for partial summary judgment as to the Ytel Dialer. She finds that the record indicates that Nationwide, Alliance's purported agent, used the Ytel Dialer to place calls to the cell phones of members of the Cell Phone Class. The Ytel Dialer provides several types of automatic telephone dialing software services, as well as campaign and telephone list management functions. Ytel's Master Service Agreement confirms that the system includes predictive dialing technology. Nationwide's CEO, Joseph Moretti, testified that Nationwide used the Ytel Dialer in both manual and automatic dialing modes and confirmed that when calls were placed while using the automatic dialing mode, the Ytel Dialer would locate an available call center employee, and then "beep" to signal to that employee that they should answer the call. The Plaintiffs offer Anya Verkhovskaya, COO of a class action administration firm, to opine on which calls were made to numbers on the National Do-Not-Call Registry. The Defendants contend that Ms. Verkhovskaya's methodology compels the exclusion of her testimony entirely because: (i) the Plaintiffs have not obtained authentication of or established a foundation for the call records that Ms. Verkhovskaya analyzed; (ii) Ms. Verkhovskaya's ultimate calculation of the number of calls that purportedly violated the TCPA includes calls that were not connected; and (iii) Ms. Verkhovskaya did not conduct an analysis to identify the individuals who received the allegedly offending calls. Based on the foregoing, Alarm.com questions whether Ms. Verkhovskaya's evidence is reliable and relevant to the instant lawsuit. First, the Judge does not agree with the Plaintiffs' overreaching assertion that any challenge to the evidence an expert relied upon goes to the weight, not the admissibility, of the expert's testimony. Second, although Ms. Verkhovskaya did not exclude all calls with suggestive tagging, including "failed," "unanswered," and "busy," she did identify and exclude any calls that had duration of zero seconds. Third, the Defendants do not provide any authority to support the assertion that because the call records upon which Ms. Verkhovskaya relied did not identify the recipient of the call her testimony is unreliable and irrelevant. For the reasons, she denied Alarm.com's motion to exclude the testimony of expert Anya Verkhovskaya. The Judge also denied Alarm.com's motion to exclude the testimony of expert Randall Snyder. She has determined that a predictive dialer remains an ATDS within the meaning of the TCPA as defined by current Ninth Circuit law. In excluding Mr. Snyder's testimony in Marshall, she noted that even before ACA International, the overwhelming weigh of authority found that point-and-click systems do not constitute an ATDS as a matter of law in light of the clicker agent's human intervention. Further, the fact that Mr. Snyder did not physically inspect the Ytel Dialer does not preclude Mr. Snyder's testimony about its nature. Alarm.com does not contest the Plaintiffs' assertion that the Ytel Dialer had predictive capacities, which were often utilized. For the reasons she discussed, Judge Rogers denied Alarm.com's motion for summary judgment on the issue of vicarious liability. With regard to the classification of the Ytel Dialer as an ATDS, both motions for partial summary judgment are denied. Alarm.com's motion to exclude testimony of the Plaintiffs' proffered expert witnesses, Ms. Verkhovskaya and Ms. Snyder is denied. The Order terminates Docket Numbers 195, 198, and 205. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 3, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/y3wTyv from Leagle.com. Abante Rooter and Plumbing, Inc., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Mark Hankins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated & Philip J. Charvat, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Beth E. Terrell -- bterrel@terrellmarshall.com -- Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC, Anthony I. Paronich -- anthony@broderick-law.com -- Broderick & Paronich, P.C., Brian A. Glasser -- bglasser@baileyglasser.com - Bailey and Glasser, LLP, pro hac vice, Chiharu Gina Sekino -- csekino@sfmslaw.com -- Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLP, Edward A. Broderick -- ted@broderick-law.com -- Broderick and Paronich, P.C., Elizabeth Anne Adams -- eadams@terrellmarshall.com -- Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC, James C. Shah -- jshah@sfmslaw.com -- Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLP, Jennifer Rust Murray -- jmurray@terrellmarshall.com -- Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC, pro hac vice, John W. Barrett -- jbarrett@baileyglasser.com -- Bailey Glasser, LLP, pro hac vice, Jonathan Rehe Marshall -- jmarshall@baileyglasser.com -- Bailey Glasser LLP, pro hac vice, Kerem M. Levitas -- klevitas@terrellmarshall.com -- Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC, Matthew Passi McCue -- mmcue@massattorneys.net -- The Law Office of Matthew P. McCue & Ryan McCune Donovan -- rdonovan@baileyglasser.com -- Bailey Glasser, LLP. Alarm.com Incorporated & Alarm.com Holdings, Inc., Defendants, represented by Kasey C. Townsend -- ktownsend@murchisonlaw.com -- Murchison & Cumming, Susan Jane Welde -- swelde@murchisonlaw.com -- Murchison & Cumming, LLP, Craig S Primis -- craig.primis@kirkland.com -- Kirkland and Ellis LLP, Daniel I. Schlessinger, Jaszczuk P.C., Keith Lowell Gibson, Jaszczuk P.C., 311 South Wacker Drive. Suite 1775. Chicago, Illinois 60606, Margaret M Schuchardt, Locke Lord LLP, Martin Wojslaw Jaszczuk, Jaszczuk P.C. & Seth Haines Corthell, Jaszczuk P.C. AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Accord in Family Medicine's Suit Okayed --------------------------------------------------------------- Amneal Pharmaceuticals, 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 court has issued an order granting final approval of the proposed settlement of the class action lawsuit initiated by Family Medicine Pharmacy LLC. On January 31, 2017, Plaintiff Family Medicine Pharmacy LLC filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama on behalf of itself and others similarly situated against Impax alleging violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005 (the "Telephone Consumer Protection Act"). On March 27, 2017, Impax filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April 10, 2017. On July 18, 2017, the parties reached an agreement in principle regarding the class settlement. On September 29, 2017, the District Court preliminarily approved the proposed class settlement. The Court held a hearing on March 6, 2018 and issued an order with final approval of the proposed class settlement. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and therapeutic areas. It operates through Generic and Specialty Pharma divisions. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is headquartered in Bridgewater, New Jersey. AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Accord in Solodyn(R) Antitrust Suit Okayed ------------------------------------------------------------------ Amneal Pharmaceuticals, 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 court granted final approval of the settlement by Impax with the direct purchaser plaintiff class, retailer plaintiffs and the end payor plaintiff class in the Solodyn(R) Antitrust Class Actions. From July 2013 to January 2016, 18 complaints were filed as class actions on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers, as well as by certain direct purchasers, against manufacturers of the brand drug Solodyn(R) and its generic equivalents, including Impax. On July 22, 2013, Plaintiff United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1776 & Participating Employers Health and Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On July 23, 2013, Plaintiff Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., a direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On August 1, 2013, Plaintiff International Union of Operating Engineers Local 132 Health and Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On August 29, 2013, this Plaintiff withdrew its complaint from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and on August 30, 2013, re-filed the same complaint in the United States Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On August 9, 2013, Plaintiff Local 274 Health & Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On August 12, 2013, Plaintiff Sheet Metal Workers Local No. 25 Health & Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On August 27, 2013, Plaintiff Fraternal Order of Police, Fort Lauderdale Lodge 31, Insurance Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On August 29, 2013, Plaintiff Heather Morgan, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On August 30, 2013, Plaintiff Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178 Health & Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On September 9, 2013, Plaintiff Ahold USA, Inc., a direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On September 24, 2013, Plaintiff City of Providence, Rhode Island, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On October 2, 2013, Plaintiff International Union of Operating Engineers Stationary Engineers Local 39 Health & Welfare Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On October 7, 2013, Painters District Council No. 30 Health and Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On October 25, 2013, Plaintiff Man-U Service Contract Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On March 13, 2014, Plaintiff Allied Services Division Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On March 19, 2014, Plaintiff NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On February 25, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the pending actions transferred to the District of Massachusetts for coordinated pretrial proceedings, as In Re Solodyn (Minocycline Hydrochloride) Antitrust Litigation. On March 26, 2015, Walgreen Co., The Kruger Co., Safeway Inc., HEB Grocery Company L.P., Albertson’s LLC, direct purchasers, filed a separate complaint in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. On April 8, 2015, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation ordered the action be transferred to the District of Massachusetts, to be coordinated or consolidated with the coordinated proceedings. The original complaint filed by the plaintiffs asserted claims only against defendant Medicis. On October 5, 2015, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting claims against Impax and the other generic defendants. On April 16, 2015, Rite Aid Corporation and Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp, direct purchasers, filed a separate complaint in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. On May 1, 2015, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation ordered the action be transferred to the District of Massachusetts, to be coordinated or consolidated with the coordinated proceedings. The original complaint filed by the plaintiffs asserted claims only against defendant Medicis. On October 5, 2015, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting claims against Impax and the other generic defendants. On January 25, 2016, CVS Pharmacy, Inc., a direct purchaser, filed a separate complaint in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. On February 11, 2016, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation ordered the action to be transferred to the District of Massachusetts to be coordinated or consolidated with the coordinated proceedings. The consolidated amended complaints allege that Medicis engaged in anticompetitive schemes by, among other things, filing frivolous patent litigation lawsuits, submitting frivolous Citizen Petitions, and entering into anticompetitive settlement agreements with several generic manufacturers, including Impax, to delay generic competition of Solodyn(R) and in violation of state and federal antitrust laws. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. On August 14, 2015, the District Court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaints. On October 16, 2017, the Court certified the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs' and End-Payor Plaintiffs' classes. Trial began on March 12, 2018. During March 2018, Impax separately settled all claims with the direct purchaser plaintiff class, retailer plaintiffs and the end payor plaintiff class for a total settlement amount of $84.5 million prior to the Combination and the cases were dismissed. The settlements with the class plaintiffs are subject to court approval. The settlement with the direct purchaser plaintiff class was preliminarily approved by the Court on March 12, 2018, and the settlement with the end payor plaintiff class was preliminarily approved by the Court on April 5, 2018. Both class settlements were granted final Court approval on July 18, 2018. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and therapeutic areas. It operates through Generic and Specialty Pharma divisions. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is headquartered in Bridgewater, New Jersey. AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Discovery Ongoing in Opana ER Related Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Amneal Pharmaceuticals, 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 discovery is ongoing in the Opana ER(R) Antitrust class action lawsuit. From June 2014 to April 2015, 14 complaints were filed as class actions on behalf of direct and end-payor (indirect) purchasers, as well as by certain direct purchasers, against the manufacturer of the brand drug Opana ER(R) and Impax. On June 4, 2014, Plaintiff Fraternal Order of Police, Miami Lodge 20, Insurance Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On June 4, 2014, Plaintiff Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., a direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On June 6, 2018, Plaintiff Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc. filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss its complaint with prejudice. The court granted that motion on June 11, 2018. On June 6, 2014, Plaintiff Value Drug Company, a direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On June 26, 2014, this Plaintiff withdrew its complaint from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and on July 16, 2014, re-filed the same complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On June 19, 2014, Plaintiff Wisconsin Masons' Health Care Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On July 17, 2014, Plaintiff Massachusetts Bricklayers, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On August 11, 2014, Plaintiff Pennsylvania Employees Benefit Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On September 19, 2014, Plaintiff Meijer Inc., a direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On October 3, 2014, Plaintiff International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 138 Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On November 17, 2014, Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Company d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On December 12, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the pending actions transferred to the Northern District of Illinois for coordinated pretrial proceedings, as In Re Opana ER Antitrust Litigation. On December 19, 2014, Plaintiff Kim Mahaffay, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California, Alameda County, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated. On January 27, 2015, the Defendants removed the action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On January 12, 2015, Plaintiff Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178 Health & Welfare Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On March 26, 2015 Walgreen Co., The Kruger Co., Safeway Inc., HEB Grocery Company L.P., Albertson's LLC, direct purchasers, filed a separate complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. On April 23, 2015, Rite Aid Corporation and Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp, direct purchasers, filed a separate complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. In each case, the complaints allege that Endo engaged in an anticompetitive scheme by, among other things, entering into an anticompetitive settlement agreement with Impax to delay generic competition of Opana ER(R) and in violation of state and federal antitrust laws. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. Consolidated amended complaints were filed on May 4, 2015 by direct purchaser plaintiffs and end-payor (indirect) purchaser plaintiffs. On July 3, 2015, defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated amended complaints, as well as the complaints of the "Opt-Out Plaintiffs" (Walgreen Co., The Kruger Co., Safeway Inc., HEB Grocery Company L.P., Albertson's LLC, Rite Aid Corporation and Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp.). On February 1, 2016, CVS Pharmacy, Inc. filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The parties agreed that CVS Pharmacy, Inc. would be bound by the Court's ruling on the defendants' motion to dismiss the Opt-Out Plaintiffs' complaints. On February 10, 2016, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss the end-payor purchaser plaintiffs' consolidated amended complaint, and denied defendants' motion to dismiss the direct purchaser plaintiffs’ consolidated amended complaint. The end-payor purchaser plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended complaint and Impax moved to dismiss certain state law claims. On August 11, 2016, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss the end-payor purchaser plaintiffs' second consolidated amended complaint. Impax has filed its answer. On February 25, 2016, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the Opt-Out Plaintiffs' complaints, with leave to amend. The Opt-Out Plaintiffs and CVS Pharmacy, Inc. have filed amended complaints and Impax has filed its answer. Discovery is ongoing. No trial date has been scheduled. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and therapeutic areas. It operates through Generic and Specialty Pharma divisions. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is headquartered in Bridgewater, New Jersey. AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Discovery Ongoing in Williams Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Amneal Pharmaceuticals, 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 discovery is ongoing in the class action suit filed by Emielou Williams. On August 3, 2017, Plaintiff Emielou Williams filed a class action complaint in the Superior Court for the State of California in the County of Alameda on behalf of herself and others similarly situated against Impax alleging violation of California Business and Professions Code section 17200 by violating various California wage and hour laws. On October 10, 2017, Impax filed a Demurrer and Motion to Strike Class Allegations. On December 12, 2017, the Court overruled Impax's Demurrer to Plaintiff's individual claims, however, it struck all of Plaintiff's class allegations. On March 13, 2018, Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint once again including the same class allegations. The Company filed a Demurrer and Motion to Strike Class Allegations on April 12, 2018 and hearing is scheduled for August 24, 2018. Discovery is ongoing. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and therapeutic areas. It operates through Generic and Specialty Pharma divisions. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is headquartered in Bridgewater, New Jersey. AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Generic Drugs Pricing Suit Underway ----------------------------------------------------------- Amneal Pharmaceuticals, 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 the case, In re Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation. From March 2016 to April 2017, 22 complaints were filed as class actions on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers against manufacturers of generic digoxin and doxycycline and Impax alleging a conspiracy to fix, maintain and/or stabilize prices of these generic products. From January 2017 to April 2017, three complaints were filed on behalf of indirect purchasers against manufacturers of generic lidocaine/prilocaine and Impax alleging a conspiracy to fix, maintain and/or stabilize prices of these generic products. On March 2, 2016, Plaintiff International Union of Operating Engineers Local 30 Benefits Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on June 9, 2016. On March 25, 2016, Plaintiff Tulsa Firefighters Health and Welfare Trust, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On March 25, 2016, Plaintiff NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On April 4, 2016, Plaintiff Pipe Trade Services MN, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On April 25, 2016, Plaintiff Edward Carpinelli, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On April 27, 2016, Plaintiff Fraternal Order of Police, Miami Lodge 20, Insurance Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On May 2, 2016, Plaintiff Nina Diamond, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On May 5, 2016, Plaintiff UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On May 6, 2016, Plaintiff Minnesota Laborers Health and Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On May 12, 2016, Plaintiff The City of Providence, Rhode Island, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On May 18, 2016, Plaintiff KPH Healthcare Services, Inc. a/k/a Kinney Drugs, Inc., a direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On May 19, 2016, Plaintiff Philadelphia Federation of Teachers Health and Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On June 8, 2016, Plaintiff United Food & Commercial Workers and Employers Arizona Health and Welfare Trust, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On June 17, 2016, Plaintiff Ottis McCrary, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On June 20, 2016, Plaintiff Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., a direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On June 27, 2016, Plaintiff Cesar Castillo, Inc., a direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On June 29, 2016, Plaintiff Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 33 Health and Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On July 1, 2016, Plaintiff Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178 Health and Welfare Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On July 15, 2016, Plaintiff Ahold USA, Inc., a direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On September 7, 2016, Plaintiff United Here Health, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On September 20, 2016, Plaintiff Valerie Velardi, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On January 13, 2017, Plaintiff International Union of Operating Engineers Local 30 Benefits Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated against manufacturers of generic lidocaine/prilocaine and the Company alleging a conspiracy to fix, maintain and/or stabilize prices of this generic drug. On April 17, 2017, Plaintiff UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated against manufacturers of generic lidocaine/prilocaine and Impax alleging a conspiracy to fix, maintain and/or stabilize prices of this generic drug. On April 25, 2017, Plaintiff Louisiana Health Service Indemnity Company, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated against manufacturers of generic lidocaine/prilocaine and Impax alleging a conspiracy to fix, maintain and/or stabilize prices of this generic drug. On May 19, 2016, several indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer and consolidate the actions in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The Judicial Panel ordered the actions consolidated in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and ordered that the actions be renamed "In re Generic Digoxin and Doxycycline Antitrust Litigation." On January 27, 2017, plaintiffs filed two consolidated class action complaints. On April 6, 2017, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the consolidation of all civil actions involving allegations of antitrust conspiracies in the generic pharmaceutical industry regarding 18 generic drugs to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The consolidated actions have been renamed In re Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation. Consolidated class action complaints for each of the 18 drugs were filed on August 15, 2017. Direct purchaser plaintiffs, end-payer plaintiffs, and indirect reseller plaintiffs filed consolidated class complaints against Impax for two products, digoxin and lidocaine-prilocaine. On October 6, 2017, Impax filed a motion to dismiss the digoxin complaint. Briefing on the motion to dismiss is complete and a decision is pending. On February 9, 2018, the Court issued an order denying the discovery stay and allowing certain fact discovery to proceed. On January 19, 2018, Plaintiffs The Kroger Co., Albertsons Companies, LLC, and H.E. Butt Grocery Company L.P., opt-outs, filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against 35 companies, including Impax, alleging a conspiracy to fix, maintain and/or stabilize prices of 30 drugs and specifically digoxin and lidocaine/prilocaine with respect to Impax. No schedule has been set. On June 22, 2018, Plaintiffs Ahold USA, Inc., Cesar Castillo, Inc., FWK Holdings, L.L.C., KPH Healthcare Services, Inc., a/k/a Kinney Drugs, Inc., and Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc. filed a complaint on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated against 23 companies, including Impax, and one individual, alleging a conspiracy to fix, maintain, stabilize, and/or raise prices, rig bids, and allocate markets or customers for various drugs, specifically glyburide-metformin and metronidazole with respect to Impax. No schedule has been set. On June 27, 2018, Plaintiffs Marion Diagnostic Center, LLC and Marion Healthcare, LLC filed a motion seeking leave to file a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against seven named defendants, alleging a horizontal and vertical distributor conspiracy to fix prices and allocate sales of lidocaine products. The Court has not ruled on the Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file the new complaint and no schedule has been set. On August 3, 2018, Plaintiff Humana Inc. filed a complaint against 37 companies, including the Company, as the successor to Impax, alleging a conspiracy to fix, maintain, stabilize, and/or raise prices, rig bids, and allocate markets or customers for various drugs, specifically digoxin and lidocaine-prilocaine with respect to Impax. No schedule has been set. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and therapeutic areas. It operates through Generic and Specialty Pharma divisions. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is headquartered in Bridgewater, New Jersey. AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Says Opiate Litigation Stayed ----------------------------------------------------- Amneal Pharmaceuticals, 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 case In Re: National Prescription Opiate Litigation, is being stayed. On August 17, 2017, plaintiff Linda Hughes, as the mother of Nathan Hughes, decedent, filed her complaint in Missouri state court naming Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York LLC, Impax, five other pharmaceutical company defendants, and three healthcare provider defendants. Plaintiff alleges that use of defendants' opioid medications caused the death of her son, Nathan Hughes. In her original complaint, plaintiff requested damages against the defendants and certification of a class action. Plaintiff abandoned her request for a class action in her December 22, 2017, amended complaint. In her amended complaint, plaintiff alleges causes of action against Amneal and Impax for strict product liability, negligent product liability, violation of Missouri Merchandising Practices Act and fraudulent misrepresentation. The case was removed to federal court on September 18, 2017. It was transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on February 2, 2018, and is part of the multidistrict litigation pending as In Re: National Prescription Opiate Litigation, MDL No. 2804 (the "MDL"). Plaintiff has filed a motion to remand the case to Missouri state court. That motion remains pending before the MDL court. All activity in the case is stayed by order of the MDL court. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and therapeutic areas. It operates through Generic and Specialty Pharma divisions. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is headquartered in Bridgewater, New Jersey. AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Vana and Stone Class Suits Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------ Amneal Pharmaceuticals, 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 court has issued an order dismissing the class action complaints by Susan Vana and David Stone. On December 12, 2017 and December 14, 2017, Plaintiffs Susan Vana and David Stone, respectively, filed class action complaints in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated against Amneal and Impax alleging violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 generally alleging that the Registration Statement on Form S-4 related to the Combination contains false and misleading statements and/or omissions concerning the financial projections of Impax, Amneal, and the combined company; Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC's valuation analyses and Fairness Opinions relating to Impax and Amneal; potential conflicts of interest associated with one of Impax's financial advisors and the Combination with Amneal; and background information of the proposed business combination, including confidentiality agreements entered into by Impax in connection with the Combination. On April 4, 2018, plaintiffs filed a Stipulation and Proposed Order voluntarily dismissing the actions and on April 5, 2018, the court issued an order to dismiss the actions. Plaintiffs did not file any petition for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses by the court-ordered deadline of June 1, 2018. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and therapeutic areas. It operates through Generic and Specialty Pharma divisions. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is headquartered in Bridgewater, New Jersey. AMPCO-PITTSBURGH: 3rd Cir. Appeal on Arbitration Order Underway --------------------------------------------------------------- Ampco-Pittsburgh 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 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has not yet made any decision on whether the District Court erred in compelling arbitration in a class action lawsuit. In February 2017, the Corporation, its indirect subsidiary Akers National Roll Company, as well as the Akers National Roll Company Health & Welfare Benefits Plan were named as defendants in a class action complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, where the plaintiffs (currently retired former employees of Akers National Roll Company and the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial, and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO) alleged that the defendants breached collective bargaining agreements and violated the benefit plan by modifying medical benefits of the plaintiffs and similarly situated retirees. The defendants moved to dismiss the case, and plaintiffs petitioned the court to compel arbitration. On June 13, 2017, the District Court compelled arbitration and denied the defendants' motion to dismiss as moot. Defendants appealed this decision to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals on June 21, 2017. Defendants also filed a motion to stay arbitration pending the resolution of the appeal, and that motion was granted on September 5, 2017. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals held a hearing in early May to consider whether the District Court erred in compelling arbitration. No decision has yet been rendered. Ampco-Pittsburgh said, "While no assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of this matter, the Corporation believes that the final resolution of this action will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity or capital resources." Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, manufactures and sells custom designed engineering products to commercial and industrial users worldwide. The company operates in two segments, Forged and Cast Engineered Products; and Air and Liquid Processing. Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation was founded in 1929 and is headquartered in Carnegie, Pennsylvania. ANGI HOMESERVICES: Faces Costello Class Action ---------------------------------------------- ANGI Homeservices 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 defending against the case, Costello v. HomeAdvisor, Inc. et al., in the U.S. District Court, District of Colorado. In July 2016, a putative class action, Airquip, Inc. v. HomeAdvisor, Inc. et al., No. l:16-cv-1849, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. The complaint, as amended, alleges that HomeAdvisor engages in certain deceptive practices affecting the service professionals who join its network, including charging them for substandard customer leads or failing to disclose certain charges. The complaint seeks certification of a nationwide class consisting of all HomeAdvisor service professionals since October 2012, asserts claims of fraud, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment and violation of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act ("CCPA") and the federal RICO statute and seeks injunctive relief and damages in an unspecified amount. In December 2016, HomeAdvisor filed a motion to dismiss the RICO and CCPA claims. In September 2017, the court issued an order granting the motion and dismissing those claims. In October 2017, HomeAdvisor filed an answer denying the material allegations of the remaining claims in the complaint. Discovery is under way, and the issue of class certification remains to be litigated. On May 18, 2018, more than one year after the deadline to amend pleadings, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint that would add nine new plaintiffs, five new defendants and 55 new claims, most of them for various violations of the laws of nine separate states. On June 22, 2018, HomeAdvisor filed its opposition to the motion, which remains pending. On July 16, 2018, as an apparent hedge against denial of the motion, plaintiffs' counsel filed a separate putative class action in the same court on behalf of the same nine proposed new plaintiffs, naming as defendants HomeAdvisor, the Company, IAC/InterActiveCorp and CrowdSteer Inc., and asserting 45 claims largely duplicative of those asserted in the proposed second amended complaint in the Airquip action. See Costello v. HomeAdvisor, Inc. et al., No. 1:18-cv-1802 (U.S. District Court, District of Colorado). ANGI Homeservices said, "The Company believes that the allegations in these lawsuits are without merit and will continue to defend vigorously against them." ANGI Homeservices Inc. owns and operates the HomeAdvisor digital marketplace service to connect consumers with service professionals for home repair, maintenance, and improvement projects. The company was incorporated in 2017 and is headquartered in Golden, Colorado. ANGI Homeservices Inc. is a subsidiary of IAC/InterActiveCorp. BANK OF AMERICA: Heinhart Files Fraud Class Action in Fla. ---------------------------------------------------------- Mary Beth Heinart and Richard H. Schultz, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Bank of America N.A., Perry Santillo, Christopher Parris, Paul Anthony Larocco, John Piccarreto and Thomas Brenner, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00324 (M.D. Fla., June 25, 2018), seeks compensatory and punitive damages, restitution, and all other relief resulting from common law fraud and breach of fiduciary duty. Santillo, Parris, Larocco, Piccarreto and Brenner allegedly comingled investor's funds through multiple accounts under their control. They misrepresented the performance of the purported investments and provided account statements that falsely stated the funds were invested in financial services, insurance, real estate development and/or medical laboratories, says the complaint. Their primary banking institution was Bank of America. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Harley S. Tropin, Esq. Tal J. Lifshitz, Esq. George Franjola, Esq. Robert J. Neary, Esq. KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON LLP 2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 9th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 372-1800 Facsimile: (305) 372-3508 Email: hst@kttlaw.com tjl@kttlaw.com rn@kttlaw.com gfranjola@kttlaw.com BLUESTEM BRANDS: 8th Cir. Flips Arbitration Ruling in Parm's Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the cases, Jessica Parm, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bluestem Brands, Inc., Defendant-Appellant, Sara Arce; Anne Bowers; Nena Osorio, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Bluestem Brands, Inc., Defendant-Appellant, Case Nos. 17-1931, 17-1932 (8th Cir.), Judge Bobby E. Shepherd of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's order granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration, and ordered the arbitration of all the Plaintiffs' claims. Parm, Sarah Arce, Anne Bowers, and Nena Osorio represent a class of people who purchased goods from Bluestem and were extended a line of credit in order to make those purchases. As part of the financing application, each of the Plaintiff agreed to arbitrate any dispute arising from or relating to the credit offered or provided to them. After discovering that Bluestem allegedly engaged in unscrupulous business practices, the Plaintiffs brought these class action suits against Bluestem, asserting a number of claims under federal and state laws. The cases were consolidated, and Bluestem moved to compel arbitration. The district court granted the motion in part and denied it in part. Bluestem appeals, arguing that all of the Plaintiffs' claims fall within the scope of the arbitration clauses. It contends that the district court erred in its determination that the Plaintiffs' state-law usury counts, state and federal financial-disclosure counts, and state-law unjust enrichment counts were not arbitrable. Judge Shepherd holds that the district court erred in deciding that these three groups of claims did not fall within the scope of the arbitration agreements: (i) usury allegations; (ii) unjust enrichment allegations; and (iii) truth-in-lending/consumer protection allegations. He finds that (i) the actual allegations -- regardless of how the Plaintiffs now attempt to characterize them -- directly involve the credit offered or provided to them; (ii) he cannot comment one way or the other about whether the claims would be arbitrable without knowing the facts supporting each of the illustrations; and (iii) the district court flipped the inquiry. The question is not whether there was a way to interpret the claims as falling outside the scope of the agreements; instead, where a valid arbitration agreement exists, the claims are arbitrable unless it may be said with positive assurance that the arbitration clause is not susceptible of an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute. Accordingly, he reversed the district court and remanded for further proceedings consistent with his Opinion. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 7, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/JDMxCm from Leagle.com. Clayton Dean Halunen -- halunen@halunenlaw.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellee. Aaron Daniel Van Oort -- aaron.vanoort@FaegreBD.com -- for Defendant-Appellant. Christopher J. Moreland -- moreland@halunenlaw.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellee. Jeffrey Justman , for Defendant-Appellant. Erin L. Hoffman -- erin.hoffman@faegrebd.com -- for Defendant-Appellant. Melissa S. Weiner -- mweiner@pswlaw.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellee. Staci L. Perdue -- staci.perdue@faegreBD.com -- for Defendant-Appellant. Leah M. Nicholls -- lnicholls@publicjustice.net -- for Plaintiff-Appellee. Charles D. Moore -- moore@halunenlaw.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellee. Jeffrey D. Kaliel -- jkaliel@tzlegal.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellee. BOKF NA: Walker Sues over Extended Overdraft Fees ------------------------------------------------- BERKLEY V. WALKER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BOKF, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION d/b/a BANK OF ALBUQUERQUE, N.A., the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00810-SCY-JHR (D. N.M., Aug. 22, 2018), seeks to recover damages and other relief from BOKF for its usurious assessment and collection of interest charged on overdrawn bank accounts in the form of "Extended Overdraft Fees" in violation of the National Bank Act. According to the complaint, when a BOKF customer writes a check or otherwise attempts to draw on insufficient funds in a checking or savings account, BOKF regularly pays this overdraft. As the Federal Reserve has recognized, "when overdrafts are paid, credit is extended." If that account remains overdrawn for more than five business days, BOKF collects a $6.50 Extended Overdraft Fee. Importantly, the Extended Overdraft Fee is levied in addition to the initial $34.50 overdraft fee that BOKF charges when it processes a charge against an overdrawn account. But unlike the initial overdraft fee, the Extended Overdraft Fee does not directly result from any overdraft and is charged even though BOKF has provided nothing new in the way of services to the consumer. In reality, the Extended Overdraft Fee is an interest charge levied by BOKF for the continued extension of credit made in covering a customer's overdraft. This interest charge results solely from a customer's failure to repay his obligation to the bank (i.e., the extension of credit the bank provided by covering his overdraws) within a certain time period. But instead of charging the permissible interest rate imposed by the National Bank Act, in this case an annual interest rate of 6%, BOKF charges an effective annualized interest rate between 501% and 2,462%. By charging these usurious rates, BOKF collects interest worth more than 83 times what it may legally charge. BOKF, National Association provides commercial and personal banking, investment and trust, and mortgage origination and servicing products and services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. Michael W. Ovca, Esq. Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 589 6370 Facsimile: (312) 589 6378 E-mail: brichman@edelson.com movca@edelson.com rbalabanian@edelson.com BOW TIE CINEMAS: Burbon Suit Asserts Disabilities Act Violation --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bow Tie Cinemas, LLC. The case is styled as Luc Burbon, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Bow Tie Cinemas, LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-08157 (S.D.N.Y., September 6, 2018). The Plaintiff accuses the Defendant of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act. Bow Tie Cinemas, LLC, owns and operates motion picture theaters in New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Connecticut, Colorado, and Virginia. The Company's programs include Super Tuesday, Movies and Mimosas, Insomnia Theater, Hedda Presents the Classics, and ICP at Chelsea. Bow Tie Cinemas was founded in 1900 and is based in Ridgefield, Connecticut.[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 BRANCH BANKING: Court Dismisses Gillam EFTA Suit ------------------------------------------------ Judge John A. Gibney, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division, dismissed without prejudice the case, CHRISTINE J. GILLAM, et al, on behalf of themselves and all individuals similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST COMPANY OF VIRGINIA D/B/A/ BB&T, Defendant, Civil Action No. 3:17-cv-722 (E.D. Va.). The Plaintiffs in the case claim that the BB&T failed to honor stop-payment requests out of their bank accounts. Christine and Ronnie Gillam and Elwood Bumbray brought the class action suit against BB&T under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ("EFTA") for failing to comply with their customers' requests to stop payment on preauthorized transactions. The Defendant moved to compel arbitration under the terms of the Bank Services Agreement ("BSA"). The Gillams initially opened a bank account with F&M Bank. In 2002, F&M merged with BB&T, automatically transferring the Gillams' account to BB&T. Before the merger, by protocol, BB&T sent the Gillams a "Welcome Letter" with a copy of the 2002 BSA. Under the agreements, the parties contracted to arbitrate disputes arising from their banking relationship. They also agreed to arbitrate threshold issues of arbitrability, including the scope and validity of their agreement. In April 2017, BB&T updated the BSA and provided written notice to Bumbray and the Gillams through their bank statements, stating: (1) the arbitration clause of the BSA had been changed to the provided new language, (2) continued use of the account constituted acceptance of the changes, and (3) to find the amended 2017 Bank Services Agreement online. Judge Gibney finds that the parties in the case entered into an agreement in which they agreed to arbitrate threshold contractual issues such as the contract's scope and validity. Before the Court may hear the merits of the case, an arbitrator must therefore decide the validity of the overall agreement and whether scope of the present dispute falls within the scope of the arbitration provision. He explains that dismissal is a proper remedy when all of the issues presented in a lawsuit are arbitrable. With the issue of arbitrability referred to the arbitrator, nothing in the Plaintiffs' claims remains for the Court to consider. Accordingly, the Court dismisses the case without prejudice. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 7, 2018 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/8fvnzB from Leagle.com. Christine J. Gillam, On behalf of themselves and all individuals similarly situated & Elwood Rodney Bumbray, On behalf of themselves and all individuals similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Kristi Cahoon Kelly -- kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com -- Kelly & Crandall PLC, Andrew Joseph Guzzo -- aguzzo@kellyandcrandall.com -- Kelly & Crandall PLC & Casey Shannon Nash -- casey@kellyandcrandall.com -- Kelly & Crandall PLC. Branch Banking and Trust Company of Virginia, d/b/a BB&T, Defendant, represented by Bryan Alan Fratkin -- bfratkin@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP. BROOKLYN BREWERY: Mendez Alleges Disabilities Act Violation ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brooklyn Brewery Corporation. The class action is captioned as Himelda Mendez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. The Brooklyn Brewery Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-07610 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 21, 2018). The suit alleges Americans with Disabilities Act violation. Brooklyn Brewery Corporation manufactures beers. It offers its products to bars and restaurants.[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 BUYER HERO: Court Nixes Default Judgment in Becker Suit ------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled CODY BECKER, the Plaintiff, v. BUYER HERO, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 0:18-cv-61656-UU (S.D. Fla.), the Court entered an order: 1. granting a second motion to set aside default judgment; 2. vacating clerk's default judgment; 3. denying as moot default judgment; 4. denying as moot to certify class because it depends on facts that were deemed admitted by Defendant's default (the motion may be re-filed in the future if discovery yields facts that support it); and 5. directing Defendant to separately file its Answer and Affirmative Defenses, although the Court deems it effective as of the date of this order. The Defendant was served with the Complaint on July 23, 2018, and its response was due August 13. The Defendant did not respond and accordingly the Court ordered the Clerk to enter default. The Defendant thereafter moved to set aside default, but failed to include a proposed answer and affirmative defenses, and so the Court denied the motion. Subsequently, the Defendant corrected that error. CANCER GENETICS: NJ Court Consolidates 2 Securities Suits --------------------------------------------------------- In the case, BEN PHETTEPLACE, Plaintiff, v. CANCER GENETICS, INC., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 2:18-CV-05612-ES-SCM (D. N.J.), Magistrate Judge Steven C. Mannion of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey recommended that the Court grants Randy Clark's motions to consolidate related actions, appoint the lead Plaintiff, and appoint the lead counsel. Phetteplace brought the putative securities class action alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to Mr. Phetteplace, Cancer Genetics and its employees Panna L. Sharma, John A. Roberts, and Igor Gitelman made misleading statements and material omissions which artificially inflated the market price of the company's securities, causing damage to the class Plaintiffs. Mr. Phetteplace claims that he purchased Cancer Genetics securities at artificially inflated prices and suffered a loss upon revelation of the company's alleged corrective disclosure. The putative class consists of all those who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of Cancer Genetics between March 23, 2017, and April 2, 2018. Although Mr. Phetteplace filed the Complaint in the matter, at issue currently is Mr. Clark's motions to consolidate related actions, appoint the lead Plaintiff, and appoint the lead counsel. Mr. Clark alleges that, on Jan. 16, 2018, he purchased 75,000 shares of Cancer Genetics stock at a price of $2.07 per share. He later sold those shares on April 3, 2018, at a price of $1.06 per share, resulting in a $75,750 loss. Mr. Clark seeks to consolidate the matter with Zhang v. Cancer Genetics, Inc., No. 18-cv-06353, a related action also pending in the Court, and asks the Court to appoint him the lead Plaintiff in the matter and name Laurence M. Rosen, Esq., as the lead counsel for the class. Magistrata Judge Mannion finds that the issues of law and fact in this matter are substantially the same as those in Zhang. He says these two matters are based on substantially the same conduct, involve substantially the same claims, and name the same Defendants. Further, the interests of judicial economy dictate that the Court should consolidate these two matters. Accordingly, he finds that consolidation of these matters is appropriate. Because Mr. Clark's motion is unopposed, by default he satisfies the largest financial interest requirement. The Magistrate also finds that Mr. Clark satisfies the Rule 23(a)(3) typicality requirement and the Rule 23(a)(4) adequacy requirement for the purposes of the motion. The Magistrate Judge finds that Mr. Rosen and the Rosen Law Firm have the requisite experience, expertise, and credentials to adequately represent the class as lead counsel. He sees no evidence to show that Mr. Clark's choice of counsel is so deficient as to demonstrate that they will not fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class. Accordingly, he finds that it is appropriate to appoint Laurence M. Rosen as lead counsel in the matter. For the foregoing reasons, Magistrate Judge Mannion respectfully recommended that the Court grants Mr. Clark's motions to consolidate, appoint the lead Plaintiff, and appoint the lead counsel. The parties have 14-days to file and serve any objections to the Report and Recommendation. The District Court need not consider frivolous, conclusive, or general objections. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 7, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/D5sc5I from Leagle.com. Randy Clark, Movant, represented by LAURENCE M. ROSEN -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, PA. Ruo Fen Zhang, Movant, represented by BRUCE DANIEL GREENBERG -- bgreenberg@litedepalma.com -- LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC. BEN PHETTEPLACE, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by LAURENCE M. ROSEN, THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, PA. CANCER GENETICS, INC., PANNA L. SHARMA, JOHN A. ROBERTS & IGOR GITELMAN, Defendants, represented by KATHERINE DACEY SEIB -- kseib@goodwinlaw.com -- GOODWIN PROCTER LLP. CARMEL PARTNERS: Fischler Files ADA Suit in New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Carmel Partners, L.P. The case is captioned as Brian Fischler, Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Carmel Partners, L.P., doing business as: 19 Dutch, Case No. 1:18-cv-08102 (S.D.N.Y., September 6, 2018). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Carmel Partners, Inc. is a real estate investment firm specializing in multifamily real estate investment strategies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP 630 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 392-4772 Facsimile: (212) 444-1030 E-mail: doug@lipskylowe.com CASWELL-MASSEY LLC: Conner Class Suit Alleges ADA Violation ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Conner v. Caswell-Massey, LLC. The case is captioned as Mary Conner, Individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Caswell-Massey, LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-08129 (S.D.N.Y., September 6, 2018). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Caswell-Massey, LLC, was founded in 2007 and is based in Edison, New Jersey. The Company's line of business includes the retail sale of specialized lines of merchandise.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 44 Court Street, Suite 1217 Brooklyn, NY 11201 Telephone: (917) 373-9128 Facsimile: (718) 504-7555 E-mail: ShakedLawGroup@Gmail.com CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Violates FDCPA, Romanoff Suit Asserts -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC. The case is titled as Susan Romanoff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-05041 (E.D.N.Y., September 6, 2018). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC, provides financial resolution services. Its services cover various areas, such as collection account and debt control. The Company was founded in 1991 and is based in Valhalla, New York. Cavalry Portfolio operates as a subsidiary of Cavalry Investments, LLC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell L. Pashkin, Esq. MITCHELL PASHKIN ATTORNEY AT LAW 775 Park Avenue, Suite 255 Huntington, NY 11743 Telephone: (631) 335-1107 E-mail: mpash@verizon.net CENTRAL CALIFORNIA ALMOND: Court Strikes FAC in Urena Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JOSE URENA, Plaintiff, v. CENTRAL CALIFORNIA ALMOND GROWERS ASSN., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00517-LJO-EPG (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California ordered that the Plaintiff's first amended complaint is stricken from the record. Urena commenced the putative class action by filing a complaint on April 13, 2018. On May 11, 2018, the Defendant filed an answer. On Aug. 6, 2018 -- more than 21 days after service of the Defendant's answer -- the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. As he is not entitled to amend the complaint as a matter of course, he must file a motion or stipulation requesting leave to file an amended complaint. The Plaintiff did not obtain leave of the Court and has not filed written consent by the Defendant to the filing of an amended complaint. Accordingly, the Magistarte Judge ordered that the Plaintiff's first amended complaint is stricken from the record. The Order does not prevent the Plaintiff from filing a motion for leave of the Court to file an amended complaint or written consent by the Defendant. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 7, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/3pocOa from Leagle.com. Jose Urena, as individual, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Emil Davtyan -- EDavtyan@lacare.org -- Davtyan Professional Law Corporation, Eric Bryce Kingsley -- eric@kingsleykingsley.com -- Kingsley & Kingsley APC & Kelsey M. Peterson-More, Kingsley & Kingsley. Central California Almond Growers Assn., Defendant, represented by Paul J. Bauer, Sagaser Watkins & Wieland, PC. CENTRAL CREDIT: Salisbury Sues over Collection of Consumer Debts ---------------------------------------------------------------- Edward John Salisbury, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Central Credit Services, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 18-2625G (Mass. Super. Ct., Aug. 22, 2018), alleges that Central Credit Services, Inc., illegally collected consumer debts in violations of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act and Massachusetts Debt Collection Regulations. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff's debt arose from services which were primarily for family, personal or household purposes and which meet the definition of a "debt" under 940 CMR section 7.03. CCS attempted to collect the Debt front Plaintiff and. as such, initiated and engaged in "communications" as defined in 940 CMR section 7.03. In or around July 2018, CCS began calling Plaintiffs cellular telephone in an attempt to collect the Debt. CCS called Plaintiffs cell phone at number 617-XXX-2779. CCS called Plaintiff from, inter alia, telephone numbers 617-830-3188 and 617-275-5405. CCS called Plaintiff at an excessive and harassing rute, placing more than two calls within a seven-day period. For example, CCS called Plaintiff's cellular telephone on July 17, 18, 19, and July 21, 2018. The Plaintiff suffered actual damages as a result of CCS's unlawful conduct. As a direct consequence of CCS's acts, practices and conduct, the Plaintiff suffered anger, anxiety, emotional distress, fear, frustration and embarrassment. CCS's repeated calls were distracting and an inconvenience to Plaintiff, and an invasion of his personal privacy. CCS's repeated calls wasted Plaintiff's time and energy spent tending to CCS's calls. Central Credit operates as an accounts receivable management company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sergei Lemberg, Esq. LEMBERG LAW LLC 43 Danbury Road Wilton, CT 06897 Telephone: (203) 653 2250 Facsimile: (203) 653 3424 E-mail: slemberg@lcmbcrglaw.com CENTURYLINK INC: Sales Practices and Securities Litigation Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------------ CenturyLink, 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, In Re: CenturyLink Sales Practices and Securities Litigation. In June 2017, McLeod v. CenturyLink, a putative consumer class action, was filed against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California alleging that the company charged some of its retail customers for products and services they did not authorize. A number of other complaints asserting similar claims have been filed in other federal and state courts, as well. The lawsuits assert claims including fraud, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment. Also in June 2017, Craig. v. CenturyLink, Inc., et al., a putative securities investor class action, was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging that the company failed to disclose material information regarding improper sales practices, and asserting federal securities law claims. A number of other cases asserting similar claims have also been filed. Both the putative consumer class actions and the putative securities investor class actions have been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota for coordinated and consolidated pretrial proceedings as In Re: CenturyLink Sales Practices and Securities Litigation. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. CenturyLink, Inc. provides various communications services to residential, business, wholesale, and governmental customers primarily in the United States. It operates in two segments, Business and Consumer. CenturyLink, Inc. was founded in 1968 and is based in Monroe, Louisiana. CENTURYLINK INC: Tomasulo Case Settlement Remains Pending --------------------------------------------------------- CenturyLink, 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 proposed settlement of Jeffery Tomasulo's putative shareholder class action lawsuit is subject to court approval, among other conditions. CenturyLink and certain members of the CenturyLink Board of Directors have been named as defendants in a putative shareholder class action lawsuit filed on January 11, 2017 in the 4th Judicial District Court of the State of Louisiana, Ouachita Parish, captioned Jeffery Tomasulo v. CenturyLink, Inc., et al. The complaint asserts, among other things, that the members of CenturyLink's Board allegedly breached their fiduciary duties to the CenturyLink shareholders in approving the Level 3 merger agreement and, more particularly, that: the consideration that CenturyLink agreed to pay to Level 3 stockholders in the transaction is allegedly unfairly high; the CenturyLink directors allegedly had conflicts of interest in negotiating and approving the transaction; and the disclosures set forth in our preliminary joint proxy statement/prospectus filed in December 2016 are insufficient in that they allegedly fail to contain material information concerning the transaction. The complaint seeks, among other things, a declaration that the members of the CenturyLink Board have breached their fiduciary duties, corrective disclosure, rescissory or other damages and equitable relief, including rescission of the transaction. On February 13, 2017, the parties entered into a memorandum of understanding providing for the settlement of the lawsuit. CenturyLink said, "The proposed settlement is subject to court approval, among other conditions, and the amount of the settlement is not material to our consolidated financial statements." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. CenturyLink, Inc. provides various communications services to residential, business, wholesale, and governmental customers primarily in the United States. It operates in two segments, Business and Consumer. CenturyLink, Inc. was founded in 1968 and is based in Monroe, Louisiana. CITIMORTGAGE INC: Calfee Suit Goes to Massachusetts District Court ------------------------------------------------------------------ The lawsuit styled as Davidson Calfee, Robert Gatti, Daniel Korzep, and Karen Grover, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CitiMortgage Inc., Case No.: 2:11-cv-08324, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Aug. 16, 2018. The Massachusetts District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-11744 to the proceeding. The case alleges breach of contract violation. CitiMortgage provides mortgage products. The company offers a portfolio of financial services, including banking, insurance, and asset management.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary E. Klein, Esq. OFFICE OF THE MASSACHUSETTS ATTORNEY GENERAL Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108 Telephone: (617) 963 2567 E-mail: Gary.Klein@state.ma.us - and - Charles M. Delbaum, Esq. Stuart T. Rossman, Esq. NATIONAL CONSUMER LAW CENTER 7 Winthrop Square, 4th Floor Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 542 8010 Facsimile: (617) 542 8028 E-mail: cdelbaum@nclc.org srossman@nclc.org - and - Kevin Costello, Esq. Shennan A. Kavanagh, Esq. KLEIN KAVANAGH COSTELLO, LLP 85 Merrimac Street, 4th Flr. Boston, MA 02114 Telephone: (617) 390 2578 E-mail: kcostello@law.harvard.edu Shennan.kavanagh@state.ma.us Attorneys for CitiMortgage Inc.: Brian M Forbes, Esq. K&L GATES LLP State Street Financial Center One Lincoln Street Boston, MA 02111-2950 Telephone: (617) 261 3100 Facsimile: (617) 261 3175 E-mail: brian.m.forbes@klgates.com - and - Debra Bogo-Ernst, Esq. Lucia Nale, Esq. Michele Odorizzi, Esq. Stephen J. Kane, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 71 South Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 782 0600 E-mail: dernst@mayerbrown.com lnale@mayerbrown.com modorizzi@mayerbrown.com skane@mayerbrown.com - and - R. Bruce Allensworth, Esq. Robert W. Sparkes , III, Esq. K & L GATES LLP - MA One Lincoln Street State Street Financial Center Boston, MA 02111-2950 Telephone: (617) 261 3119 Facsimile: (617) 261 3175 E-mail: bruce.allensworth@klgates.com robert.sparkes@klgates.com CJS SOLUTIONS: Underpays Support Consultants, Gray Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- SHANA GRAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE CJS SOLUTIONS GROUP, LLC d/b/a THE HCI GROUP; Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-07336-GHW (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 14, 2018) alleges that the Defendant improperly classified the Plaintiff as independent contractor and were not paid proper overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 in any given workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff Gray was employed by the Defendant as support consultant from 2013 to 2018. The Cjs Solutions Group, LLC, doing business as The HCI Group, provides IT consulting services. The Company offers IT system implementation and training, integration, infrastructure management, cloud migration, testing, and cyber security services. HCI Group serves customers worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Palitz, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 830 Third Avenue, 5th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (800) 616-4000 Facsimile: (561) 447-8831 E-mail: mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com - and - Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 951 Yamato Rd., Suite 285 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 447-8888 Facsimile: (561) 447-8831 E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com - and - Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. Catherine T. Mitchell, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 205 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 233-1550 Facsimile: (312) 233-1560 E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com cmitchell@stephanzouras.com CLIENT SERVICES: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Sargent Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Client Services, Inc. The case is captioned as Janelle Sargent, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, by and through her attorney v. Client Services, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-05052 (E.D.N.Y., September 6, 2018). The lawsuit arises from alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Client Services, Inc., offers collection services. The Company provides accounts receivable management, debt collection services, and customer care solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell L. Pashkin, Esq. MITCHELL PASHKIN ATTORNEY AT LAW 775 Park Avenue, Suite 255 Huntington, NY 11743 Telephone: (631) 335-1107 E-mail: mpash@verizon.net CMRE FINANCIAL: Faces Zevon Suit Alleging FDCPA Violation --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against CMRE Financial Services, Inc. The case is titled as Randi Zevon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CMRE Financial Services, Inc., Case No. 6:18-cv-01443-CEM-GJK (M.D. Fla., September 6, 2018). The lawsuit arises from alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. CMRE Financial Services, Inc., provides financial services. The Company offers electronic fund transfer, collection, managed care, and training services to health care organizations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. SANDERS LAW, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 203-7600 Facsimile: (516) 281-7601 E-mail: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com COLUMBIA: Suit Alleges Americans with Disabilities Act Violation ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against District of Columbia. The case is captioned as M.J., by and through her next friend J.J.; L.R., by and through her next friend D.M.; D.M.; J.J.; UNIVERSITY LEGAL SERVICES, INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; MURIEL BOWSER, Mayor, in her official capacity; TANYA A. ROYSTER, Director, District of Columbia Department of Behavioral Health, in her official capacity; WAYNE TURNAGE, Director, District of Columbia Department of Health Care Finance, in his official capacity (via the Office of the Attorney General), Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01901-EGS (D.C., Aug. 14, 2018). The Plaintiffs allege violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is assigned to Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. Washington, D.C., formally the District of Columbia and commonly referred to as Washington or D.C., is the capital of the United States of America. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alice Y. Abrokwa, Esq. NATIONAL CENTER FOR YOUTH LAW 1313 L Street, NW, Suite 130 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 868-4788 E-mail: aabrokwa@youthlaw.org - and - Howard Schiffman, Esq. SCHULTE ROTH & ZABEL LLP 1152 Fifteenth Street, NW, Suite 850 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 729-7461 Facsimile: (202) 730-4520 E-mail: howard.schiffman@srz.com - and - Jason Thomas Mitchell, Esq. SCHULTE ROTH & ZABEL, LLP 1152 15th Street, NW, Suite 850 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 729-7470 E-mail: jason.mitchell@srz.com - and - Lewis L. Bossing , Jr., Esq. BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW 1101 15th Street, NW, Suite 1212 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 467-5730 Facsimile: (202) 223-0409 E-mail: lewisb@bazelon.org - and - Ira A. Burnim, Esq. BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW 1101 15th Street, NW, Suite 1212 Washington, DC 20005-5002 Telephone: (202) 467-5730 Facsimile: (202) 223-0409 E-mail: irabster@gmail.com - and - Mary Nell McGarity Clark, Esq. UNIVERSITY LEGAL SERVICES 220 I Street, NE, Suite 130 Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 547-0198 Facsimile: (202) 547-2662 E-mail: mclark@uls-dc.org - and - Seth Michael Galanter, Esq. NATIONAL CENTER FOR YOUTH LAW 1313 L Street NW, Suite 130 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 288-8188 E-mail: sgalanter@youthlaw.org CONNECTICUT WATER: Faces Dunn Class Action over Merger Deal ----------------------------------------------------------- Connecticut Water Service, 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 facing a putative class action suit entitled, Dunn v. Benoit, et al. over a merger transaction. On June 14, 2018, a putative class action complaint was filed against the members of the Board of Directors, SJW and Mr. Eric W. Thornburg (the chief executive officer and president of SJW) on behalf of the Company's shareholders in the Connecticut Superior Court in the Judicial District of Middlesex under the caption Dunn v. Benoit, et al., Case No. MMX-CV18-6021536-S (Conn. Super. Ct.). The complaint alleges that the members of the Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties owed to the Company's shareholders in connection with negotiating the Merger. The complaint further alleges that SJW and Mr. Thornburg aided and abetted the alleged breaches by the Board of Directors. Among other remedies, the action seeks to recover rescissory and other damages and attorneys' fees and costs. Connecticut Water Service said, "The defendants believe this lawsuit is without merit and intend to defend vigorously against these allegations." Connecticut Water Service, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a regulated water company. The company operates through three segments: Water Operations, Real Estate Transactions, and Services and Rentals. Connecticut Water Service, Inc. was founded in 1956 and is headquartered in Clinton, Connecticut. CONNECTICUT WATER: Faces Tillotson Class Action over Merger Deal ---------------------------------------------------------------- Connecticut Water Service, 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 facing a putative class action suit entitled, Tillotson v. Benoit, et al., over a merger transaction. On June 14, 2018, a putative class action complaint was filed against the members of the Board of Directors, SJW and Eric W. Thornburg (the chief executive officer and president of SJW) on behalf of the Company's shareholders in the Connecticut Superior Court in the Judicial District of Middlesex under the caption Tillotson v. Benoit, et al., Case No. MMX-CV18-6021537-S (Conn. Super. Ct.). The complaint alleges that the members of the Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties owed to the Company's shareholders in connection with negotiating the Merger. The complaint further alleges that SJW and Mr. Thornburg aided and abetted the alleged breaches by the Board of Directors. Among other remedies, the action seeks to recover rescissory and other damages and attorneys' fees and costs. Connecticut Water Service said, "The defendants believe this lawsuit is without merit and intend to defend vigorously against these allegations." Connecticut Water Service, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a regulated water company. The company operates through three segments: Water Operations, Real Estate Transactions, and Services and Rentals. Connecticut Water Service, Inc. was founded in 1956 and is headquartered in Clinton, Connecticut. CREDIT CONTROL: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Gansburg Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Control, LLC. The case is styled as Chana Gansburg, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Credit Control, LLC, doing business as: Credit Control & Collections, LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-05054 (E.D.N.Y., September 6, 2018). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Credit Control, LLC, doing business as Credit Control & Collections, LLC, provides financial services. The Company provides early out solutions, collections, and debt settlement services.[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 CVS HEALTH: Faces Hyams Suit in California Superior Court --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against CVS HEALTH CORPORATION. The class action is captioned as HYAMS, RYAN INDIVIDUALLY ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF, AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. CVS HEALTH CORPORATION, A RHODE ISLAND CORPORATION; CVS PHARMACY INC., A RHODE ISLAND CORPORATION; CVS RX SERVICES INC. A NEW YORK CORPORATION; DOES 1 TO 25; and GARFIELD BEACH CVS, LLC A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No. CGC18569060 (Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 21, 2018). CVS is an American retail pharmacy and health care company headquartered in Woonsocket, Rhode Island.[BN] DAIMLER AG: Faces Pinon Suit in Northern District of Georgia ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Daimler AG. The class action is captioned as Emily Pinon, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Daimler AG and Mercedes Benz USA, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-03984-ODE (N.D. Ga., Aug. 21, 2018). The suit alleges breach of contract violation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Orinda D. Evans. Daimler AG is a German multinational automotive corporation. The company is headquartered in Stuttgart, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James F. McDonough, III, Esq. Taylor C. Bartlett, Esq. W. Lewis Garrison, Jr., Esq. HENINGER GARRISON & DAVIS, LLC -ATL 3621 Vinings Slope, Suite 4320 Atlanta, GA 30339 Telephone: (404) 996 0869 Facsimile: (205) 380 8076 E-mail: jmcdonough@hgdlawfirm.com taylor@hgdlawfirm.com wlgarrison@hgdlawfirm.com - and - K. Stephen Jackson, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF K. STEPHEN JACKSON 2229 First Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 252 3535 Facsimile: (205) 252 3536 DAVITA HEALTHCARE: Fustero Sues Over Missed Breaks, Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------- Fernando Fustero and Ida Dandridge individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. Davita Healthcare Partners, Inc. and Total Renal Care Inc. Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-01593, (D. Colo., June 25, 2018), seeks unpaid wages, overtime compensation, a declaratory judgment, liquidated damages, compensatory damages, punitive damages, costs and attorneys' fees and prejudgment and post-judgment interest associated with the bringing of this action, plus any additional relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants provide health care services to patients throughout the United States and abroad, specializing in dialysis services for patients with chronic kidney failure and end stage renal disease. Plaintiffs were required to perform work-related duties during meal breaks and were not paid for work-related interruptions that occurred/occur during meal breaks during their shifts wherein they worked more than five consecutive hours. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Colleen T. Calandra, Esq. Madison Fiedler Carlson, Esq. RAMOS LAW 3000 Youngfield Street Wheat Ridge, CO 80215 Telephone: (303) 733-6353 Fax Number: (303) 865-5666 Email: colleen@ramoslaw.com madison@ramoslaw.com darren@ramoslaw.com - and - Ronald L. Wilcox, Esq. WILCOX LAW FIRM, LLC 383 Corona Street, #401 Denver, CO 80218 Telephone: (303) 594-6720 Email: ron@wilcox.legal DCH TOYOTA: Diaz Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code ---------------------------------------------------- JAIME CENTENO DIAZ, an individual, and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DCH TOYOTA OF TORRANCE, a business form unknown; DCH TORRANCE IMPORTS, INC., a California corporation; LITHIA MOTORS, INC., an Oregon corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC718655 (Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 21, 2018), seeks to recover penalties arising from unpaid wages earned and due, including but not limited to unpaid and illegally calculated overtime compensation, illegal meal and rest period policies, failure to pay all wages due to discharged or quitting employees, failure to maintain required records, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to timely pay wages during employment, failure to indemnify employees for necessary expenditures and/or losses incurred in discharging their duties, under the California Labor Code. DCH Toyota of Torrance provides new and used Toyota vehicle sales, service and financing in Southern California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Matem, Esq. Tagore Subramanian, Esq. Daniel J. Bass, Esq. MATERN LAW GROUP, PC 1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Telephone: (310) 531 1900 Facsimile: (310) 531 1901 DICKEY'S BBQ: Website not Blind-friendly, Matzura Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------- Steven Matzura, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Dickey's Barbecue Restaurants, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-05741 (S.D. N.Y., June 25, 2018), seeks preliminary and permanent injunction, compensatory, statutory and punitive damages and fines, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and expenses of this action together with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such other and further relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law. Defendant is a restaurant chain that operates Dickey's BBQ located at 196A Flatbush Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11217. It has a website, www.dickeys.com that offers access to the goods and services in connection with their physical locations, namely restaurant locations and hours, menu, order food online, purchase giftcards and related goods and services available both in restaurants and online. Plaintiff asserts that the said website is not accessible to the blind.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. JOSEPH H. MIZRAHI LAW P.C. 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12 Fl. Brooklyn, NY 11201 Telephone: (917) 299-6612 Facsimile: (718) 425-8954 Email: joseph@jmizrahilaw.com - and - Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003-2461 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com danalgottlieb@aol.com DIPSON THEATRES: Violates Disabilities Act, Burbon Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dipson Theatres, Inc. The case is styled as Luc Burbon, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Dipson Theatres, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-08156 (S.D.N.Y., September 6, 2018). The lawsuit arises from alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Dipson Theatres Inc. was founded in 1981. The Company's line of business includes operating theaters primarily engaged in the indoor exhibition of motion pictures.[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 DITECH FINANCIAL: Marcus Sues Over Collection of Discharged Debt ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lisa A. Marcus, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Ditech Financial LLC, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-04381, (N.D. Ill., June 25, 2018), seeks injunction, actual, statutory and treble damages, attorney fees, litigation expenses and costs of suit and such further and other relief pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Ditech Financial, LLC is a Delaware Limited Liability Company, and is a national provider of home loan origination and loan servicing with offices throughout the country. On November 18, 2005, Plaintiff executed a mortgage in favor of Mortgage Investment Lending Associates Inc., securing the purchase of Plaintiff's personal residence. On or around January 7, 2009, Plaintiff defaulted on the Mortgage by failing to make full monthly payments. On August 8, 2017, Plaintiff initiated a bankruptcy case in the Northern District of Illinois by filing a petition for relief under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code and was granted a discharge on November 7, 2017. Despite this, Defendant continued to attempt to collect the said debt, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph S. Davidson, Esq. Mohammed O. Badwan, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD. 2500 South Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Tel: (630) 575-8181 Email: jdavidson@sulaimanlaw.com mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Martinez Disputes Collection Calls ----------------------------------------------------------- Ramon G. Martinez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Diversified Consultants Inc. and John Does 1-25, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-05646, (C.D. Cal., June 26, 2018), seeks statutory damages, injunctive relief as well as their reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Defendants made auto-dialed collection calls to Martinez's phone, says the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Blair E. Reed, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-Mail: ltfisher@bursor.com breed@bursor.com - and - Scott A. Bursor, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 989-9113 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-Mail: scott@bursor.com DUNWEIZER FABRICATION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Lopez Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DUNWEIZER FABRICATION, INC.; DUNWEIZER MACHINE, INC. d/b/a DUNWEIZER MACHINE AND FABRICATION; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC717333 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 14, 2018) Mr. Lopez was employed by the Defendants as non-exempt, hourly employee from March 2017 to January 3, 2018. Dunweizer Machine, Inc. was founded in 2001. The company's line of business includes manufacturing fabricated plate work products, such as boilers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anna R. Salusky, Esq. Edward Kim, Esq. MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC 249 E. Ocean Blvd., Suite 814 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 590-5550 Facsimile: (562) 590-8400 E-mail: asalusky@mahoney-law.net ekim@mahoney-law.net ENHANCED RECOVERY: Lane Sues Over Auto-dialed Collection Calls -------------------------------------------------------------- Janine Lane, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00320, (M.D. Fla., June 25, 2018), seeks money damages and injunctive relief for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Enhanced Recovery is a debt collection agency who attempted to collect an obligation Lane allegedly owes. She received a telephone call to her cellular phone number seeking to recover a debt from a different person using an automatic dialer with a pre-recorded voice. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: William B. Bowles, Esq. THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM, PLLC 4030 S. Henderson Blvd. Tampa, FL 33629 Telephone: (813) 500-1500 Facsimile: (813) 435-2369 Email: Billy@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com EQUIFAX INC: Fond du Lac Band Sues over Background Checks --------------------------------------------------------- Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, individually and on behalf of its members and as class representative for similarly situated federally recognized Indian Tribes and Nations, Plaintiff v. Equifax, Inc.; and Apache Systems, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 0:18-cv-02381-DWF-LIB (D. Minn., Aug. 14, 2018) alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The case is assigned to Judge Donovan W. Frank and referred to Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois. Equifax Inc. provides information solutions and human resources business process outsourcing services for businesses, governments, and consumers. Equifax Inc. was founded in 1899 and is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Adams III, Esq. HOGEN ADAMS PLLC 1935 W. County Road B2, Suite 460 St. Paul, MN 55113 Telephone: (651) 842-9100 Facsimile: (651) 842-9101 E-mail: aadams@hogenadams.com ESSENDANT INC: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Sept. 28 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Essendant 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 to consider final approval of the settlement of a class action lawsuit is scheduled for September 28, 2018. In 2017, the Company was named in a class action lawsuit filed by a former employee in the Los Angeles Superior Court. During the second quarter of 2017, the Company reached an agreement on the general terms of a settlement to resolve this litigation. The parties have finalized a settlement agreement, which is subject to court approval. On May 10, 2018, the court granted the parties' Motion for Preliminary Approval of the settlement agreement. Notice to the class was issued on May 31, 2018. In consideration of the settlement, in the second quarter of 2017, the Company recorded a $3.0 million pre-tax reserve within "Warehousing, marketing and administrative expenses" in the Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations. A hearing on final approval of the settlement agreement is scheduled for September 28, 2018. Essendant Inc. operates as a distributor of workplace items in the United States and internationally. It offers janitorial and sanitation supplies, breakroom items, foodservice consumables, safety and security items, and paper and packaging supplies. The company was formerly known as United Stationers Inc. and changed its name to Essendant Inc. in June 2015. Essendant Inc. was founded in 1922 and is headquartered in Deerfield, Illinois. FAMILY RESIDENCES: James-Howell Seeks OT Pay under Labor Law ------------------------------------------------------------ LASHAWNE JAMES-HOWELL, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. FAMILY RESIDENCES AND ESSENTIAL ENTERPRISES, INC; ROBERT S. BUDD; CHRIS LONG; and any other related entities, the Defendants, Case No. 605950/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Aug. 22, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation pursuant to the New York Labor Law. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge R. Bruce Cozzens, Jr. According to the complaint, Mr. James-Howell typically worked five days per week, for approximately 12 hours per shift. Despite typically working approximately 60 hours per week, between the start of her employment and approximately January 2017, the Plaintiff typically received only a flat weekly rate of pay, regardless of the number of hours she worked in a given week. The Plaintiff is not exempt from overtime compensation under the Labor Law. Other non-exempt employees were compensated in a manner similar, if not the same, as James-Howell, wherein they did not receive overtime pay at time and one-half their hourly rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a given workweek. At the outset of her employment, James-Howell was not provided with a notice of her pay rate and pay date. Founded in 1977, Family Residences and Essential Enterprises or FREE is a New York State organization based in Old Bethpage, New York, serving individuals on Long Island.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brett R. Cohen, Esq. Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq. Michael A. Tompkins, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Ste.347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873 9550 The Defendant is represented by: RUSKIN, MOSCOU, FALTISCHEK,P.C 1425 Reckson Plz E. Tower 15fl. Uniondale, NY 11556 Telephone: (516) 663 6600 FANEUIL INC: Marshall Remanded to Calif. State Court ---------------------------------------------------- Judge Kimberly J. Mueller of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California granted the Plaintiffs' motion to remand the case, DONNA MARSHALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FANEUIL, INC., a Delaware corporation; ALJ REGIONAL HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware corporation; and Does 1-10 inclusive. Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01975-KJM-CKD (E.D. Cal.), to Sacramento County Superior Court. The Plaintiff filed the putative class action in Sacramento County Superior Court on July 31, 2017, making the following claims: (1) failure to pay overtime wages; (2) failure to pay minimum wages; (3) meal period violations; (4) rest break violations; (5) wage statement penalties and failure to keep payroll records; (6) failure to produce employment records; (7) failure to timely pay wages upon termination; (8) failure to reimburse business expenses; and (9) unfair business practices. The Defendants removed the case to federal court, asserting jurisdiction under basic diversity jurisdiction, and the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"). To support their contention that the amount in controversy exceeds the requisite $75,000 for diversity jurisdiction, the Defendants point to the complaint, noting the Plaintiff alleges she earned approximately $16 an hour, that she worked 8-10 hours a day, five days a week from approximately November 2014 to December 2016. They rely on these numbers to calculate a total amount in controversy of $85,000. To support their contention that the amount in controversy exceeds the requisite $5 million under CAFA, the Defendants submit the declaration of Faneuil's Vice President of Human Resources, Elizabeth Veliz. In her declaration, Veliz states Faneuil has employed more than 2,500 non-exempt, hourly-paid employees in California, of whom over 1,500 have been terminated on or after October 2014, and the average hourly rate of this group of employees during this period was roughly $12.25 per hour. The Defendants draw on these numbers to calculate a total amount in controversy of $8,856,375. The Plaintiff moves to remand, challenging the Defendants' calculations. The Plaintiff does not provide rebuttal evidence. Instead, she challenges the Defendants' calculations and argues that the Defendants do not meet their burden because they make assumptions unsupported by evidence. The amounts in controversy reflect inclusion of a sum of three categories of penalties: first with respect to diversity and second with respect to CAFA. Judge Mueller concludes that without these amounts -- $4,410,000 for waiting time penalties, $1,406,000 for itemized wage statement penalties, $725,200 for meal and rest break violations, and $1,771,275.00 for attorneys' fees -- the Defendants' estimates of the amount in controversy for the remaining claims, $543,900, does not come close to the $5 million required for CAFA jurisdiction to adhere. So he needs not address those other amounts separately. The Defendants have failed to meet their burden to establish federal jurisdiction based either on diversity or CAFA. He therefore granted the Plaintiff's motion to remand to Sacramento County Superior Court. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 7, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/tI8Woh from Leagle.com. Donna Marshall, Plaintiff, represented by Robert J. Drexler -- Robert.Drexler@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC, Jonathan Sing Lee -- Jonathan.Lee@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC, Liana Carol Carter -- Liana.Carter@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC & Natalie Torbati, Capstone Law, APC. Faneuil, Inc., Defendant, represented by Douglas L. Ropel -- dropel@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C., Kelsey Elizabeth Papst -- Kelsey.Papst@doj.ca.gov -- Littler Mendelson & Aurelio J. Perez -- aperez@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C. ALJ Regional Holdings, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kelsey Elizabeth Papst, Littler Mendelson & Aurelio J. Perez, Littler Mendelson, P.C. FC 8 SPRUCE: Fischler Files Suit Asserting ADA Breach ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against FC 8 Spruce Street Residential, LLC. The case is titled as Brian Fischler, Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. FC 8 Spruce Street Residential, LLC, doing business as: New York by Gehry, Case No. 1:18-cv-08106 (S.D.N.Y., September 6, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. FC 8 Spruce Street Residential, LLC, is a New York domestic limited liability company. The Company owns or operates New York by Gehry, a building located at 8 Spruce Street in New York City. The building is a 76-story skyscraper designed by architect Frank Gehry and is one of the tallest residential towers in the world.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP 630 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 392-4772 Facsimile: (212) 444-1030 E-mail: doug@lipskylowe.com FC ONLINE: Mendez Suit Alleges Disabilities Act Violation --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against FC Online Marketing, Inc. The class action is captioned as HIMELDA MENDEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FC Online Marketing, Inc., doing business as: Ilovekickboxing.com, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-07607 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 21, 2018). The suit alleges Americans with Disabilities Act violation. FC Online operates and franchises kick boxing classes and studios.[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 FIRST CLASS INTERIORS: Martinez Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------------------ Daniel Alvarado Martinez, Alexandro Perez, Nelson Eguizabal Brito, Carlos Castro and Alexis Marquez, Plaintiffs, v. First Class Interiors of Naples, LLC, Jose Roberto Reyes individually and Mr. Drywall Services, LLC,, Case No. 18-cv-00583, (M.D. Tenn., June 25, 2018), seeks redress for Defendants' willful failure to compensate them for hours worked at the applicable federal minimum wage and for failing to compensate them for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week at one and one half times the regular hourly rate pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mr. Drywall is a company that provides drywall hanging and interior finishing services to other construction contractors for commercial and residential projects where First Class and Reyes are labor brokers. Plaintiffs all worked on the JW Marriott hotel construction project, located at 201 8th Ave South, Nashville, TN 37203. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Karla M. Campbell, Esq. Callie Jennings, Esq. BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Ave., 2nd Floor Nashville, TN 37203 Tel: (615) 254-8801 FIRST NATIONAL: Summary Judgment Bid in Hordge FDCA Suit Denied --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, KYONNIE HORDGE, Plaintiff, v. FIRST NATIONAL COLLECTION BUREAU, INC., et al, Defendant, Civil Action No. 4:15-CV-1695 (S.D. Tex.), Judge Keith P. Ellison of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, (i) denied First National Collection Bureau ("FNCB")s' Motion for Summary Judgment; (ii) denied LVNV Funding, LLC ("LVNV")'s Motion for Summary Judgment; (iii) denied Resurgent Capital Services. L.P. and Alegis Group, LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment; and (iv) granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgement. The case is a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") class action lawsuit. At the core of the dispute is a letter that was sent to the Plaintiff, a Texas resident, seeking to collect on credit card debt. The letter included a "settlement offer," but did not disclose that the debt was unenforceable because the statute of limitations had expired on the debt. Pending before the Court are cross-motions for summary judgment. The Plaintiff moves for summary judgment on liability, against all the Defendants, arguing that the letter violated sections Sections 1692e and 1692f of the FDCPA as a matter of law and that all Defendants are debt collectors subject to the FDCPA. All the Defendants -- FNCB, Resurgent, Alegis, and LVNV -- move for a ruling that the letter was not a deceptive and unfair practice in violation of Section 1692e of the FDCPA, and that the Section 1692f claim fails as a matter of law. Defendants Resurgent and Alegis move for summary judgment on all claims against them because, they argue, they did not send the letter at issue and are not debt collectors. Defendant LVNV also moves for summary judgment on all claims against it on the basis that it is not a debt collector. Defendants FNCB, Resurgent, Alegis, and LVNV also move for the Court to deny the Plaintiff actual damages. Judge Ellison finds that the debt at issue must not be business debt, but must instead be consumer debt primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. Ms. Carter incurred credit card debt, and she used credit cards for groceries and household items. Without providing evidence, the Defendants ask the Court to infer that Ms. Carter's debt was not a consumer debt. There is, however, no genuine dispute that this is a consumer debt. Next, the Judge finds that the Plaintiff has presented evidence that whether a debt is time-barred is material information to consumers making decisions about whether to pay a debt. He finds that the letter was unlawfully misleading. Because the letter was misleading under Section 1692e, he needs not reach Section 1692f. Because Resurgent is a debt collector, it can be vicariously liable for FNCB's actions carried out on Resurgent's behalf. As both parties state in their filings, as the general partner of Resurgent, Alegis can be jointly and severally liable for Resurgent's debts and obligations. Finally, the Judge agrees with the Plaintiff that summary judgment on actual damages is not appropriate until the class has been notified. The Defendants did not file reply briefs or opine on the issue of actual damages after the Court granted class certification. A determination of the existence or lack of classwide actual damages would be premature. For the reasons he stated, Judge Ellison (i) denied Defendant FNCB's Motion for Summary Judgment; (ii) denied Defendant LVNV's Motion for Summary Judgment; (iii) denied Defendants Resurgent and Alegis's Motion for Summary Judgment; and granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgement. The Plaintiff has established liability under the FDCPA as to Defendants FNCB, Resurgent, and Alegis. Whether LVNV is also liable is a disputed fact issue. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 7, 2018 Memorandum and Order is available at https://is.gd/fC282U from Leagle.com. Kyonnie Hordge, as Independent Administrator of the Estate of Marjorie Ann Carter, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel A. Edelman -- dedelman@edcombs.com -- Edelman Combs & Daniel J. Ciment. First National Collection Bureau, Inc., Defendant, represented by Robbie LuAnn Malone -- info@robbiemalonepllc.com -- MALONE AKERLY MARTIN PLLC & Cooper Martin Walker -- cwalker@mamlaw.com -- Malone Akerly Martin PLLC. LVNV Funding, LLC, Resurgent Capital Services, LP & Alegis Group, LLC, Defendants, represented by Robbie LuAnn Malone, MALONE AKERLY MARTIN PLLC. FIVE GUYS: Dec. 3 Deadline to File Class Certification Motion ------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California extended Class Certification Motion Deadline in the case captioned JEREMY R. LUSK, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiff, v. FIVE GUYS ENTERPRISES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; ENCORE FGBF, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. 1:17-CV-00762-AWI-EPG. (E.D. Cal.). For good cause, and pursuant to the parties' stipulation, the parties' request to extend the time for the class certification briefing schedule is granted as follows: Last Day to File Class Certification Motion December 3, 2018 Last Day to File Opposition January 3, 2019 Last Day to File Reply in support of Class Cert Motion January 17, 2019 Hearing February 4, 2019, at 10:30 a.m. A full-text copy of the District Court's September 6, 2018 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9j63hrq from Leagle.com. Jeremy R Lusk, on behalf of himself, all other similarly situated and the general public, Plaintiff, represented by Chaim Shaun Setareh -- shaun@setarehlaw.com -- Law Offices of Shaun Setareh & Howard Scott Leviant -- scott@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law Group. Five Guys Enterprises LLC, a Delaware limited liability company & Encore FGBF, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendants, represented by Kevin V. Koligian -- kkoligian@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C.. FORCE FACTOR: Faces Seiger Suit in Western District of New York --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Force Factor, LLC. The class action is captioned as Jon Seiger, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Force Factor, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 6:18-cv-06611 (W.D.N.Y., Aug. 21, 2018).[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 7th Avenue New York, NY 10106 Telephone: (646) 837 7150 Facsimile: (212) 989 9163 E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com FORT SMITH, AR: City Employees' Suit Seeks Damages -------------------------------------------------- Mary Johnston, Barbara Bates Angela Slaughter, each individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. City of Fort Smith, Arkansas, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-2152, (W.D. Ark., August 31, 2018) seeks monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees as a result of failure to pay lawful overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of forty hours per week under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. Plaintiffs are hourly-paid city employees of Fort Smith. They claim to have regularly worked in excess of forty hours per week throughout their tenure and insists on including longevity pay in calculating overtime pay.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. Chris Burks, Esq. Allison Koile, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 S. Shackleford Road, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com chris@sanfordlawfirm.com allison@sanfordlawfirm.com FRANCISCO PARTNERS: Gilbert Files Suit Over Buyout -------------------------------------------------- Jim Gilbert and Barrett O'Donnell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Ezra Perlman, David A. Jones, Jr., Francisco Partners IV, L.P., Francisco Partners IV-A, L.P., FP Healthcare Holdings, Inc., FP Healthcare Merger Sub Corporation and Chrysalis Ventures II, L.P., Case No. 2018-0453, (D. Del., June 25, 2018), seeks (i) to enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating, or closing the buyout of Connecture, Inc. by Connecture's majority stockholders, Francisco Partners and Chrysalis Ventures, and their affiliates, (ii) rescinding it and setting it aside or awarding rescissory damages in the event defendants consummate the merger, (iii) costs of this action, including reasonable allowance for attorneys' and experts' fees, (iv) and such other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Under the merger, Connecture's minority stockholders received only $0.35 for each share of Connecture common stock they owned, while FP Investors, Chrysalis, and certain affiliates of Chrysalis rolled over their common and preferred shares into FP Healthcare Holdings. The complaint says the merger consideration was inadequate and failed to reflect Connecture's true intrinsic value. The process leading to the buyout was tainted by conflicts of interest, it added. Gilbert and O'Donnell were owners of common stock of Connecture. [BN] Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Jeremy J. Riley, Esq RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 (302) 295-5310 - and - Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Dr., Ste. 3112 Berwyn, PA 19312 Tel: (484) 324-6800 Email: rm@maniskas.com GATESTONE & CO: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Alenkin Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gatestone & Co International Inc. The case is titled as Stanislav Alenkin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Gatestone & Co International Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-05050 (E.D.N.Y., September 6, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Gatestone & Co International Inc. operates as an employment agency. The Company specializes in accounts receivable management and business process outsourcing solutions, as well as provides training programs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel C. Cohen, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Telephone: (929) 575-4175 Facsimile: (929) 575-4195 E-mail: dan@cml.legal GCA SERVICES: Hogg FCRA Suit Removed to Florida District Court -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Hogg v. GCA Services Group, Inc., Case No. 2018-31304-CICI, was removed on September 6, 2018, from the Volusia County Court to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Orlando). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:18-cv-01454-GAP-TBS to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. GCA Services Group, Inc., provides janitorial and human resource services. The Company offers custodial, contamination control, grounds management, recycling programs, environment cleaning, and staffing services.[BN] Plaintiff Alicia Hogg, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Brandon J. Hill, Esq. Luis A. Cabassa, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA 1110 N Florida Ave., Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602-3343 Telephone: (813) 224-0431 Facsimile: (813) 229-8712 E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com lcabassa@wfclaw.com Defendant GCA Services Group, Inc., is represented by: Amanda Simpson, Esq. Stephanie Leigh Adler-Paindiris, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS, PC 390 N Orange Ave., Suite 1285 PO Box 3389 Orlando, FL 32802-3389 Telephone: (407) 246-8408 Facsimile: (407) 246-8441 E-mail: amanda.simpson@jacksonlewis.com adlers@jacksonlewis.com GRIDSUM HOLDING: Li Sues Over Share Price Drop ---------------------------------------------- Xuechun Li, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Gridsum Holding Inc., Guosheng Wi, Peng Zhang, Goldman Sachs (Asia) LLC, Citigroup Global Markets Inc. and Stifel, Nicolaus & Company Incorporated, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-05749, (S.D. N.Y., June 25, 2018), seeks to recover damages caused by violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Gridsum Holding, Inc. is a holding company that designs and develops sophisticated data analysis software for multinational and domestic enterprises and government agencies in China. The Company offers software that allows customers to collect and analyze information that is collected, indexed, and stored in an organized manner. Its American Depositary Shares (ADS) trade on the NASDAQ Global Select Market. In its initial public offer, Defendants failed to disclose that Gridsum lacked effective internal control over financial reporting, issues related to certain revenue recognition, cash flow, cost and expense items. On this news, Gridsum's ADR price fell $1.17, or 16.04%, to close at $6.12 on April 23, 2018. Li owns Gridsum ADRs and lost substantially. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. GAINEY, McKENNA, & EGLESTON 440 Park Avenue South, 5th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 983-1300 Facsimile: (212) 983-0383 Email: tjmckenna@gme-law.com gegleston@gme-law.com HAMID RAFII: Haysbert Sues over Health and Safety Hazards --------------------------------------------------------- NAZARETH M. HAYSBERT, an individual, and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. HAMID RAFII, Trustee of Hamid Rafii Living Trust; HAMID RAFII, an Individual; LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER, a Municipality; THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a Municipality; SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY, a California Corporation; and DOES 1-20, the Defendants, Case No. BC718604 (Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 22, 2018), seeks compensation for overpayment of rent, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of bodily and neurological functioning, mental pain and suffering, annoyance, and distress. According to the complaint, during the Summer of 2017, the Plaintiffs and Columbia Place tenants faced dangerous and unsafe conditions including exposed electrical wiring, low hanging electric cables, and faulty gas appliances. The tenants made their fears known to their landlord, Mr. Rafii, and the City of Los Angeles, who scheduled multiple meetings and property inspections with the other defendants spanning almost a year. These meetings were unfruitful, and the several groups of engineers, inspectors, and other City professionals moving through the apartments only created further nuisance and distraction for Mr. Haysbert and the other tenants. Despite several inspections, including at least one failed inspection for violations of the California Health and Safety Code and Los Angeles Municipal Code, no remedial actions were taken by any of the Defendants. Even though the premises were not made safer, the City of Los Angeles later granted the residence a passing inspection with no explanation. As such, Plaintiffs still face the same hazardous conditions nearly a year later. The Plaintiffs have endured as a direct and proximate health and safety hazards, and the negligent inspections, repairs, and remedial action, or lack thereof, of the dangerous conditions in and around Plaintiffs' residences by each of the Defendants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Azuka L. Uzoh, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF AZUKA L. UZOH 1930 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1216 Los Angeles, CA 90057 Telephone: (213) 533 4130 Facsimile: (310) 424 7140 HANGER INC: Continues to Defend Pontiac General Employees Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Hanger, 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 securities class action suit entitled, City of Pontiac General Employees' Retirement System v. Hanger, et al. In November 2014, a securities class action complaint, City of Pontiac General Employees' Retirement System v. Hanger, et al., C.A. No. 1:14-cv-01026-SS, was filed against the company in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The complaint named the company and certain of its current and former officers for allegedly making materially false and misleading statements regarding, inter alia, the company's financial statements, RAC audit success rate, the implementation of new financial systems, same-store sales growth, and the adequacy of our internal processes and controls. The complaint alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint sought unspecified damages, costs, attorneys' fees, and equitable relief. On April 1, 2016, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss the lawsuit for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and permitted plaintiffs to file an amended complaint. On July 1, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On September 15, 2016, the company and certain of the individual defendants filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit. On January 26, 2017, the court granted the defendants' motions and dismissed with prejudice all claims against all defendants for failure to state a claim. On February 24, 2017, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Appellate briefing was completed on August 18, 2017 and the Court of Appeals held oral argument for the appeal on March 5, 2018. On August 6, 2018, the Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the case against individual defendants Vinit Asar, the company's current President and Chief Executive Officer, and Thomas Kirk, our former President and Chief Executive Officer, but reversed the dismissal of the case against George McHenry, our former Chief Financial Officer, and Hanger, Inc. The case has been remanded back to the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas for further proceedings with respect to the remaining claims. Hanger said, "We believe the remaining claims are without merit, and intend to continue to vigorously defend against these claims." Hanger, Inc. provides orthotic and prosthetic (O&P) services; and distributes O&P devices and components, manages O&P networks, and provides therapeutic solutions to patients and businesses in acute, post-acute, and clinic settings in the United States. It operates through two segments, Patient Care and Products & Services. Hanger, Inc. was founded in 1861 and is headquartered in Austin, Texas. HARRISON GLOBAL: $1MM Settlement in Huddestun Has Prelim Approval ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MARK HUDDLESTUN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and ROBERT BENSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. HARRISON GLOBAL, LLC, doing business as BOSTON COACH, MTG ACQUISITIONS, LLC, and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-0253 DMS (WVG) (S.D. Cal.), Judge Dana M. Sabraw of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California granted the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. The Plaintiffs bring a wage and hour class action suit on behalf of current and former employees of the Defendants. The Defendants are limited liability corporations that operate a limousine transportation service. The Plaintiffs and the putative Class Members are current and former employees of the Defendants who worked as chauffeurs in San Francisco between March 14, 2014 and Jan. 26, 2018, Los Angeles between March 14, 2014 and Nov. 16, 2017, and San Diego between Oct. 1, 2015 and Nov. 17, 2017. The Plaintiffs allege the following claims for relief: (1) failure to pay overtime compensation; (2) failure to provide meal and rest periods; (3) failure to pay minimum, hourly, and overtime wages; (4) failure to pay final wages; (5) failure to provide timely and accurate wage statements; (6) unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices; and (7) civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"). The parties participated in a mediation before mediator Michael Dickstein on Sept. 5, 2017. The mediation was successful and resulted in a settlement. The proposed Settlement Agreement provides for a Gross Settlement Fund of $1,050,000. The Class Members will be allocated a share of the Net Settlement Fund based on the number of workweeks they worked for the Defendants during the relevant time period. The Net Settlement Fund is the remaining amount in the Gross Settlement fund after deducting the following: (1) the Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees in an amount up to 28% of the Fund, (2) actual costs not to exceed $20,000, (3) an incentive award to the Plaintiffs in the amount of $5,000 each, (4) the costs of the Settlement Administrator up to a maximum of $10,000, and (5) a payment to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency ("LWDA") for release of PAGA claims in the amount of $6,666, 75% of which will be remitted to the LWDA and 25% of which will become part of the Net Settlement Fund. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the Defendants will give the Settlement Administrator the Class Members' names, social security numbers, last known addresses, home telephone number, and e-mail addresses, as well as the dates of service and the number of workweeks during the Settlement Period. Within 10 business days of the entry of an order granting the motion, the Settlement Administrator will mail a Class Notice Package. If any Class Notice Package sent to a Class Member is returned, the Settlement Administrator will search for that the Class Member's more current address and re-mail the Package. The Class Members who desire to be excluded from the action must submit a signed, written request to the Settlement Administrator for exclusion. Judge Sabraw granted the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the settlement in the case. Pursuant to Federal Rule Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), she conditionally certified the Settlement Class defined as all California Chauffeurs who worked for Defendants Harrison Global, LLC and/or MTG Acquisitions, LLC from March 14, 2014 to Jan. 26, 2018 (San Francisco); March 14, 2014 to Nov. 16, 2017 (Los Angeles); and Oct. 1, 2015 to Nov. 17, 2017 (San Diego), respectively. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the Judge preliminarily certified Plaintiffs Mark Huddlestun and Robert Benson as the Class Representatives and the Plaintiffs' counsel as the Class Counsel solely for purposes of settlement. She approved, as to form and content, the Notice. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, within five business days of the entry of the Preliminary Approval Order, the Defendants will provide the Settlement Administrator the best information in its possession, custody, or control with respect to the names, social security numbers, last known addresses, home telephone number, and e-mail address for each Class Member, and the dates of service and number of workweeks that each Class Member worked for the Defendants during the Settlement Period. The Settlement Administrator will keep and maintain the information as confidential and will only use the Social Security numbers for purposes of the Settlement Agreement, i.e. to locate the Class Members. The Settlement Administrator will send the Class Notice Package to the Class Members by first class mail within 10 business days of the entry of the Preliminary Approval Order. A valid Claim Form must be postmarked not more than 30 business days after the date the Class Notice Package is mailed to the Class Members (or not more than 10 business days after the date the Class Notice Package is re-mailed). The Class Members may choose to exclude themselves from the Settlement by submitting a written objection no later than 30 business days after the date the Class Notice Package is mailed to the Class Members (or not more than 10 business days after the date the Class Notice Package is re-mailed). They may object to the Settlement no later than 30 business days after the date the Class Notice Package is mailed to the Class Members (or not more than 10 business days after the date the Class Notice Package is re-mailed). The Settlement Administrator will promptly forward any objections received to the Class Counsel and the Defendants' counsel. If any Class Member seeks to appear at the hearing, he or she will file a notice of appearance with the Court and serve the Class Counsel and the Defendants' counsel 15 days before the Final Approval Hearing. No later than 21 days prior to the Final Approval Hearing, the parties will file (i) a Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, and (ii) a sworn declaration evidencing compliance with the provisions of the Settlement Agreement as it relates to providing Notice. No later than 21 days prior to the Final Approval Hearing, the Class Counsel will file an application for attorneys' fees and costs. The Class Counsel will provide documentation detailing the number of hours incurred by attorneys in litigating the action, supported by detailed time records, as well as hourly compensation to which those attorneys are reasonably entitled. The Class Counsel should be prepared to address any questions the Court may have regarding the application for fees at the Final Approval Hearing. The Final Approval Hearing will be held on Feb. 22, 2019, at 1:30 p.m. After the Final Approval Hearing, the Court may enter a Final Order and Judgment in accordance with the Settlement Agreement that will adjudicate the rights of the Settlement Class Members (as defined in the Settlement Agreement) with respect to the claims being settled. In the event the Settlement Agreement is not consummated for any reason, the conditional class certification will be of no further force or effect. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 7, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/lwM7Hv from Leagle.com. Mark Huddlestun, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel D. Bodell -- dbodell@BODELLLAWGROUP.COM -- Bodell Law Group LLP, Harry W. Harrison -- hharrison@harrisonbodell.com -- Bodell Law Group LLP, Scott Edward Cole -- scole@scalaw.com -- Scott Cole & Associates, APC & Todd C. Atkins -- tatkins@bodelllawgroup.com -- Bodell Law Group. Robert Benson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Corey Benjamin Bennett -- cbennett@maternlawgroup.com -- Scott Cole & Associates, APC & Scott Edward Cole, Scott Cole & Associates, APC. Harrison Global, LLC, doing business as, Defendant, represented by Heather Murray Sager -- hsager@vedderprice.com -- Vedder Price & Ayse Kuzucuoglu -- akuzucuoglu@vedderprice.com -- Vedder Price (CA), LLP. MTG Acquisitions, LLC, Defendant, represented by Heather Murray Sager, Vedder Price. HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Fails to Protect Classified Info, Aguilar Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ FAUSTO AGUILAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC.; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. BC717334 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles, Cty., Aug. 14, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for their unlawful disclosure of confidential medical information for numerous worker's compensation claimants in violation of the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act. The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides insurance and financial services to individual and business customers in the United States. The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. was founded in 1810 and is headquartered in Hartford, Connecticut. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian S. Kabateck, Esq. Christopher B. Noyes, Esq. Joana Fang, Esq. Stephanie E. Charlin, Esq. KABATECK BROWN LLP 633 W 5th St., Suite 3200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 217-5000 Facsimile: (213) 217-5010 E-mail: bsk@kbklwyers.com cn@kbklwyers.com jf@kbklwyers.com sc@kbklwyers.com HOLLOWAY CREDIT: Yahaira Garcia Sues over Debt Collection --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Holloway Credit Solutions, LLC. The class action is captioned as Yahaira Garcia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Holloway Credit Solutions, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-00434-JSM-PRL (M.D. Fla., Aug. 21, 2018). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge James S. Moody, Jr. The suit alleges Fair Debt Collection Act violation. Holloway Credit provides debt collection and management services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon Paul Dubbeld, Esq. BERKOWITZ & MYER 4900 Central Ave St Petersburg, FL 33707 Telephone: (727) 344 0123 Facsimile: (727) 344 0185 E-mail: Jon@Berkmyer.com - and - Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. MARCUS & ZELMAN 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Telephone: (732) 695 3282 Facsimile: (732) 298 6256 E-mail: yzelman@marcuszelman.com HRB DIGITAL: Response to James Murphy Suit Due Sept. 24 ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against HRB Digital LLC. The class action lawsuit is captioned as James Murphy, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. HRB Digital LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06829 (S.D.N.Y., July 30, 2018). The suit alleges Americans with Disabilities Act violation. In a September 10 ruling, Judge Analisa Torres granted, in part, and denied, in part, the Defendant's Letter Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. By September 24, 2018, the Defendant must answer or otherwise respond to the complaint, the ruling says. HRB Digital LLC operates as a subsidiary of H&R Block, Inc.[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 IC SYSTEM: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Miller Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against I.C. System, Inc. The case is titled as PAMELA MILLER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. I.C. SYSTEM, INC., Case No. 3:18-cv-13624-AET-DEA (D.N.J., September 6, 2018). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. I. C. System, Inc., was founded in 1941. The Company's line of business includes collection and adjustment services on claims and other insurance related issues.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lawrence C. Hersh, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF LAWRENCE HERSH 17 Sylvan Street, Suite 102B Rutherford, NJ 07070 Telephone: (201) 507-6300 E-mail: lh@hershlegal.com IMMEDIATE CREDIT: Rankel Class Suit Alleges FDCPA Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Immediate Credit Recovery, Inc. The case is styled as Carlo Rankel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Immediate Credit Recovery, Inc., Case No. 7:18-cv-08117-KMK (S.D.N.Y., September 6, 2018). The Plaintiff alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Immediate Credit Recovery, Inc., provides debt recovery services. The Company offers recovery programs for government debts, educational institutions, and health care industries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. SANDERS LAW, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 203-7600 Facsimile: (516) 281-7601 E-mail: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com IPIC ENTERTAINMENT: Ryan-Nielson Class Suit Underway ---------------------------------------------------- iPic Entertainment 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, Mary Ryan and Johanna Nielson v. iPic-Gold Class Entertainment, LLC. The Company is a defendant in a class action lawsuit captioned Mary Ryan and Johanna Nielson v. iPic-Gold Class Entertainment, LLC, Case # BC 688633, which was filed in Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, on December 29, 2017. This lawsuit asserts failure to pay minimum wage, pay overtime wages, provide meal breaks and rest periods, and provide accurate itemized wage statements with respect to certain workers. The Company reserves for costs related to contingencies when a loss is probable and the amount is reasonably estimable. iPic Entertainment said, "As of this date, the Company has not made a provision for the claim, due to the fact that it is currently not probable nor reasonably estimable. However, the outcome of the legal proceeding is uncertain, and depending upon what the facts reveal once the Company has had a chance to investigate the claim, it may choose to contest the suit or settle this claim. In either scenario, the Company could be subject to paying an amount that could have a material adverse impact on its results of operations in any given future reporting period." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. iPic Entertainment Inc. operates restaurants and theaters in the United States. The company operates casual restaurants, farm-to-glass full-service bars, and theater auditoriums with in-theater dining. The company was founded in 2010 and is headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida. J FLETCHER: Filing of Amended RICO Suit Partly Granted ------------------------------------------------------ In the case, NUNO COSTA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. J. FLETCHER CREAMER & SONS, INC., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 2:16-CV-8492-CCC-SCM (D. N.J.), Magistrate Judge Steven C. Mannion of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted in part and denied in part the Costas' motion for leave to file an amended complaint. The action arises from allegations that Creamer failed to pay the Costas appropriate wages, provide contractual benefits, and maintain working conditions in accordance with the terms of their collective bargaining agreement. Plaintiffs Nuno Costa, Tiago Costa, Manuel Costa, Artur Mariano, Jr., Joao Goncalves, Hugo Decarvalho, Richard DaCosta, Ivo Fernandez, and Giovanni Perez originally filed their complaint in New Jersey State Court on Oct. 12, 2016. On Nov. 15, 2016, Creamer removed the action on the basis of federal question jurisdiction and Creamer subsequently filed a Motion to Dismiss on Dec. 19, 2016. Following the parties' attempt to resolve the matter through court-ordered mediation, the Costas filed their request for leave to amend the complaint on Feb. 3, 2018. The proposed Amended Complaint narrows the dispute down to six claims, asserts two new claims pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New Jersey's Law Against Discrimination, and alleges class/collective action claims on behalf of all persons similarly situated. Creamer contends the proposed amendments are futile, asserting that they are substantively deficient and procedurally time-barred. The Costas argue that the relation-back doctrine permits the proposed amendments despite the statute of limitations because the new claims arise out of the same facts set out in their original pleading. Turning first to the proposed Fair Labor Act claim, Magistrate Judge Mannion finds that the Costas' Fair Labor Act claim purports allegations that Creamer failed to pay the Costas proper overtime over the course of their employment. He says it is clear that this claim arises out of the same conduct alleged in the original pleading, namely the Costas' unpaid wage claims against Creamer. Accordingly, he finds that the Fair Labor Act amendment relates back to the date of the initial filing. Next, he addressed the Costas' request to add the Law Against Discrimination claim after the applicable two-year statute of limitations has elapsed. The Costas' proposed amendment asserts that Creamer retaliated against Plaintiffs Giovanni Perez and Hugo DeCarvalho after they suffered workplace injuries. The Magistrate Judge finds that Creamer had adequate notice of the Costas' claim and the proposed Law Against Discrimination amendment relates back. The Costas' original Complaint also asserts Hugo was hurt on the job twice. Hugo never received workers compensation for his time off from work due to his workplace injuries. The Defendants have failed to pay Hugo as required by law and/or retaliated against Hugo. Finally, the Magistrate examines the Costas' proposed amendment seeking to assert class action allegations that vastly expand the scope of the case. While the Costas' claims of unpaid wages are present in the original pleading, he finds that there were no allegations concerning common practice or policy by Creamer, and therefore no indication that the claims could be made on behalf of a potentially voluminous group of the Plaintiffs. Creamer had no notice of the potential class/collective claims when the original Complaint was filed and there is no suggestion that the Costas' failure to sue on behalf of those similarly situated was due to mistake. In light of this, the original pleading did not give Creamer fair notice of the grounds upon which the amendment, rests nor did it adequately notify the Defendants of the basis for liability the Plaintiffs would later advance in the amended complaint. Accordingly, he finds that the relation back doctrine does not apply to the Costas' class action allegations. For the foregoing reasons, Magistrate Judge Mannion granted in part and denied in part the Costas' motion to amend. An appropriate Order follows. He granted the Plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint with respect to the addition of the Fair Labor Act and Law Against Discrimination claims. He denied it with respect to addition of a class/collective action claim. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 7, 2018 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/in6M09 from Leagle.com. NUNO COSTA, TIAGO COSTA, MANUEL COSTA, ARTHUR MARIANO, JR., JOAO GONCALVES, HUGO DECARVALHO, RICHARD DACOSTA, IVO FERNANDES & GIOVANNI PEREZ, Plaintiffs, represented by ANDREW R. FRISCH, MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A., JORDAN BRANSON DASCAL -- info+web@dascallaw.com -- DASCAL LAW LLC & JOSHUA F. MCMAHON -- JFM@SchillerMcMahon.com -- Schiler McMahon LLC. J. FLETCHER CREAMER & SONS, INC., J. FLETCHER CREAMER & SON CREAM RIDGE CONSTRUCTION, INC.., JOHN FLETCHER CREAMER, JR., JOSEPH WALSH, ALBINO OLIVEIRA, THERESA WARREN, JOANNE GABIA & KIM CHIANDUSSE, Defendants, represented by PETER J. TORCICOLLO -- ptorcicollo@gibbonslaw.com -- GIBBONS, PC, CHARLOTTE MARY HOWELLS -- chowells@gibbonslaw.com -- GIBBONS PC, ERIC EVANS WOHLFORTH, Jr. -- ewohlforth@gibbonslaw.com -- GIBBONS, P.C. & MITCHELL BOYARSKY -- mboyarsky@gibbonslaw.com -- GIBBONS P.C. ROBERT CAMPOS, Defendant, represented by DOMENICK CARMAGNOLA, CARMAGNOLA & RITARDI, LLC & PETER J. TORCICOLLO, GIBBONS, PC. J&B INVESTMENTS: Melendez Remanded to Calif. State Court -------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CHRISTIAN MELENDEZ, on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. J&B INVESTMENTS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-01062-AB (KSx) (C.D. Cal.), Judge Andre Birotte, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted the Plaintiff's motion to remand and denied as moot the Defendants' motion to dismiss or strike. Melendez filed a Complaint in Riverside County Superior Court on April 5, 2018. The Complaint alleges that Defendants J&B Investments and Gypsum Management and Supply, Inc. ("GMS") violated various California labor laws. J&B transports and delivers building materials throughout California from its six regional centers around the state. GMS is a national company incorporated in Georgia with a principal place of business in Georgia. It purchased J&B in March 2015, and J&B became a subsidiary of GMS. Th Plaintiff began working for J&B as a truck driver in July 2013. According to te Plaintiff, the Defendants required him to work 10-hour shifts without meal or rest breaks. The Defendants kept drivers so busy with deliveries that they could not take breaks and instead had to work through them. The Plaintiff alleges that, instead of implementing policies to allow employees to take meal and rest breaks, the Defendants altered time sheets to show that employees took meal and rest breaks that did not actually occur. Based on these allegations, the Plaintiff filed his Complaint in Riverside County Superior Court on April 5, 2018. The Complaint asserts six causes of action: failure to provide meal breaks, failure to permit rest breaks, failure to pay minimum wage, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to pay compensation due upon separation of employment, and unfair competition under California Business and Professions Code section 17200. The Plaintiff brings these claims on behalf of a putative class. The Complaint defines the putative class as all current or former employees of the Defendants who worked as non-exempt Hourly Employees in California from the four years prior to the filing of the Complaint through the date of class certification. On May 17, 2018, the Defendants removed the case to the Court. They then filed a motion to dismiss or strike the Complaint on May 24, 2018. The Plaintiff has opposed that motion, and the Defendants filed a reply. On June 18, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a motion to remand. The Defendants opposed the motion, and Plaintiff filed a reply. The Plaintiff argues that the action should be remanded to Riverside County Superior Court for two reasons. First, he claims the Defendants failed to satisfy CAFA's jurisdictional requirements. Second, he contends that, even if the Defendants did establish the CAFA requirements, the local controversy exception deprives the Court of jurisdiction. Essentially all of the Defendants' amount in controversy calculations depend on the number of employees included in the putative class. Judge Birotte therefore cannot rely on any of those calculations, and the Defendants have failed to carry their burden of establishing that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. Accordingly, CAFA does not provide the Court with subject matter jurisdiction over the case. He also finds that the Plaintiff's putative class seeks significant relief from J&B, a local Defendant. And, taking the Plaintiff's allegations as true, J&B initiated the conduct about which the Plaintiff complains. The Plaintiff therefore has satisfied the local controversy exception's significant basis requirement. Because the Plaintiff has satisfied the significant relief and significant basis requirements, the Plaintiff has met his burden of establishing that the local controversy exception applies. The Judge must remand the case. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Birotte granted the GRANTS Plaintiff's motion to remand. The matter is remanded to Riverside County Superior Court. Because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the Judge denied as moot the Defendants' motion to dismiss or strike. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 7, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/OQJ57G from Leagle.com. Christian Melendez, in his individual capacity, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jordan S. Esensten, Esensten Law & Robert L. Esensten -- resensten@esenstenlaw.com -- Esensten Law. J and B Investments, Inc., a California Corporation & Gypsum Management and Supply, Inc., a Georgia Corporation, Defendants, represented by Wesley E. Stockard -- wstockard@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson PC, pro hac vice & Maggy Mokhles Athanasious -- mathanasious@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson PC. JERSEY CHAMP: Metzler Sues Over Illegal Text Ad Blasts ------------------------------------------------------ Mark Metzler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Jersey Champ, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-10984 (D. N.J., June 25, 2018) seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, costs and reasonable attorney's fees under the Telephone Consumers' Protection Act. Jersey Champ is into the manufacture and marketing of jerseys. It engaged in sending SMS en masse to secure orders for its products, without express prior consent from its recipients, says the complaint. [BN] Plaintiffs are represented by: Ross Howard Schmierer, Esq. DENITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE PC 315 Madison Avenue 3rd Floor New York, NY 10017 Tel: (646) 979-3642 Email: rschmierer@denittislaw.com JUST BORN: Court Denies Bid to File Sur-Reply in Slack-Fill Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, DARYL WHITE, JR., Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JUST BORN, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-04025-NKL (W.D. Mo.), Judge Nanette K. Laughrey of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Central Division, denied both White's Motion for Class Certification and the Defendant's Motion for Leave to File a Sur-Reply. The Defendant manufactures Hot Tamales(R) and Mike and Ike(R). The products are regularly sold at grocery stores, convenience stores, and other food retail outlets throughout Missouri and the rest of the United States. The lawsuit focuses on Just Born's packaging of the candy. In December 2016, White bought a box of each candy for about $1 apiece at a Dollar Store in Missouri, for his personal use. He alleges that he attached importance to the size of the candy boxes, and that he was misled to believe that he was purchasing more Product than was actually received. He alleges that the boxes are uniformly under-filled or slack-filled; that the slack-filled space serves no purpose; and that had he known the boxes were substantially slack-filled, he would not have purchased the products, or would have purchased them on different terms. He also alleges that he suffered an ascertainable loss as a result of Just Born's unlawful conduct because the actual value of the Products as purchased was less than the value of the Products as represented. In February 2017, White filed the putative class action, alleging violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act ("MMPA") and unjust enrichment based on the slack-fill in Just Born's candy packaging. He seeks certification of three classes -- one consisting of only Missouri residents for the MMPA claim, and two consisting of residents from various states for the Unjust Enrichment claims. Specifically, White proposes the following classes: 1. The Missouri Consumer Class defined as follows: All Missouri residents who purchased a 5-ounce box of Hot Tamales candy and/or a 5-ounce box of Mike and Ike candy for personal, family, or household purposes within the relevant statute-of-limitations period. 2. The Unjust Enrichment (Restatement) Multi-State Class defined as follows: All persons residing in Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, New York, Oklahoma, or West Virginia who purchased a 5-ounce box of Hot Tamales candy and/or a 5-ounce box of Mike and Ike candy for their personal or household use within the relevant statute-of-limitations period. 3. The Unjust Enrichment (Appreciation) Multi-State Class defined as follows: All persons residing in Alaska, Florida, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington, or Wisconsin who purchased a 5-ounce box of Hot Tamales candy and/or a 5-ounce box of Mike and Ike candy for their personal or household use within the relevant statute-of-limitations period. White also seeks to be appointed to serve as class representative of all three classes, and to have his attorneys appointed to serve as the class counsel. Judge Laughrey finds that the proposed classes do not satisfy the requirements of both the Rule 23(b)(3) and the 23(b)(2). Because individual questions would predominate over common questions on White's MMPA claim, the Missouri Consumer Class cannot be certified. White's Unjust Enrichment Classes cannot be certified for the same reason. The unjust enrichment claims thus turn on each individual class member's knowledge at the time of purchase. Inquiries into each class member's knowledge would dominate litigation over the unjust enrichment claim just as they would the MMPA claim. In addition, although White has offered an explanation for his continued purchase of the candy over the course of five years, it is likely that a significant portion of the proposed classes will not be able to do the same. Granting class certification to a class consisting of individuals who likely do not have standing would be inappropriate. As to Just Born's move for leave to file a sur-reply, seeking an opportunity to respond to new arguments raised by White in his reply brief, the Judge resolved the motion for class certification in Just Born's favor without relying on the new arguments raised by White. The sur-reply thus is unnecessary. For the reasons discussed, Judge Laughrey denied both White's Motion for Class Certification, and the Defendant's Motion for Leave to File a Sur-Reply. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 7, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/8A7ZXu from Leagle.com. Daryl White, Jr, Plaintiff, represented by Naomi B. Spector , KamberLaw LLP, pro hac vice, Scott A. Kamber -- skamber@kamberlaw.com -- pro hac vice, Stephen F. Gaunt -- sgaunt@steelmanandgaunt.com -- Steelman, Gaunt & Horsefield & David L. Steelman -- dsteelman@steelmanandgaunt.com -- Steelman, Gaunt & Horsefield. Just Born, Inc., Defendant, represented by Alan L. Rupe -- Alan.Rupe@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, Eric Y. Kizirian, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith -- Leo.Bautista@lewisbrisbois.com -- pro hac vice & Leo A. Bautista -- Eric.Kizirian@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, pro hac vice. KIDVILLE INC: Settlement Reached in James Murphy Suit ----------------------------------------------------- The parties in the class action lawsuit captioned as, James Murphy, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Kidville, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06832 (S.D.N.Y., July 30, 2018), have reached a settlement of their dispute and agreed to dismiss the case. According to a docket entry, the parties on August 23, 2018, reported to the Court that they have reached a settlement on all issues in this case. Judge Valerie E. Caproni on August 27 held that the action will be dismissed without costs (including attorneys' fees) to either party on September 21, unless before that date one or more of the parties files a letter with the Court requesting that the action not be dismissed and stating the reasons why the Court should retain jurisdiction over this action in light of the parties' settlement. To be clear, any request that the action not be dismissed must be filed on or before September 21; any request filed thereafter may be denied solely on that basis. If the parties wish for the Court to retain jurisdiction over their settlement agreement, not later than September 14, they must submit the settlement agreement to the Court in accordance with Rule 5.A of the Court's Individual Practices, along with a request that the Court issue an order expressly retaining jurisdiction to enforce their settlement agreement. All deadlines and court conferences previously scheduled in this matter are cancelled. The suit alleges Americans with Disabilities Act violation. Kidville, Inc. franchises facilities offering developmental classes, indoor playgrounds, and a retail boutique for infants through five year olds. The Company offers music, art, and exercise classes and an alternative pre-school program.[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 KNORR-BREMSE: Lonergan Sues over No-Poach Deal ---------------------------------------------- Patricia Lonergan alleges that Knorr-Bremse AG and other rail equipment companies unlawfully conspired to suppress Plaintiff's and Class members' compensation, thus Plaintiff brought this action to recover damages, including treble damages and other appropriate relief. Her case is an antitrust class action brought by and on behalf of individuals who have performed work for Defendants, who are some of the world's largest rail equipment suppliers and subsidiaries or business units thereof. Rail equipment personnel, like personnel in any labor market, benefit when their employers compete for their services. Competition in the labor market creates leverage for personnel, which in turn leads to higher wages and greater mobility. According to the lawsuit, from at least 2009 to on or around April 3, 2018, the Defendants, along with other unnamed individuals and entities acting as co-conspirators, conspired not to recruit, solicit, or hire without prior approval each other's personnel. The No-Poach Conspiracy, which is a per se violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. section 1, limited Plaintiff's and Class members' job mobility and suppressed their compensation below the levels that would have been available absent the Conspiracy. On April 3, 2018, the Defendants Knorr and Wabtec announced their agreement to settle charges brought by the Department of Justice, following the DOJ's investigation of the No-Poach Conspiracy. DOJ charged and Defendants Knorr and Wabtec did not dispute that Defendants' agreements were per se violations of the Sherman Act. DOJ charged and Defendants did not dispute that these agreements "were facially anticompetitive because they eliminated a significant form of competition to attract skilled labor in the U.S. rail industry." Specifically, the DOJ further charged and Defendants did not dispute that "these agreements denied employees access to better job opportunities, restricted their mobility, and deprived them of competitively significant information that they could have used to negotiate for better terms of employment." The case is captioned, PATRICIA LONERGAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. KNORR-BREMSE AG Moosacher Str. 80 Munchen, 80809 Germany; KNORR BRAKE COMPANY LLC 1 Arthur Peck Drive Westminster, Carroll County, Maryland 21157; NEW YORK AIR BRAKE LLC, 748 Starbucks Avenue Watertown, New York 13601; WESTINGHOUSE AIR BRAKE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, 1001 Air Brake Avenue Wilmerding, Pennsylvania 15148; WABTEC PASSENGER TRANSIT P.O. Box 11 Spartanburg, South Carolina 29304; FAIVELEY TRANSPORT, S.A. 3, rue du 19 mars 1962 92230 Gennevilliers France; and FAIVELEY TRANSPORT NORTH AMERICA, INC. 50 Beechtree Boulevard Greenville, South Carolina 29605, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-01086-JFC (D. Md., Aug. 22, 2018). Knorr-Bremse is a manufacturer of braking systems for rail and commercial vehicles that has operated in the field for over 110 years.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class: Paul Mark Sandler, Esq. Eric R. Harlan, Esq. SHAPIRO SHER GUINOT & SANDLER 250 West Pratt Street, Suite 2000 Baltimore, MD 21201 Telephone: (410) 385 0202 Facsimile: (410) 539 7611 E-mail: pms@shapirosher.com erh@shapirosher.com - and - Joseph R. Saveri, Esq. Steve N. Williams, Esq. Jiamin Chen, Esq. V Chai Oliver Prentice, Esq. JOSEPH SAVERI LAWFIRM, INC. 601 California Street, Suite 1000 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 500 6800 Facsimile: (415) 395 9940 E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com swilliams@saverilawfirm.com jchen@saverilawfirm.com vprentice@saverilawfirm.com LANDMARK THEATRE: Burbon Class Suit Alleges ADA Violation --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Landmark Theatre Corporation. The case is captioned as Luc Burbon, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Landmark Theatre Corporation, Case No. 1:18-cv-08155 (S.D.N.Y., September 6, 2018). The lawsuit arises from alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Landmark Theatre Corporation owns and operates a chain of movie theaters. The Company offers on-site digital video disc sales, specialized merchandise, film festivals, special events, business meetings, and private screenings.[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 LOS ANGELES, CA: Class Certification Denied in Gonzalez-Tzita Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit styled Leonardo Gonzalez-Tzita, the Plaintiff, v. City of Los Angeles, et al., the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00194-FMO-E (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando M. Olguin entered an order on August 22, 2018: 1. denying without prejudice Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and preliminary approval of class settlement; 2. directing Plaintiffs to file a revised motion for class certification and preliminary approval of settlement agreement; 3. advising that failure to file the motion for preliminary approval by the deadline set by the court shall result in dismissal of the case for failure to prosecute and/or to comply with a court order; and 4. directing Defendant to file a brief in support of the motion for preliminary approval. The Court said, "Plaintiffs are advised that the court will not consider the Motion unless it includes a discussion and evidentiary support, where appropriate, regarding these issues: (A) All class certification requirements, including declarations from proposed class representatives as to the adequacy of their representation of the class; (B) Whether the settlement is within a range of possible judicial approval, including the fairness of its terms and settlement amount to the class members; (C) The arms-length negotiation of the settlement discussion(s), including whether, and to what extent, the proposed class representatives were involved in the negotiation(s); (D) Incentive payments and the standard set forth in Radcliffe v. Experian Info. Solutions Inc., 715 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2013), including: (i) declarations from the proposed class representatives regarding the time, risk, and burden carried by them in this action, and the benefit they provided to counsel and/or the class throughout the litigation; (ii) the distribution of payments and range of award amounts to class members; and (iii) whether the incentive payments are conditioned on approval of the settlement; (E) Adequacy of the class notice, including whether and how it fairly apprises the putative class members of the terms of the proposed settlement, and of the options available to them in connection with the settlement and court proceedings: (i) The court prefers that settlement agreement not require class members to submit objections to counsel, the class administrator, and the court. It suffices for objections to be submitted in writing to the court, since they will thereafter be available to the parties on the case docket once the objections are filed by the clerk of the court. (ii) In order to ease the burden on class members in exercising their rights under the proposed settlement agreement, the court prefers that the settlement agreement for submission of an opt-out or exclusion form, to be provided to class members by the settlement administrator; (F) How the settlement will be administered, including the proposed amount and cap to be paid to the settlement administrator; and (G) The parties should carefully evaluate the scope of the release of claims. With respect to absent class members, the court generally disfavors broad releases and waivers pursuant to California Civil Code section 1542. MACHOL & JOHANNES: Blanks Sues Over Alleged FDCPA Violations ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Machol & Johannes LLC. The case is styled as Alannah L. Blanks, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Machol & Johannes LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-02291 (D. Col., September 6, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Machol & Johannes LLC operates as a collection law firm. The Company offers representation in the fields of collection, bankruptcy, and creditor rights.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas John Lyons, Jr., Esq. CONSUMER JUSTICE CENTER, P.A. 367 Commerce Court Vadnais Heights, MN 55127 Telephone: (612) 200-1495 Facsimile: (651) 704-0907 E-mail: tommy@consumerjusticecenter.com MADAME PAULETTE: Website Not Accessible, Wu Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------- KATHY WU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MADAME PAULETTE VALET SERVICES, INC.; MADAME PAULETTE LIC, LLC; and MADAME PAULETTE INTERIORS, LLC; Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-07359-RJS (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 14, 2018) is an action against the Defendants 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 Defendants' website, www.madamepaulette.com is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the Americans with Disabilities Act. Madame Paulette Valet Services, Inc., is a corporation registered to do business in New York. The Company operates a retail high-end dry cleaning services, bridal and designer gown alterations and specialty tailor. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: danalgottlieb@aol.com nyjg@aol.com MARQUEE CINEMAS: Sued by Burbon for Violating Disabilities Act -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Marquee Cinemas, Inc. The case is styled as Luc Burbon, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Marquee Cinemas, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-08158 (S.D.N.Y., September 6, 2018). The Plaintiff alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Marquee Cinemas, Inc., operates as a theater. The Company primarily engages in the indoor exhibition of motion pictures, digital projection, and theatre rental programs.[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 MCKINSEY & CO: Sullivan Alleges Disabilities Act Violation ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against McKinsey & Company, Inc. The class action is captioned as Phillip Sullivan, Jr., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. McKinsey & Company, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-07623 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 21, 2018). The suit alleges Americans with Disabilities Act violation. McKinsey & Company is an American worldwide management consulting firm. It conducts qualitative and quantitative analysis to evaluate management decisions across the public and private sectors.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. MDL 1203: Denial of Browning's Level 2 Matrix Benefits Claim Upheld ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE: DIET DRUGS (PHENTERMINE/FENFLURAMINE/DEXFENFLURAMINE) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: SHEILA BROWN, et al., v. AMERICAN HOME PRODUCTS CORPORATION, MDL No. 1203, Civil Action No. 99-20593, No. 2:16 MD 1203 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Harvey Bartle, III of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania affirmed AHP Settlement Trust's denial of Debra K. Brownin's claim for Matrix A-1, Level II benefits. Miss Browning, a class member under the Diet Drug Nationwide Class Action Settlement Agreement with Wyeth, seeks benefits from theTrust. Based on the record developed in the show cause process, the Judge must determine whether claimant has demonstrated a reasonable medical basis to support her claim for Matrix Compensation Benefits. To seek Matrix Benefits, a claimant must first submit a completed Green Form to the Trust. The Green Form consists of three parts. The claimant or the claimant's representative completes Part I of the Green Form. Part II is completed by the claimant's attesting physician, who must answer a series of questions concerning the claimant's medical condition that correlate to the Matrix criteria set forth in the Settlement Agreement. Finally, the claimant's attorney must complete Part III if claimant is represented. In November 2015, the claimant submitted a completed Green Form to the Trust signed by her attesting physician, Richard DiNardo, D.O., F.A.C.C. Based on an echocardiogram dated Aug. 5, 2015,4 Dr. DiNardo attested in Part II of Ms. Browning's Green Form that claimant suffered from moderate mitral regurgitation, an abnormal left atrial dimension, and a reduced ejection fraction in the range of 50% to 60%. Based on such findings, claimant would be entitled to Matrix A-1, Level II benefits in the amount of $604,808. In February 2016, the Trust forwarded the claim for review by Zuyue Wang, M.D., one of its auditing cardiologists. In the audit, Dr. Wang concluded that there was no reasonable medical basis for finding that claimant had moderate mitral regurgitation because she determined that claimant's Aug. 5, 2015 echocardiogram only demonstrated mild mitral regurgitation. In particular, she stated, RJA/LAA = 2.8/15.4 = 18%. Under the definition set forth in the Settlement Agreement, moderate or greater mitral regurgitation is present where the regurgitant jet area ("RJA") in any apical view is equal to or greater than 20% of the left atrial area ("LAA"). Based on the auditing cardiologist's findings, the Trust issued a post-audit determination denying Ms. Browning's claim. Pursuant to the Rules for the Audit of Matrix Compensation Claims, the claimant contested this adverse determination. In contest, Ms. Browning argued that there was a reasonable medical basis for finding that her Aug. 5, 2015 echocardiogram demonstrated moderate mitral regurgitation. In response, the Trust argues that Ms. Browning's challenges to Dr. Wang's credibility are unsupported. The Trust also contends that the applicable burden of proof is whether a reasonable medical basis exists for the Green Form representation at issue, not who can collect more expert opinions. The Trust notes that while Dr. DiNardo said that reasonable, competent doctors can differ in their opinions, he did not identify any error in Dr. Wang's measurement of mitral regurgitation on the Aug. 5, 2015 echocardiogram. Finally, the Trust argues that Dr. McLean's mere disagreement with Dr. Wang is not sufficient to carry the claimant's burden. The Technical Advisor, Dr. Vigilante, reviewed the claimant's echocardiograms and concluded that there was no reasonable medical basis for finding that Ms. Browning had moderate mitral regurgitation. In her response to the Technical Advisor Report, Ms. Browning argues that each of the physicians who have reviewed her echocardiograms have provided different measurements of the level of her mitral regurgitation. In addition, she contends that the court should take into consideration that she has been harmed by Diet Drugs, that whether she has mild or moderate mitral regurgitation is a close question, that she likely will need mitral surgery in the future, and that she had aortic valve surgery after the deadline to submit a claim for Matrix Benefits. After reviewing the entire show cause record, Judge bartle finds that Ms. Browning's arguments are without merit. As an initial matter, the claimant's attempt to refute the specific conclusions of the auditing cardiologist and the Technical Advisor falls short. Although she submitted statements from a number of cardiologists, neither claimant nor her experts identified any specific errors in the conclusions of the auditing cardiologist. In fact, they simply provided their own measurements of Ms. Browning's RJA/LAA, and her attesting physician even observed that the level of Ms. Browning's mitral regurgitation is near the border. Mere disagreement with the auditing cardiologist or the Technical Advisor without identifying specific errors by them is insufficient to meet a claimant's burden of proof. In addition, he finds that the claimant's reliance on inter-reader variability to establish a reasonable medical basis for the attesting physician's representation that Ms. Browning had moderate mitral regurgitation is misplaced. The concept of inter-reader variability is encompassed in the reasonable medical basis standard applicable to claims under the Settlement Agreement. In this instance, the attesting physician's opinion cannot be medically reasonable when the auditing cardiologist and the Technical Advisor concluded that claimant's RJA/LAA ratio was less than 20%, both visually and by measurement. Adopting claimant's argument that inter-reader variability expands the range of moderate mitral regurgitation would allow a claimant to recover Matrix Benefits with an RJA/LAA ratio that does not meet the definition under the Settlement Agreement and would render meaningless this critical provision of the Settlement Agreement. Finally, contrary to the suggestion of Ms. Browning, causation of her medical condition is not at issue in resolving her claim for Matrix benefits. Rather, claimant is required to show that she meets the objective criteria set forth in the Settlement Agreement. For these reasons, Judge Bartle concludes that Ms. Browning has not met her burden of proving that there is a reasonable medical basis for finding that she had moderate mitral regurgitation. Therefore, he affirmed the Trust's denial of her claim for Matrix A-1, Level II benefits. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 7, 2018 Memorandum is available at https://is.gd/h8tKWC from Leagle.com. WILLIAMS DAILEY, Special Master, represented by MICHAEL L. WILLIAMS, WILLIAMS O'LEARY LLC. VIVIAN NAUGLE, QUINTIN LAYER, Plaintiffs, represented by ARNOLD LEVIN -- alevin@lfsblaw.com -- LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN, CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL PLACITELLA -- cplacitella@cprlaw.com -- COHEN PLACITELLA & ROTH PC, DIANNE M. NAST -- dnast@nastlaw.com -- NASTLAW LLC, GENE LOCKS -- glocks@lockslaw.com -- LOCKS LAW FIRM PLLC, JOHN J. CUMMINGS, III, CUMMINGS CUMMINGS & DUDENHEFER, MARK W. TANNER -- mtanner@feldmanshepherd.com -- FELDMAN, SHEPHERD, WOHLGELERNTER, TANNER & WEINSTOCK, MICHAEL D. FISHBEIN, LEVIN, FISHBEIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN, RICHARD S. LEWIS -- rlewis@hausfeld.com -- HAUSFELD LLP, RICHARD S. WAYNE -- rswayne@strausstroy.com -- STRAUSS & TROY, ROBERT ERIC KENNEDY, WEISMAN, KENNEDY & BERRIS, SOL H. WEISS -- sweiss@anapolweiss.com -- ANAPOL WEISS & STANLEY M. CHESLEY, WAITE, SCHNEIDER, BAYLESS & CHESLEY CO., L.P.A.. JOAN S. LAYER, Plaintiff, represented by SOL H. WEISS, ANAPOL WEISS. BRENDA CHAMBERS, ISABEL CONNOR, RANDY G. ALLEN, Appellants, represented by ARNOLD LEVIN, LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN. CHARLENE ALLSPAUGH, Appellant, pro se. DORIS ATANMO, Appellant, pro se. EVELYN AMEND, Appellant, pro se. JOAN BAKANOWSKY, Appellant, pro se. STEVEN BERKOWITZ, Appellant, pro se. KATHY BURROW, Appellant, pro se. LINDA BUSBY, Appellant, pro se. JO BUTTERFIELD, Appellant, pro se. LINDA CASTON, Appellant, pro se. AMERICAN HOME PRODUCTS CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by Andrew A. Chirls, Esq. -- achirls@finemanlawfirm.com -- FINEMAN KREKSTEIN & HARRIS PC; Kevin A. Cline, Esq. -- kevin.cline@aporter.com -- ARNOLD & PORTER LLP; Leslie Anne Benitez, Esq. -- lbenitez@gordonrees.com -- GORDON & REES LLP; Edward F. Hanover, III, Esq. -- ehanover@reedsmith.com -- Louis W. Schack, Esq. -- lschack@reedsmith.com -- and Milind M. Shah, Esq. -- mshah@reedsmith.com -- REED SMITH LLP. AMERICAN HOME PRODUCTS CORPORATION, Defendant, pro se. MDL 2100: Ct. Rules in Favor of Lead Counsel in Breach of Duty Row ------------------------------------------------------------------ The United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois granted Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in the case captioned JESSICA CASEY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ROGER DENTON, et al., Defendants. Case No. 3:17-cv-00521. (S.D. Cal.). Plaintiffs Jessica Casey, Melody Edwards, and Debbie Foster bring their amended class action complaint for reasons stemming from the multidistrict litigation centralized in this Court, In re Yasmin and YAZ (Drospirenone) Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, MDL 2100, No. 3:09-md-02100-DRH-CJP (MDL or Yaz MDL). The Yaz MDL consolidated personal injury lawsuits relating to various plaintiffs' use of Bayer Corporation-manufactured oral birth control, including YAZ, Yasmin, and the generic equivalent, Gianvi. More than 11,000 suits were consolidated into the Yaz MDL. According to YazMDL plaintiffs, the contraceptives caused their varying injuries as a result of thrombotic events triggered by the components used to make the drugs. In their Complaint, the plaintiffs allege that Lead and Liaison Counsel breached purported fiduciary duties by failing to address (or failing to delegate) the directives laid out in CMO No. 79. With regards to the Lead and Liaison Counsel Defendants, the plaintiffs specifically allege that fiduciary duties were breached by failing to determine the plaintiffs' statuses and obtaining their medical records and completing their Fact Sheets in accordance with CMO No. 79; failing to submit certificates of compliance for the plaintiffs as determined in CMO No. 79; failing to provide case-specific expert reports as required by CMO No. 79; and to the crux of this dispute, failing to respond to Bayer's motions to dismiss each plaintiffs' individual case. Lead and Liaison Counsel's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Lead and Liaison Counsel Defendants argue that the plaintiffs' position turns MDL leadership counsel into the individual attorneys for all cases comprising an MDL; here, in the Yaz MDL, some 11,000 lawsuits. The Lead and Liaison Counsel argue this position is not supported by the specific responsibilities and tasks imposed on them by this Court via Order No. 2 and further, that the plaintiffs have presented no facts that demonstrate the Lead and Liaison Counsel had fiduciary duties relating to the plaintiffs' individual cases as no attorney-client relationship existed between the Lead and Liaison Counsel Defendants and the plaintiffs. COUNT I - BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTIES AGAINST LEAD AND LIASION COUNSEL Order No. 2 To prevail on a breach of fiduciary duty claim, a plaintiff must prove (1) that a fiduciary duty exists; (2) that the fiduciary duty was breached; and (3) damages proximately caused by that breach. Here, Order No. 2 very clearly sets out what responsibilities the Lead and Liaison Counsel Defendants owed to the plaintiffs and it is clear from the text that Order No. 2 only imposed tasks geared towards facilitating general work product that could be used for the common good of all the plaintiffs. Examples of some of these specific duties include: Coordination of a document depository, real or virtual, to be available to all participating plaintiffs' counsel; to prepare agendas for court conferences; conduct all discovery in a coordinated and consolidated manner on behalf and for the benefit of all plaintiffs; explore, develop and pursue all settlement options pertaining to any claim or portion thereof; maintain adequate files of all pretrial matters. Clearly, responding to the specific directives of CMO No. 79 on behalf of a small section of individual plaintiffs was never a duty contemplated under Order No. 2. This is made clearer even further, by the plaintiffs CMO No. 79 applied to being represented by their own individual attorneys and Bayer's Orders to dismiss the same group of plaintiffs being filed in individual dockets. Function and Purpose of MDL Leadership Counsel Here, the undersigned selected and appointed Lead and Liaison Counsel specifically to aid in the fair, efficient, and economical running of the Yaz MDL; their duties to the plaintiffs enumerated in Order No. 2. These specific duties were established with the goal of leadership counsel coordinating general pretrial discovery and related tasks pertinent to all Yaz filings and to avoid duplicate filings from many individually-retained attorneys. It was never the intention or spirit of Order No. 2 to supersede the authority or importance of each plaintiff's individually-retained counsel when it came to specific matters unique to each case. Limited Fiduciary Relationship between MDL Plaintiffs and Leadership Counsel It is clear that while the Lead and Liaison Counsel Defendants did have specific duties owed to the plaintiffs as a whole in the Yaz MDL as listed in Order No. 2, none of those duties encompass the general breadth the plaintiffs would like read in to it that is, having lead counsel held responsible to responding to case-specific case management orders or filing responses to defendants' motions pertinent only to individual cases. However, this is not to say that no fiduciary duties potentially arise between the two groups when counsel fills leadership roles. Indeed, instead of how the plaintiffs purport the relationship functions, the fiduciary duties that may be created and owed by leadership counsel in an MDL context include obligations to act fairly, efficiently, and economically in the interests of all parties and parties' counsel. Put differently, lead and liaison counsel do not owe a fiduciary duty to each and every MDL plaintiff in the traditional sense. Rather, lead and liaison counsel should put the common and collective interests of all the plaintiffs first while they carry out their enumerated functions. This is a far cry from making leadership counsel liable to respond to every individual motion and request filed in each singular case. Plaintiffs' Interpretation of the Scope of Leadership Counsel Duties Makes Such Positions Unworkable Order No. 2 imposed duties on leadership counsel common to all Yaz MDL plaintiffs and a claim against Lead and Liaison Counsel can only stand if the alleged breach falls within the scope of the purported duty. Were Order No. 2 to make leadership counsel responsible for all tasks typically created and agreed upon in a standard attorney-client relationship, like, as alleged here, obtaining medical authorizations or records or obtaining case-specific experts for every distinct plaintiff, there would be no need for any of the individually retained attorneys and reading that interpretation into the Court's Order makes little sense. Leadership counsel of a MDL could not fathomably be held responsible for the minute details of hundreds or in this case, thousands, of individual cases. The proposition is unworkable. COUNT II - RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR CLAIM AGAINST LEAD AND LIAISON COUNSEL DEFENDANTS' RESPECTIVE LAW FIRMS Based on the Court's analysis finding no breach of fiduciary duty against the Lead and Liaison Counsel Defendants, the Court also finds, by necessity, that the plaintiffs' respondeat superior claim fails as it derives from the legally deficient first count. Accordingly, Lead and Liaison Counsel Defendants are also entitled to judgment on the pleadings as to Count 2 of the amended complaint. Accordingly, the Court grants Lead and Liaison Counsel's Rule 12(c) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, in its entirety A full-text copy of the District Court's September 3, 2018 Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ydgozmom from Leagle.com. Jessica Casey, individually,on behalf of themselves all others similarly situated, Melody Edwards, individually,on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated & Debbie Foster, individually, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Kevin B. Rogers, Law Office of Kevin Rogers. Daniel P. Massey, individually & Daniel Massey Law Firm, P.C., Defendants, represented by Jeannine S. Gilleran, Litchfield Cavo LLP & Mitchell H. Frazen, Litchfield Cavo LLP. David M. Peterson, individually & Peterson & Associates, P.C., Defendants, represented by James M. Brodzik -- jbrodzik@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP & Mark D. Bauman -- mbauman@hinshawla.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson. Gregory McEwen, individually & McEwen Law Firm, Ltd., Defendants, represented by A. J. Bronsky -- abronsky@bjpc.com -- Brown & James & Todd A. Lubben -- tlubben@bjpc.com -- Brown & James. MDL 2804: Sardella vs Purdue Pharma et al. Goes to N.D. Ohio ------------------------------------------------------------ LOU SARDELLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Purdue Pharma L.P., Purdue Pharma Inc.; Cephalon Inc.; Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.; Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Johnson & Johnson; Noramco Inc.; Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., now known as Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Janssen Pharmaceutical Inc., now known as Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Endo Health Solutions Inc.; Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Allergan PLC, formerly known as: Actavis PLS; Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., now known as Actavis Inc.; Watson Laboratories Inc.; Actavis Pharma, Inc., formerly known as: Watson Pharma, Inc.; Actavis LLC; Mallinckrodt PLC; Mallinckrodt LLC; McKesson Corporation; Cardinal Health Inc.; merisourceBergen Drug Corporation; and Purdue Frederick Company, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-08706, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Cleveland) on Aug. 22, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-op-45995-DAP to the proceeding. The Sardella case is being consolidated with MDL 2804 in re: NATIONAL PRESCRIPTION OPIATE LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on December 5, 2017. These cases concern the alleged improper marketing of and inappropriate distribution of various prescription opiate medications into cities, states and towns across the country. Responding plaintiffs' positions on centralization vary considerably. Plaintiffs in over 40 actions or potential tag-along actions support centralization. Plaintiffs in 15 actions or potential tag-along actions oppose centralization altogether or oppose transfer of their action. In addition to opposing transfer, the State of West Virginia suggests that the Panel delay transferring its case until the Southern District of West Virginia court decides its motion to remand to state court. Third party payor plaintiffs in an Eastern District of Pennsylvania potential tag-along action (Philadelphia Teachers Health and Welfare Fund) oppose centralization of third partypayor actions. Western District of Washington plaintiff City of Everett opposes centralization and, alternatively, requests exclusion of its case. Northern District of Illinois tag-along Plaintiff City of Chicago asks the Panel to defer transfer of its action until document discovery is completed. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Sarah S. Vance, United States District Judge. The lead case is 1:17-md-02804-DAP.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric H. Jaso, Esq. Spiro Harrison, Esq. 830 Morris Turnpike, Second Floor Short Hills, NJ 07078 Telephone: (973) 310 4026 Facsimile: (973) 232 0887 E-mail: ejaso@spiroharrison.com Attorneys for Johnson & Johnson and Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Eric Todd Kanefsky, Esq. CALCAGNI & KANEFSKY One Newark Center 1085 Raymond Blvd., 14th Floor Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (862) 397 1796 E-mail: eric@ck-litigation.com MEC GENERAL: Londono Seeks Overtime Wages under Labor Law --------------------------------------------------------- Oscar Londono, individually and on behalf of all other employees similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MEC General Construction Corp., MEC General Development Corporation, MEC General, Inc., MEC SUMMONS General Dry Wall Corp., Edmilson Delima a/k/a Eddie, Roselia Delima, and Marcos Benigno, the Defendants, Case No. 712944/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Aug. 21, 2018), seeks to recover overtime wages, damages for failure to provide wage statements, damages for failure to provide wage notice at the time of hiring, liquidated damages, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees from the Defendants for alleged violations of the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate compensation for the hours worked over 40 per week that he worked. The Defendants failed to maintain accurate records of the hours Plaintiff worked, failed to pay Plaintiff appropriately for any hours worked over 40, whether at the straight rate of pay, or for any additional overtime premium. The Defendants allegedly maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiff to work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing overtime compensation required by New York State law and regulations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lorena P. Duarte, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 10G Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (718) 353 8588 MENARD INC: Removes Scheffler Suit to D. Minnesota -------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of TROY K. SCHEFFLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MENARD, INC., Defendant, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Second Judicial District of the State of Minnesota, County of Ramsey (Case No. 62-CV-18-05280) to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on August 14, 2018, and assigned Case No. 0:18-cv-02373-SRN-LIB (D. Minn., Aug. 14, 2018). The case is assigned to Judge Susan Richard Nelson and referred to Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois. Menard, Inc. operates a chain of home improvement stores in the Midwestern United States. The company was founded in 1958 and is headquartered in Eau Claire, Wisconsin with store locations in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wyoming. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented pro se. Beth Louise LaCanne, Esq. Jessica C. Richardson, Esq. Steven E Tomsche, Esq. TOMSCHE SONNESYN & TOMSCHE, P.A. 8401 Golden Valley Road, Suite 250 Golden Valley, MN 55427 Telephone: (763) 521-4499 Facsimile: (763) 521-4482 E-mail: blacanne@tstlaw.com jrichardson@tstlaw.com stomsche@tstlaw.com METROPCS NEW YORK: James Murphy Suit Underway --------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against MetroPCS New York, LLC. The class action lawsuit is captioned as James Murphy, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MetroPCS New York, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06831 (S.D.N.Y., July 30, 2018). The suit alleges Americans with Disabilities Act violation. MetroPCS filed its Answer to the complaint on September 7. MetroPCS New York, LLC operates as a subsidiary of T-Mobile Northeast LLC.[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 MOSES H CONE: N.C. App. Affirms Dismissal of Awartani Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ANNAH AWARTANI; GILMA VARINIA BONILLA; CRYSTAL KIM PARKER, individually and for others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE MOSES H. CONE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL OPERATING CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. COA17-1300 (N.C. App.), Judge Richard Dietz of the Court of Appeals of North Carolina affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the Plaintiffs' putative class action. The Plaintiffs appeal the trial court's dismissal of their putative class action against the Defendant. The theory of their lawsuit is that the doctrine of necessaries -- a legal principle that makes a spouse liable for the other spouse's medical expenses -- violates the Women's Property Clause of the North Carolina Constitution, which provides that a woman's property cannot be subject to debts incurred by her husband. After the trial court dismissed their claims, the Plaintiffs sought to bypass the Appellate Court and have the state Supreme Court hear the case directly through discretionary review. They also asked the Supreme Court, alternatively, to exercise its supervisory authority and instruct the Appellate Court to ignore its earlier precedent because without such direction from the Court, it seems likely that no Court of Appeals panel will engage with the constitutional issues. The Supreme Court denied their requests. The Plaintiffs took these unusual steps in the Supreme Court because the Appellate Court already addressed their legal theory several years ago. In Moses H. Cone Mem'l Hosp. Operating Corp. v. Hawley, it rejected the argument that the doctrine of necessaries was inconsistent with article X, section 4 of the N.C. Constitution. Judge Dietz holds that many decisions of the Court, given their caseload, lack the depth of analysis typical of the Supreme Court's decisions. If this lack of legal analysis on its own deprived an opinion of precedential value, much of their jurisprudence suddenly would cease to be controlling. He declines the Plaintiffs' invitation to unsettle so much of their own precedent. What matters is not the quality of Hawley's legal reasoning, but that Hawley considered and rejected the same constitutional argument that the Plaintiffs assert. Accordingly, bound by their decision in Hawley, Judge Dietz rejected the Plaintiffs' argument and affirmed the trial court. If the Plaintiffs desire further review of the constitutional issue, they must seek relief from the Supreme Court. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 7, 2018 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/OMvRAd from Leagle.com. Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey & Leonard, L.L.P., by Daniel F. E. Smith -- dsmith@brookspierce.com -- Robert J. King III -- rking@brookspierce.com -- and Elizabeth Troutman -- etroutman@brookspierce.com -- for plaintiffs-appellants. Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP, by Matthew Nis Leerberg -- matt.leerberg@smithmoorelaw.com -- and Maureen Demarest Murray -- maureen.murray@smithmoorelaw.com -- for defendant-appellee. MSG SPORTS: Murphy Drops Suit over Disabilities Act Violation ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as, James Murphy, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MSG Sports & Entertainment, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06830-VSB (S.D.N.Y., July 30, 2018), the Plaintiff filed on September 4, 2018, a notice of voluntary dismissal, without prejudice and without costs against the defendant. The suit alleged Americans with Disabilities Act violation. The Madison Square Garden Company is an American sports and entertainment holding company based in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Telephone: (917) 299 6612 Facsimile: (929) 575 4195 E-mail: joseph@cml.legal NATIONAL AMUSEMENTS: Faces Burbon Suit Asserting ADA Violation --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Amusements, Inc. The case is captioned as Luc Burbon, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. National Amusements, Inc., doing business as: Showcase Cinemas, Case No. 1:18-cv-08159 (S.D.N.Y., September 6, 2018). The Plaintiff alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. National Amusements Inc., doing business as Showcase Cinemas, operates as a motion picture exhibition company. The Company also provides online ticketing, restaurant, and bar services.[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 NATIONAL RESEARCH: Still Defends Suits in Nebraska and Wisconsin ---------------------------------------------------------------- National Research 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 the company continues to defend against a class action lawsuit filed in Nebraska and Wisconsin. Since the September 2017 announcement of the original proposed recapitalization plan ("Original Transaction"), three purported class action and/or derivative complaints have been filed in state or federal courts by three individuals claiming to be shareholders of the Company. All of the complaints name as defendants the Company and the individual directors of the Company. Two of these lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska, a putative class action lawsuit captioned Gennaro v. National Research Corporation, et al., which was filed on November 15, 2017, and a putative class and derivative action lawsuit captioned Gerson v. Hays, et al., which was filed on November 16, 2017. These lawsuits were consolidated by order of the federal court under the caption In re National Research Corporation Shareholder Litigation. A third lawsuit was filed in the Circuit Court for Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, a putative class action lawsuit captioned Apfel v. Hays, et al., which was filed on December 1, 2017. The allegations in all of the lawsuits were very similar. The plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the allegedly unfair proposed transaction, at an allegedly unfair price, conducted in an allegedly unfair and conflicted process and in alleged violation of Wisconsin law and the Company's Articles of Incorporation. The plaintiffs in these lawsuits sought, among other things, an injunction enjoining the defendants from consummating the Original Transaction, damages, equitable relief and an award of attorneys' fees and costs of litigation. After the announcement of a revised proposed recapitalization plan (the "Recapitalization"), the plaintiffs abandoned their efforts to enjoin the transaction. However, the plaintiffs in In re National Research Corporation Shareholder Litigation in Nebraska filed an Amended Complaint on March 23, 2018 seeking damages for alleged breach of fiduciary duties in connection with the Original Transaction and alleged omission of material facts in the proxy statement relating to the Recapitalization. The plaintiffs in the Apfel case in Wisconsin filed an amended complaint on April 4, 2018 seeking damages for alleged breach of fiduciary duties in connection with the Original Transaction and the Recapitalization. National Research said, "The Company and its directors will defend themselves against these lawsuits vigorously, and have moved to dismiss both lawsuits. These motions are pending. As of June 30, 2018, no losses have been accrued as the Company does not believe the losses are probable or estimable." National Research Corporation provides analytics and insights that facilitate measurement and enhancement of the patient and employee experience in the United States and Canada. The company was founded in 1981 and is headquartered in Lincoln, Nebraska. NESTLE USA: Pretrial Conference in Murphy Suit Set for Oct. 10 -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nestle USA, Inc. The class action lawsuit is captioned as James Murphy, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Nestle USA, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06833 (S.D.N.Y., July 30, 2018). The suit alleges Americans with Disabilities Act violation. An Initial Pretrial Conference is set for October 10 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 11A, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge George B. Daniels. Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses is designated to the case. Nestle USA produces and markets food and beverage products in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Telephone: (917) 299 6612 Facsimile: (929) 575 4195 E-mail: joseph@cml.legal NEW RIVER HOSPITALITY: Needelman Sues Over Illegal SMS Ads ---------------------------------------------------------- Alexander Needelman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. New River Hospitality Holdings, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-22577, (S.D. Fla., June 26, 2018), seeks statutory damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Defendant operates a restaurant in Fort Lauderdale FL. To promote its services, Defendant engages in unsolicited SMS marketing. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: 305-479-2299 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com NORTH AMERICAN BANCARD: Amended Bid to Certify Junk Fax Class OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, WEST LOOP CHIROPRACTIC & SPORTS INJURY CENTER, LTD., and WEST LOOP HEALTH & SPORTS PERFORMANCE CENTER, LLC, on behalf of plaintiffs and the class members defined herein, Plaintiffs, v. NORTH AMERICAN BANCARD, LLC, and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 16 C 5856 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Ronald A. Guzman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted the Plaintiffs' amended motion for class certification. The case is a "junk fax" case. After allegedly having received unsolicited facsimile advertisements for NAB's goods and services, Plaintiffs West Loop Chiropractic and West Loop Health brought the putative class action against NAB for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the Plaintiffs move for certification of a class of all persons with fax numbers, who during the Class Period, were sent faxes by or on behalf of NAB promoting its goods or services for sale. The "Class Period" is defined as April 6, 8, 12, 18, 20, 25, 26, 27, and 28; May 4, 9, 12, 20, 25, and 26; June 8 and 23; and Aug. 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 18, and 23, 2016. After the Court referred the Plaintiffs' amended motion to Magistrate Judge Gilbert, Judge Gilbert issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the Court grants the motion. NAB filed objections to the Report and Recommendation pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72. NAB first argues that Judge Gilbert erred by concluding that the Plaintiffs have satisfied the numerosity requirement. Judge Guzman agrees with Judge Gilbert's well-reasoned analysis and his conclusion that the Plaintiffs have demonstrated numerosity. The Plaintiffs have made the showing that it is reasonable to believe that a substantial number of those faxes were sent by MPP on behalf of NAB. Judge Gilbert did reason that the number of faxes sent during the Class Period equates to approximately one or one-half minute per transmission, which is not consistent with individualized transactions with consent. Judge Guzman agrees and therefore will overrule NAB's Objection #1. Judge Gilbert concluded that the Plaintiffs have satisfied the commonality and typicality requirements because each of the putative class members has been subjected to the same practice as the Plaintiffs, namely, was sent a fax on NAB's behalf that promoted NAB's goods and services, and common questions in similar TCPA cases include whether a given fax is an advertisement under the statute. Judge Guzman agrees. The Plaintiffs have submitted evidence that they did not consent to receive the NAB faxes, as well as evidence that the faxing activity was broadcasting -- mass advertising -- which lends itself to a common adjudication of the consent issue. Therefore, he will overrule NAB's Objection #2. He also will overruled Objection #3. NAB objects to the conclusion that the Plaintiffs can serve as adequate representatives, on the ground that the consent defense applies to them. He finds that the Plaintiffs are adequate class representatives. He agrees with Judge Gilbert's determination that because NAB offers only vague assertions and not specific evidence to show that a significant percentage of the putative class members consented to receive the NAB faxes, there is no basis to conclude that individualized issues of consent will predominate over common questions. Accordingly, he will overrule Objection #4. After de novo review of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, the filings submitted with respect to the motion, the Report and Recommendation, the Objections, and the materials filed with respect to the Objections, the Judge determines that the Report and Recommendation was correct in all respects. Accordingly, he adopted the Report and Recommendation in full and granted the Plaintiffs' amended motion for class certification. A status hearing is set for Aug. 21, 2018, at 9:30 a.m. to discuss the next steps in the case. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 7, 2018 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/hNxFW0 from Leagle.com. West Loop Chiropractic & Sports Injury Center, Ltd., on behalf of plaintiffs and the class members defined herin & West Loop Health & Sports Performance Center, LLC, on behalf of plaintiffs and the class members defined herin, Plaintiffs, represented by Daniel A. Edelman -- dedelman@edcombs.com -- Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin LLC, Cathleen M. Combs, Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin LLC, Heather A. Kolbus, Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC & James O. Latturner, Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin LLC. North American Bancard, LLC, Defendant, represented by Beth-Ann E. Krimsky -- beth-ann.krimsky@gmlaw.com -- Greenspoon Marder P.a., pro hac vice, Lawren Zann -- lawren.zann@gmlaw.com -- Greenspoon Marder, Pa, pro hac vice & Timothy A. Hudson -- thudson@tdrlawfirm.com -- Tabet DiVito Rothstein. NORTH AMERICAN POWER: Settlement in Edwards Has Final Approval -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, PAUL EDWARDS, GERRY WENDROVSKY, SANDRA DESROSIERS, and LINDA SOFFRON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. NORTH AMERICAN POWER & GAS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:14-cv-01714 (VAB) (D. Conn.), Judge Victor A. Bolden of the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement. Paul Edwards, on behalf of himself and all persons similarly situated, filed the initial Class Action Complaint, alleging that North American Power & Gas ("NAPG") falsely advertised low rates in order to induce customers into switching their energy provider. The Plaintiffs claim that NAPG expressly breached its contracts with class members, as well as the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, by allegedly advertising its variable rates would fluctuate with the market but failing to do so. Additionally, several of the the Plaintiffs allege violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act ("CUTPA") on behalf of a putative sub-class. Following settlement discussions between the parties in the action and those pending elsewhere, the parties reached a settlement under which they intend to resolve five cases involving NAPG's alleged misrepresentations. The proposed settlement would involve the claims of the class members in 11 states for breach of contract and alleged violation of state consumer protection laws. After notifying the Court of the proposed settlement, the Plaintiffs moved for preliminary approval on Jan. 16, 2018. The Court granted preliminary approval on March 30, 2018. The Plaintiffs now move for final approval of the class action settlement. They seek the following: (i) certification of the settlement class; (ii) appointment of the Plaintiffs as representatives of the class; (iii) appointment of their lawyers as the class counsel; (iv) approval of the Class Action Settlement; and, (v) approval of their proposed attorneys' fees and expenses. The Court took the motion under advisement at a final fairness hearing, held on Aug. 1, 2018. Upon reviewing the Settlement Agreement, all the filings submitted in connection with the motion, and the information presented at the hearing, Judge Bolden granted the motion. Under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and for purposes of, and solely in connection with, the Settlement, the Judge certified the action as a class action on behalf of the Settlement Class defined as all persons who, at any time from Feb. 20, 2012 to June 5, 2017 were customers of NAPG and paid NAPG variable rates for electricity and/or natural gas in Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Georgia or Texas. Seventeen persons who fall within the definition of the Settlement Class have requested to opt out of the Settlement and have complied with the procedures established by the Settlement Agreement and this Court. These individuals will not be bound by the terms of the Settlement Agreement: Shakelia Sumrell, Rosalind Tobin, Richard Daloe, Phyllis Kolenda, Darrell Greene, Jr., Nerwyn Whynot, Jerry L. Rowe, George E. Chenier, Jr., Robert Weir, Jama Rothschild, Reginald J. Williams, Alden R. Witt, Robert W. Nedd, George P. Taylor, Tammy Held, Teresa Marois, and Joan Costabile. The Plaintiffs have requested $3,154,805.12 in attorneys' fees for the Class Counsel. Upon consideration of the Plaintiffs' Motion for an Award of Fees, the Motion is granted. Consistent with Section 7.5 of the Settlement Agreement, the Defendants will pay the Class Counsel $3,154,805.12 in attorneys' fees, consistent with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Under the Settlement Agreement, this award will be paid separate and apart from the amounts received by members of the Settling Class. The Plaintiffs have requested $474,194.88 in expenses for the Class Counsel. Upon consideration of the Plaintiffs' Motion for an Award of Expenses, the Motion is granted. Consistent with Section 7.5 of the Settlement Agreement, the Defendants will pay Class Counsel $474,194.88 in expenses, consistent with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Per the Settlement Agreement, this award will be paid separate and apart from the amounts received by members of the Settling Class. The Plaintiffs have requested $5,000 each as Plaintiff Service Awards. Upon consideration of their request for Plaintiff Service Awards, the request is granted. Consistent with the terms of Section 7.5 of the Settlement Agreement, the Defendant will pay Paul Edwards, Gerry Wendrovsky, Sandra Desrosiers, Linda Soffron, John Arcaro, Michael Tully, David Fritz and Peggy Zahn a Service Award in the amount of $5,000 each. Per the Settlement Agreement, these Service Awards will be paid separate and apart from the amounts received by members of the Settling Class. Within 120 days from the Effective Date, the Settlement Administrator will destroy all personally identifying information about any Class Member in its possession, custody, or control, including (but not limited to) any list that the Settlement Administrator received from Defendant in connection with the Settlement Administrator's efforts to provide Notice to Class Members. The Ruling and Order is a final, appealable order, and will constitute a judgment for purposes of Rules 54 and 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. By incorporating the Settlement Agreement's terms herein, Judge Bolden determines that the Final Judgment complies in all respect with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(1). The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 3, 2018 Ruling and Order is available at https://is.gd/LhpBon from Leagle.com. Paul T. Edwards, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Robert A. Izard, Jr. -- rizard@izardnobel.com -- Izard Nobel, LLP & Seth R. Klein -- sklein@izardnobel.com -- Izard Nobel PC. Gerry Wendrovsky, Linda Soffron & Sandra Desrosiers, Plaintiffs, represented by Craig A. Raabe, Izard, Kindall & Raabe LLP & Seth R. Klein, Izard Kindall & Raabe. North American Power & Gas, LLC, Defendant, represented by Peter George Siachos, Gordon & Rees, pro hac vice, Greil Roberts -- groberts@gordonrees.com -- Gordon & Rees LLP & William E. Murray -- wmurray@gordonrees.com -- Gordon & Rees LLP. NORTHCENTRAL UNIVERSITY: Faces Torres Suit in S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northcentral University, Inc. The case is styled as Christina Torres, Individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Northcentral University, Inc., Case No. 3:18-cv-02069-BEN-WVG (S.D. Cal., September 6, 2018). The nature of suit is stated as "Contract: Other." Northcentral University Inc. was founded in 2009. The Company's line of business includes the operation of colleges and universities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam B. Wolf, Esq. PEIFFER ROSCA WOLF ABDULLAH CARR & KANE APLC 4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 766-3545 Facsimile: (415) 402-0058 E-mail: awolf@prwlegal.com OCERA THERAPEUTICS: Sept. 27 Hearing on Bid to Junk Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, moved the hearing to consider approval of the Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned IN RE OCERA THERAPEUTICS, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION. Lease Case No. 3:17-cv-06687-RS. (N.D. Cal.), to September 27, 2018. A full-text copy of the District Court's September 6, 2018 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9anc3e4 from Leagle.com. Samuel P. Clarke, Plaintiff, represented by Rosemary M. Rivas -- rrivas@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky LLP, Donald J. Enright -- denright@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP & Elizabeth K. Tripodi -- denright@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP. William Paulus, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Rosemary M. Rivas, Levi & Korsinsky LLP, David Eldridge Bower -- dbower@monteverdelaw.com -- Monteverde & Associates PC & Juan E. Monteverde -- jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com -- Monteverde & Associates PC. Ocera Therapeutics, Inc., Eckard Weber, Linda Grais, Wendell Wierenga, Anne Vanlent, Steven James, Nina Kjellson, Willard Dere, Mallinckrodt plc, MAK LLC & MEH Acquisition Co., Defendants, represented by Anna Erickson White -- AVickery@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP & Christin Joy Hill -- chill@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP. OHIO: Sheriff Faces Oscar Washington Class Suit ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jim Neil. The class action is captioned as Oscar L. Washington, Jr., by Limited Appearance on behalf of himself, and other persons similarly situated, the Petitioner, v. Jim Neil, Sheriff; Sgt. Donald McWhorter; Mayor Dan Pillow; Robert G. Kelly, Solicitor; Walter C. Wurster, Magistrate; Jennifer Bishop, City Prosecuting Attorney; Curt Kissinger, Municipal Court Judge; Joseph T. Deters, County Prosecuting Attorney; Mike DeWine, Attorney General; Michael Backhman, Hamilton County Magistrate; Alexandria Thurner, Felony Trial Counsel; Robert P Ruehlman, Common Pleas Judge; Russell J. Mock, First District Court of Appeals Judge; Maureen O'Connor's, Supreme Court of Ohio Judge, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00589-MRB-KLL (S.D. Ohio, Aug. 21, 2018). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Michael R. Barrett. Ohio is a midwestern U.S. state stretching from the Ohio River and Appalachian Mountains in the south to Lake Erie in the north. On the shores of the lake is the city of Cleveland, site of the Cleveland Museum of Art and its renowned collection of European paintings and especially Asian art.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. OLD WORLD: Quintanilla Action to Recover Overtime Pay ----------------------------------------------------- Fredy Cermeno Quintanilla, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Old World Quality Corp., Old World Quality Plumbing & Heating Corp. and Vincent Muldoon, Defendants, Case 18-cv-03712 (E.D. N.Y., June 26, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime wages, and statutory damages under the New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act. Old World, is a general contracting firm engaged in construction and renovations where Plaintiff provided manual labor for Defendant. Throughout his employment with Old World, Quintanilla regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week without being paid overtime, notes the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Peter A. Romero, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC 103 Cooper Street Babylon, NY 11702 Tel. (631) 257-5588 Email: promero@romerolawny.com OTG MANAGEMENT: Pugh Seeks Withheld Tips, Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Pugh, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. OTG Management IAH, LLC, OTG Management, LLC and OTG Management, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-02152 (S.D. Tex., June 26, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees owed to him under the Fair Labor Standards Act. OTG Management IAH, LLC, OTG Management, LLC and OTG Management, Inc. own and operate restaurants located in airports around the country, including the Bush Intercontinental Airport. OTG allegedly failed to pay its servers a minimum wage based on an impermissible tip credit and overtime compensation for their overtime hours worked. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Siurek, Esq. Patricia Haylon WARREN & SIUREK, L.L.P. 3334 Richmond Ave, Suite 100 Houston, TX 77098 Tel: (713) 522-0066 Fax: (713) 522-9977 Email: msiurek@warrensiurek.com thaylon@warrensiurek.com PAPA MURPHY'S: Court Awards $1.85MM Attorney's Fees --------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Tacoma, issued an Order adjusting downward the Plaintiff's Attorney's Fees in the case captioned JOHN LENNARTSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PAPA MURPHY'S INTERNATIONAL LLC, Defendant. Case No. C15-5307 RBL. (W.D. Wash.). This matter before the Court is Plaintiff Lennartson's Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Payment of Service Awards to Named Plaintiffs. The class seeks $2,050,000 in fees and costs, which it claims is both far less than the lodestar amount (hours times rates) than it spent on the case (more than $5,400,000), and far less than the class action benchmark of 25% of the common fund created by the settlement, which it claims is over $23,000,000. After determining the lodestar figure, the court should then determine whether to adjust the lodestar figure up or down, based on factors not subsumed in the lodestar figure. The court agrees that the $23,000,000 potential total value of the settlement is not a common fund, and the reasonableness of the fee should not be measured against that amount. The question is whether a roughly $1.8 million fee is reasonable in light of the effort it took to settle this case on the terms that the parties agreed upon. Twenty billers is an eyebrow-raising number of attorneys, even if the settlement actually approached $23 million. More importantly, Papa Murphy's persuasively argues that, based on the redemption rate so far, the benefit to the class is quite unlikely to approach that amount: each class member got two $5 vouchers that are not worth anything unless and until they are redeemed at Papa Murphy's. Including the agreed-upon $400,000 administrative fee, the class benefit is likely to be less than $1,000,000. The Court agrees that a downward adjustment is appropriate. The Court will award $1,850,000 in fees and costs. The requested Named Plaintiff Service Awards ($15,000 each) are not opposed, and are awarded as well. A full-text copy of the District Court's September 6, 2018 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9cpod3l from Leagle.com. Rita Andrews, Cassie Asleson, Susan Shay Nohr & John Lennartson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Karin Bornstein Swope -- kswope@kellerrohrback.com -- KELLER ROHRBACK, Mark Adam Griffin -- mgriffin@kellerrohrback.com -- KELLER ROHRBACK, Behdad C. Sadeghi -- behdad.sadeghi@zimmreed.com -- ZIMMERMAN REED LLP, pro hac vice & June P. Hoidal -- june.hoidal@zimmreed.com -- ZIMMERMAN REED LLP, pro hac vice. Phizzle, Inc., Interested Party, represented by Jeffrey Lombard -- jlombard@cooley.com -- COOLEY LLP. Upland Software, Inc., Interested Party, represented by Rogelio Omar Riojas, GOLDFARB & HUCK ROTH RIOJAS, PLLC. Papa Murphy's Holdings, Inc. & Papa Murphy's International LLC, Defendants, represented by Anthony Todaro -- anthony.todaro@dlapiper.com -- DLA PIPER US LLP, Jeffrey B. DeGroot -- jeffrey.degroot@dlapiper.com -- DLA PIPER US LLP & Stellman Keehnel -- stellman.keehnel@dlapiper.com -- DLA PIPER US LLP. PFIZER INC: Faces Sullivan Suit in Southern District of New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pfizer Inc. The class action is captioned as Phillip Sullivan, Jr., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Pfizer Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-07624 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 21, 2018). The suit alleges Americans with Disabilities Act violation. Pfizer Inc. is an American pharmaceutical corporation headquartered in New York City, with its research headquarters in Groton, Connecticut. Pfizer is one of the world's largest pharmaceutical companies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 465 1188 Facsimile: (212) 465 1181 E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com PFIZER INC: Settlement with Celbrex Direct Purchasers Approved -------------------------------------------------------------- Pfizer 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 court has granted approval to the $94 million agreement entered into by the company and direct purchasers of Celebrex to settle a class action lawsuit. Beginning in July 2014, purported class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against Pfizer and certain subsidiaries of Pfizer relating to Celebrex. The plaintiffs sought to represent U.S. nationwide or multi-state classes consisting of persons or entities who directly purchased from the defendants, or indirectly purchased or reimbursed patients for some or all of the purchase price of, Celebrex or generic Celebrex from May 31, 2014 until the cessation of the defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct. The plaintiffs alleged delay in the launch of generic Celebrex in violation of federal antitrust laws or certain state antitrust, consumer protection and various other laws as a result of Pfizer fraudulently obtaining and improperly listing a patent on Celebrex, engaging in sham litigation and prolonging the impact of sham litigation through settlement activity that further delayed generic entry. Each of the actions sought treble damages on behalf of the putative class for alleged price overcharges for Celebrex since May 31, 2014. In December 2014, the District Court granted the parties' joint motions to consolidate the direct purchaser and end-payer cases, and all such cases were consolidated as of March 2015. In October 2014 and March 2015, the company filed motions to dismiss the direct purchasers' and end-payers' amended complaints, respectively. In November 2015, the District Court denied in part and granted in part our motion to dismiss the direct purchasers’ amended complaint. In February 2016, the District Court denied in part and granted in part the company's motion to dismiss the end-payers' amended complaint, and in August 2016, the District Court dismissed substantially all of the end-payers' remaining claims. In February 2017, the District Court dismissed with prejudice all of the end-payers' claims. In March 2017, the end-payers appealed the District Court's order dismissing their claims with prejudice to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. In August 2017, the District Court granted the direct purchasers' motion for class certification. In November 2017, Pfizer and the direct purchasers entered into an agreement to resolve the direct purchasers' class action for $94 million. In April 2018, the court approved the agreement. In November 2017, Pfizer and the end-payers entered into an agreement to resolve the claims of the end-payer plaintiffs on terms not material to Pfizer. Pfizer Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells healthcare products worldwide. It operates in two segments, Pfizer Innovative Health (IH) and Pfizer Essential Health (EH). Pfizer Inc. was founded in 1849 and is headquartered in New York, New York. PIONEER HOMECARE: Rodriguez Action Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay ---------------------------------------------------------------- Marisol Rodriguez, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Pioneer Homecare, Inc. and Patience Emenike, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-05786 (S.D. N.Y. June 26, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime wages, and statutory damages under the New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act. Pioneer Homecare is a home health care agency located at 801E 241st St., Bronx, NY where Rodriguez worked as a nurse scheduling coordinator. Throughout his employment with Pioneer, Rodriguez regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week without being paid overtime, notes the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Lawrence Spasojevich, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JAMES F. SULLIVAN PC 52 Duane St., 7th Floor New York, NY 11702 Tel. (212) 374-0009 Fax: (212) 374-9931 Email: ls@jfslaw.net POLARITYTE INC: Moreno Hits Stock Price Drop From Denied Patent --------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Moreno, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PolarityTE, Inc., Denver Lough and Jeff Dyer, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00510, (D. Utah, June 26, 2018), seeks compensatory and punitive damages in favor of Plaintiff, jointly and severally, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and experts' fees and other costs and disbursements and such other relief for violations of the federal securities laws. PolarityTE is a commercial-stage biotechnology and regenerative biomaterials company focused on discovering, designing and developing a range of regenerative tissue products and biomaterials for the fields of medicine, biomedical engineering and material sciences. Its key development is SkinTE, used in split-thickness skin grafting, full-thickness grafting, temporizing skin coverage and/or skin substitute products. However, on June 4, 2018, the US Patent Office rejected the patent for this technology. On this news, PolarityTE stock plunged from $38.97 at the close of Friday, June 22, 2018 to an open of $25.60 on Tuesday, June 26, 2018, a loss of more than 34%. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: David W. Scofield, Esq. PETERS SCOFIELD - A Professional Corporation 7430 Creek Road, Suite 303 Sandy, UT 84093-6160 Telephone: (801) 322-2002 Facsimile: (801) 912-0320 Email: dws@psplawyers.com PURDUE PHARMA: Faces Hopkins RICO Suit in District of Arizona ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Purdue Pharma LP et al. The class action is captioned as F Kirk Hopkins, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Purdue Pharma LP; Purdue Pharma Incorporated; Purdue Frederick Company Incorporated; Insys Therapeutics Incorporated; Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Incorporated; Cephalon Incorporated; Johnson & Johnson; Janssen Pharmaceuticals Incorporated; Endo Health Solutions Incorporated; Endo Pharmaceuticals Incorporated; Actavis PLC; Actavis Incorporated; Watson Pharmaceuticals Incorporated; Watson Laboratories Incorporated; McKesson Corporation; Cardinal Health Incorporated; and AmerisourceBergen Corporation, the Defendants, Case No. (D. Ariz., Aug. 22, 2018). The suit alleges Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act violation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Eileen S Willett. Purdue Pharma is a privately held pharmaceutical company owned principally by parties and descendants of Mortimer and Raymond Sackler.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Julia Anne Wagner, Esq. Sean James O'Hara, Esq. Todd Feltus, Esq. KERCSMAR & FELTUS PLLC 7150 E Camelback Rd., Ste. 285 Scottsdale, AZ 85251 Telephone: (480) 421 1001 Facsimile: (480) 421 1002 E-mail: jaw@kflawaz.com sjo@kflawaz.com tfeltus@kflawaz.com RANDALL-REILLY LLC: Murphy Sues Over Unsolicited SMS Ads -------------------------------------------------------- Anthony Patrick Murphy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Randall-Reilly LLC,, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00519, (N.D. Tex., June 26, 2018), seeks to obtain redress, including injunctive relief for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Randall-Reilly is a provider of business data and marketing services, as well as media and events for the transportation industry. Defendant contacts potential clients by sending solicitation text messages to their cellular phones in an effort to recruit drivers for Uber, an on-demand transportation service. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana Opitz, Esq. 3108 San Sebastian Carrollton, TX 75006 Tel: (682) 309-4862 Email: danamarie15@gmail.com - and - Stefan Coleman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A. 201 s. Biscayne Blvd., 28th floor Miami, FL 33131 Tel: (877) 333-9427 Fax: (888) 498.8946 Email: law@stefancoleman.com - and - Avi R. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 400 NW 26TH Street Miami, FL 33127 Tel: (305) 469-5881 Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com REGAL CINEMAS: Mendez Sues Over Disabilities Act Violations ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Regal Cinemas, Inc. The case is titled as Himelda Mendez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Regal Cinemas, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-08160 (S.D.N.Y., September 6, 2018). The Plaintiff accuses the Defendant of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act. Regal Cinemas, Inc., operates a chain of movie theaters in the United States. The Company was founded in 1989 and is based in Knoxville, Tennessee. Regal Cinemas, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Regal Entertainment Group.[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 RETRIEVAL-MASTERS: Dismissal of St. Pierre's FDCPA Suit Affirmed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Cheryl Ann Krause of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the cases, THOMAS E. ST. PIERRE, Appellant in No. 17-1731, v. RETRIEVAL-MASTERS CREDITORS BUREAU, INC., Appellant in No. 17-1941, Case Nos. 17-1731, 17-1941 (3d Cir.). St. Pierre is a New Jersey resident and the registered owner of a car that he sometimes drives on New Jersey highways. On those occasions, he is subject to New Jersey's statutory toll requirements. Like many car owners in New Jersey, St. Pierre chose to sign up for New Jersey E-ZPass, an electronic toll payment program that facilitates toll collection. E-ZPass accountholders agree to certain terms and conditions. When St. Pierre's E-ZPass account fell into arrears because he failed to maintain a positive balance, E-ZPass assigned it to Appellee Retrieval-Masters Credit Bureau, Inc. ("RMCB"), a private debt collection agency, which, in turn, sent St. Pierre a collection letter for outstanding violations owed for toll evasions in the amount of $1,200.75. At issue in the case, however, is not the letter itself but the envelope in which the letter was sent. Visible through the glassine window of that envelope was not only St. Pierre's name and address, but also a quick response code and St. Pierre's account number. St. Pierre's amended class action complaint alleges that the disclosure of these two pieces of information on the envelope violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), which prohibits the use of any unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt. Tthe crux of the appeal: Whether the unpaid highway tolls reflects a consumer's obligation arising out of a transaction in which the services which are the subject of the transaction are primarily for personal, family, or household purposes; or a legal obligation in the nature of a tax that falls outside the scope of the FDCPA. The District Court concluded the latter. Although it held as a threshold matter that St. Pierre had alleged an injury sufficiently concrete to confer Article III standing and, by extension, federal jurisdiction, St. Pierre v. Retrieval-Masters Creditors Bureau, Inc., it dismissed St. Pierre's complaint on the ground that unpaid highway tolls do not constitute "debt" and therefore failed to state a claim for a violation of the FDCPA. St. Pierre filed the appeal challenging the District Court's characterization of the obligation to pay highway tolls, and RMCB cross-appealed, challenging the Court's ruling on standing. Judge Krause holds that the District Court properly concluded that a violation of Section 1692f(8) is a legally cognizable injury that confers standing on St. Pierre. Even if Section 1692f(8) contains a benign language exception, the exposure of a debtor's account number through a glassine window is not benign because she cannot find language exempt from Section 1692f(8) if its disclosure on an envelope would run counter to the very reasons Congress enacted the FDCPA. The Judge turns to the substance of St. Pierre's claim under the FDCPA. She concludes that the obligation to pay highway tolls does not satisfy the definition of "debt" under the FDCPA. St. Pierre's obligation to pay highway tolls does arise out of a transaction within the meaning of the FDCPA, but while that gives him some momentum, he cannot cross the finish line for an FDCPA claim unless the subject of the transaction is primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. In sum, the Judge holds that the FDCPA is not implicated where the bulk, if not all of the services rendered, are made without reference to peculiar benefits to particular individuals or property. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Krause affirmed the judgment of the District Court. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 7, 2018 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/ozPrCu from Leagle.com. Michael J. Quirk, Esq. [ARGUED], Berezofsky Law Group, 40 West Evergreen Avenue, Suite 104, Philadelphia, PA 19118-3324, Peter Colonna Romano, Esq., Berezofsky Law Group, Woodland Falls Corporate Center, 210 Lake Drive East, Suite 101, Cherry Hill, NJ 08002. Christopher Markos -- cmarkos@williamscedar.com -- Esq. , Williams Cedar, 1515 Market Street, Suite 1300, Philadelphia, PA 19102, Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellant Thomas E. St. Pierre. Joel D. Bertocchi, Esq. -- joel.bertocchi@akerman.com -- Carlos A. Ortiz, Esq. -- cortiz@hinshawlaw.com -- Louis J. Manetti, Jr. -- LManetti@hinshawlaw.com -- David M. Schultz, Esq. -- dschultz@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, 151 North Franklin Street, Suite 2500, Chicago, IL 60606, Han Sheng Beh, Esq. , Hinshaw & Culbertson, 800 Third Avenue, 13th Floor, New York, NY 10022, Attorneys for Defendant-Appellee Retrieval-Masters, Creditors Bureau, Inc. SEARS ROEBUCK: $$497K Attorneys' Fees Awarded in Washer Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, In re: SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO. FRONT-LOADING WASHER PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. This Document Relates to CCU Claims, Case No. 06 C 7023, Consolidated with Case No. 07 C 0412, No. 08 C 1832 (N.D. Ill.), Magistrate Judge Mary M. Rowland of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted in part the Plaintiffs' Supplemental Motion for Attorneys' Fees. The case is a class action brought by washing machine purchasers against Sears. Whirlpool intervened in the action. On Feb. 29, 2016, following 10 years of litigation, the Court approved the parties' Settlement Agreement, resolving the Plaintiffs' warranty claims under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, as well as state law warranty claims. Under the Settlement Agreement, the parties agreed that the Defendants would pay the Class Counsel reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, without reducing the amount of money available to pay Valid Claims submitted by Settlement Class Members. The parties further agreed that the amount of attorneys' fees will be determined by the Court. On Nov. 16, 2015, the Plaintiffs filed a fee petition requesting an award of $6 million to the class counsel. The Defendants argued that the Plaintiffs' request was unreasonable and asked the Court to award no more than $890,000. On Sept. 13, 2016, the Court granted in part the Original Fee Motion, awarding $4,770,834 in fees to the class counsel. The Defendants appealed to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals arguing that the class counsel should be awarded no than $900,000. On Aug. 14, 2017, the Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded with directions to award $2.7 million, an amount which constituted the lodestar calculated by the Court but without a multiplier. The Court entered judgment in favor of the class counsel accordingly. The Plaintiffs now seek: (1) $295,000 for litigating their fee motion prior to the appeal and (2) $482,702.25 for defending their award on appeal. The Defendants object arguing that: (1) the Plaintiffs' request for pre-appeal fees is untimely; (2) the Seventh Circuit's opinion bars this Court from awarding any more attorneys' fees to class counsel; (3) the Settlement Agreement does not authorize any fees-on-fees; and (4) if the Court awards fees, it should use the already-approved, lower hourly rates of the class counsel and reduce the amount awarded based on the Plaintiffs' limited success. The Plaintiffs request $750 for Steven Schwartz, $650 for James Rosemergy, $535 for Alison Gushue, and $650 for Timothy Mathews. The Court previously approved rates of $630, $630, $425, and $510, respectively. Magistrate Judge Rowland awards hourly rates of $725 for Mr. Schwartz, $650 for Mr. Mathews, $650 for Mr. Rosemergy, and $500 for Ms. Gushue. She finds that a comparison of these approved rates to the 2015-16 Fee Survey does not support the Defendants' argument that all Los Angeles rates are irrelevant. The 2015-16 Fee Survey shows that the then-current rates approved in Chambers and Ardon were (1) for Schwartz, slightly higher than the Chicago (and Los Angeles) market rate, (2) for Mathews, the same as Chicago, and (3) for Gushue, slightly higher than the Chicago (and Los Angeles) market rate. Although Rosemergy's rate was not assessed in Chambers or Ardon, the Magistrate finds his $650 rate reasonable in light of its prior assessment of his experience and credentials which placed him near the 95% median attorney rate which was $700 in Chicago in 2015-16. In light of all of the circumstances of the case, the Magistrate Judge reduces the class counsels' supplemental fees award in the district court by 20% and in the appellate court by 44%. With regard to the Motion Fees, the class counsel previously agreed to request no more than $295,000 and have requested that amount. For Appeal Fees, based on the hourly rates, she has identified, the lodestar amounts to $465,618.75. Adding $260,746.50 to $236,000 brings the total award to $496,746.50. For these reasons, Magistrate Judge Rowland granted in part the Plaintiffs' Supplemental Motion for Attorneys' Fees in the amount of $496,746.50. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 3, 2018 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/2YsiQJ from Leagle.com. Larry Butler, Plaintiff, represented by Paul M. Weiss -- paul@complexlitgroup.com -- Quantum Legal LLC, Richard J. Burke -- richard@Qulegal.com -- Quantum Legal LLC, Robert A. Clifford -- rac@cliffordlaw.com -- Clifford Law Offices, P.C., Steven A. Schwartz -- SteveSchwartz@chimicles.com -- Chimicles & Tikellis, Colin H. Dunn -- chd@cliffordlaw.com -- Clifford Law Offices, Eric H. Jaso -- ejaso@seegerweiss.com -- Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac vice, George K. Lang-- langlawoffice@att.net -- Lang Law Office, James J. Rosemergy -- jrosemergy@careydanis.com -- Carey, Danis and Lowe, Jason Louis Lichtman -- jlichtman@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Jerome Mayer-cantu -- jmayercantu@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein Llp, pro hac vice, John Tate Spragens -- jspragens@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, Llp, Jonathan D. Selbin -- jselbin@lchb.com -- Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, Llp, Jonathan Shub -- jshub@kohnswift.com -- Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C., Mark P. Chalos -- mchalos@lchb.com -- Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, Llp, Michael J. Flannery -- mflannery@cuneolaw.com -- Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP, Sarah R. London -- slondon@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, pro hac vice, Scott A. George -- sgeorge@seegerweiss.com -- Seeger Weiss LLC & Shannon Marie McNulty -- smm@cliffordlaw.com -- Clifford Law Offices. Joseph Leonard, Kevin Barnes & Victor Matos, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Paul M. Weiss, Quantum Legal LLC, Richard J. Burke , Quantum Legal LLC, Robert A. Clifford, Clifford Law Offices, P.C., Steven A. Schwartz, Chimicles & Tikellis, Colin H. Dunn, Clifford Law Offices, Eric H. Jaso, Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac vice, George K. Lang, Lang Law Office, James J. Rosemergy, Carey, Danis and Lowe, Jason Louis Lichtman, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, John Tate Spragens, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, Llp, Jonathan D. Selbin, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, Llp, Jonathan Shub, Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C., Mark P. Chalos Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, Llp, Michael J. Flannery, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP, Sarah R. London, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, pro hac vice, Scott A. George, Seeger Weiss LLC & Shannon Marie McNulty, Clifford Law Offices. Alan Jarashow, Plaintiff, represented by Jason Louis Lichtman, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Paul M. Weiss, Quantum Legal LLC, Richard J. Burke, Quantum Legal LLC, Steven A. Schwartz, Chimicles & Tikellis, Eric H. Jaso, Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac vice, George K. Lang, Lang Law Office, John Tate Spragens, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, Llp, Mark S. Fistos, Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos and Lehrman, Sarah R. London, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, pro hac vice, Steven R. Jaffe, Farmer Jaffe Weissing Edwards Fistos & Lehrman, Tod N. Aronovitz, Aronovitz Trial Lawyers & James J. Rosemergy, Carey, Danis and Lowe. Lauren Crane, Plaintiff, represented by Jason Louis Lichtman, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Paul M. Weiss, Quantum Legal LLC, Richard J. Burke, Quantum Legal LLC, Steven A. Schwartz, Chimicles & Tikellis, Eric H. Jaso, Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac vice, George K. Lang, Lang Law Office, Jerome Mayer-cantu, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein Llp, pro hac vice, John Tate Spragens, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, Llp, Mark S. Fistos, Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos and Lehrman, Sarah R. London, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, pro hac vice, Steven R. Jaffe, Farmer Jaffe Weissing Edwards Fistos & Lehrman, Tod N. Aronovitz, Aronovitz Trial Lawyers & James J. Rosemergy, Carey, Danis and Lowe. Lawrence L'Hommedieu, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jason Louis Lichtman, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Paul M. Weiss, Quantum Legal LLC, Richard J. Burke, Quantum Legal LLC, Steven A. Schwartz, Chimicles & Tikellis, Eric H. Jaso , Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac vice, George K. Lang, Lang Law Office, John Tate Spragens, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, Llp, Sarah R. London, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, pro hac vice, Steven R. Jaffe, Farmer Jaffe Weissing Edwards Fistos & Lehrman, Tod N. Aronovitz, Aronovitz Trial Lawyers & James J. Rosemergy, Carey, Danis and Lowe. John Bettua & Derral Howard, Plaintiffs, represented by Jason Louis Lichtman, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Paul M. Weiss, Quantum Legal LLC, Richard J. Burke, Quantum Legal LLC, Steven A. Schwartz, Chimicles & Tikellis, Eric H. Jaso , Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac vice, George K. Lang, Lang Law Office, John Tate Spragens, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, Llp, Sarah R. London, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, pro hac vice, Steven R. Jaffe, Farmer Jaffe Weissing Edwards Fistos & Lehrman, Tod N. Aronovitz, Aronovitz Trial Lawyers & James J. Rosemergy, Carey, Danis and Lowe. Giuseppina P. Donia, Plaintiff, represented by Jason Louis Lichtman , Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Steven A. Schwartz, Chimicles & Tikellis, Eric H. Jaso, Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac vice George K. Lang, Lang Law Office, Glenn Edward Orr, Shea Law Group, Jerome Mayer-cantu, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein Llp, pro hac vice, John Tate Spragens, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, Llp, Ronald S. Kravitz, Law Offices of Ronald S. Kravitz, Sarah R. London, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, pro hac vice & James J. Rosemergy, Carey, Danis and Lowe. Denise Miller, Vic Pfefer, Jeffrey A. Robinson & Sandra K. Robinson, Plaintiffs, represented by Jason Louis Lichtman, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Steven A. Schwartz, Chimicles & Tikellis, Eric H. Jaso, Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac vice, George K. Lang, Lang Law Office, Glenn Edward Orr, Shea Law Group, John Tate Spragens, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, Llp, Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLC, pro hac vice, Sarah R. London, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, pro hac vice & James J. Rosemergy, Carey, Danis and Lowe. Charles Napoli, Plaintiff, represented by Jason Louis Lichtman, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Steven A. Schwartz, Chimicles & Tikellis, Douglas P. Dehler, Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLC, Eric H. Jaso, Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac vice, George K. Lang, Lang Law Office, Glenn Edward Orr, Shea Law Group, James E. Miller, Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLC, James C. Shah, Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, John Tate Spragens, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, Llp, Joseph Patrick Shea, Law Offices of Joseph Patrick Shea, Karen M. Leser-Grenon, Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLP, Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLC, pro hac vice, Sarah R. London, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, pro hac vice & James J. Rosemergy, Carey, Danis and Lowe. Alfred Blair & Martin Champion, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Paul M. Weiss, Quantum Legal LLC, Richard J. Burke, Quantum Legal LLC, Robert A. Clifford, Clifford Law Offices, P.C., Steven A. Schwartz, Chimicles & Tikellis, Colin H. Dunn, Clifford Law Offices, Eric C. Brunick, Brunick LLC, Eric H. Jaso, Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac vice, George K. Lang, Lang Law Office, James J. Rosemergy, Carey, Danis and Lowe, Jason Louis Lichtman, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Jerome Mayer-cantu, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein Llp, pro hac vice, John Tate Spragens Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, Llp, Jonathan D. Selbin, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, Llp, Jonathan Shub, Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C., Mark P. Chalos, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, Llp, Michael J. Flannery, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP, Sarah R. London, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, pro hac vice, Scott A. George, Seeger Weiss LLC, Shannon Marie McNulty, Clifford Law Offices & Steven R. Jaffe, Farmer Jaffe Weissing Edwards Fistos & Lehrman. Sears Roebuck & Co., Defendant, represented by Bradley B. Falkof -- bfalkof@btlaw.com -- Barnes & Thornburg, Evan B. Stephenson -- stephenson@wtotrial.com -- Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP, Galen D. Bellamy -- bellamy@wtotrial.com -- Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP, Hugh Quan Gottschalk -- gottschalk@wtotrial.com -- Wheeler Trigg O'donnell Llp, Joel Steven Neckers -- neckers@wtotrial.com -- Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP, Michael T. Williams -- williams@wtotrial.com -- Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP, Sarah R. London, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, pro hac vice & Theresa R. Wardon -- wardon@wtotrial.com -- Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP. Whirlpool Corporation, Intervenor Defendant, represented by Rebecca Weinstein Bacon -- rweinstein.bacon@bbhps.com -- Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP, Asha L.I. Spencer -- asha.spencer@bartlit-beck.com -- Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott, Eric Reuel Olson -- eric.olson@bartlit-beck.com -- Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP & John C. Fitzpatrick -- john.fitzpatrick@bartlit-beck.com -- Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott Llp. SECURITAS CRITICAL: Rodriguez Alleges Labor Code Violation ---------------------------------------------------------- STEPHANIE RODRIGUEZ, as an individual, the Plaintiff, v. SECURITAS CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE at SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC718927 (Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 22, 2018), is an action against Defendant's alleged systemic illegal employment practices resulting in violations of the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Defendants jointly and severally have acted intentionally and with deliberate indifference and conscious disregard to the rights of all employees by failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements to these employees. The policies, practices and customs of Defendants have resulted in unjust enrichment of Defendants and an unfair business advantage over businesses that routinely adhere to the strictures of the California Labor Code. Securitas Critical provides security solutions for specific requirements in support of government contractors.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Howard L. Magee, Esq. Larry W. Lee, Esq. Kristen Agnew, Esq. DIVERSITY LAW GROUP A Professional Corporation 515 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 488 6555 Facsimile: (213) 488 6554 SELECT MARKETING: Azzopardi & Kosoko Sue over Free Meal Periods --------------------------------------------------------------- TIMOTHY AZZOPARDI and BRANDON KOSOKO individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. SELECT MARKETING GROUP INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC718262 (Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 22, 2018), alleges that Defendants have wrongfully failed to provide Plaintiffs and aggrieved employees with timely and duty-free meal periods. According to the complaint, the Defendants employed Plaintiffs to work in the sales department as telemarketers in Tarzana, California as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee. Mr. Brandon Kosko worked for Defendant from approximately October 2016 to October 2017. Mr. Timothy Azzopardi worked for Defendant from approximately March 2016 to February 2017. Throughout the time period involved in this case. The Defendants regularly required Plaintiffs, and the aggrieved employees to work in excess of five consecutive hours a day without providing a 30 minute, continuous and uninterrupted, duty-free meal period every for five hours of work, or without compensating Plaintiffs and the aggrieved employees for meal periods that were not provided by the end of the fifth hour of work or tenth hour of work. The Defendants did not adequately inform Plaintiffs, and the aggrieved employees of their right to take a meal period by the end of the fifth hour of work, or, for shifts greater than 10 hours, by the end of the tenth hour of work. Moreover, the Defendants did not have adequate written policies or practices providing meal periods for Plaintiffs, and the aggrieved employees, nor did Defendants have adequate policies or practices regarding the timing of meal periods. Defendants also did not have adequate policies or practices to verify whether Plaintiffs and the aggrieved employees were taking their required meal periods. Instead, Defendants' policy and practice was to not provide meal periods in compliance with California law. Select Marketing Group Inc. is in the business of telemarketing for home construction and remodeling projects.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Farzad Rastegar, Esq. Amir Seyedfarshi, Esq. RASTEGAR LAW GROUP, APC 22760 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 200 Torrance, CA 90505 Telephone: (310) 961 9600 Facsimile: (310) 961 9094 E-mail: farzad@rastegarlawgroup.com amir@rastegarlawgroup.com SHAG SALON: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Hair Stylists, Luce Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- MERIESTHER LUCE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SHAG SALON; SANDY POIRIER; and BANK OF AMERICA, Defendants, Case No. 18-2551F (Mass. Cmmw., Suffolk Cty., Aug. 14, 2018) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages, liquidated damages, penalties, attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiff Luce was employed by the Defendants as hair stylist from March 1, 2018 to June 30, 2018. Shag Salon is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The Company is a hair salon providing hair dressing services to customers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew A. Slatef, Esq. Michael T. Marshall, Esq. TENTINDO KENDALL CANNIFF & KEEFE LLP 510 Rutherford Avenue Boston, MA 02129 Telephone: (617)242-9600 Facsimile: (617)242-0800 E-mail: inaswtkcklau.com mtm f tkcklaw .com SHASTA COUNTY, CA: Settlement in Jewett Suit Has Final Approval --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, EVERETT JEWETT, LEGAL SERVICES FOR PRISONERS WITH CHILDREN, GLEN HAROLD EVERETT, MICHAEL DONALD ACKLEY, HAROLD ROBERT MARQUETTE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SHASTA COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, A PUBLIC ENTITY; TOM BOSENKO, as Sheriff of the Shasta County; SHASTA COUNTY, a public entity; and CALIFORNIA FORENSIC MEDICAL GROUP, INC. a private entity; and DOES 1 through 25, in their individual capacities, Defendants, Case No. 2:13-cv-0882 MCE AC (PC) (E.D. Cal.), Judge Morrison C. Englund, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California granted the Parties' Joint Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement. On April 5, 2017, the Court appointed Plaintiffs Everett Jewett, Glen Harold Everett, Michael Donald Ackley, and Legal Services for Prisoners with Children as the Class Representatives of the Settlement Class, and appointed the following counsel as the Class Counsel to represent the Settlement Class: (i) Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP (ii) Disability Rights Legal Center; and (iii) Atabek & Associates, P.C. On March 21, 2018, it provisionally certified the Settlement Class defined as all current and future detainees and prisoners with a Mobility Disability, who at any time from May 6, 2011 through the Term who, because of their disabilities, need appropriate accommodations, modifications, services, and and/or physical access at Shasta County Jail. Judge Englund made final the earlier provisional certification of the Settlement Class and further confirms the appointment of the Class Representatives and the Class Counsel to represent the Settlement Class, as set forth. He granted final approval of the Settlement Agreement. The benefits described in the Settlement Agreement are the only consideration, fees, costs and expenses that the County Defendants and CFMG will be obligated to give to any party or entity, including without limitation the Class Representatives, the Settlement Class members, and the Class Counsel in connection with the claims asserted in the Class Action Complaint, the Settlement Agreement and/or the payment of attorneys' fees, costs and expenses in the action. Mr. Everett Jewett's individual claims are not released except as they relate to purely injunctive relief. Pursuant to the Parties' Settlement Agreement, the Plaintiffs have filed a separate Motion for Award of Reasonable Attorneys' Fees and Expenses incurred through May 5, 2017. On May 21, 2018, the Court took the matter under submission. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 7, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/ODTqHp from Leagle.com. Everett Jewett, Plaintiff, represented by Jon Ali Atabek, Atabek & Associates, Maronel Barajas -- mbarajas_law@yahoo.com -- Disability Rights Legal Center, Steven P. Ragland -- sragland@keker.com -- Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP, Ajay Sundar Krishnan -- akrishnan@keker.com -- Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP, Anna Mercedes Rivera -- anna.rivera@drlcenter.org -- Disability Rights Legal Center, Franco E. Muzzio -- fmuzzio@keker.com -- Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP, Joseph Taylor Gooch -- tgooch@keker.com -- Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP & Mallory L. Sepler-King -- mallory.sepler-king@drlcenter.org -- Disability Rights Legal Center. Glen Harold Everett, Michael Donald Ackley, Harold Robert Marquette & Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, Plaintiffs, represented by Anna Mercedes Rivera, Disability Rights Legal Center, Maronel Barajas, Disability Rights Legal Center, Steven P. Ragland, Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP, Franco E. Muzzio, Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP, Joseph Taylor Gooch, Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP & Mallory L. Sepler-King, Disability Rights Legal Center. California Forensic Medical Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jerome Martin Varanini, Law Offices of Jerome M. Varanini. Shasta County Sheriff's Department, Sheriff Tom Bosenko & Shasta County, Defendants, represented by Gary Charles Brickwood -- gb@brickwoodlaw.com -- Brickwood Law Office. SMITH-PALLUCK: Court Denies Leave to Amend Complaint in Thomas -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of Nevada denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint in the case captioned CANDREA THOMAS, Plaintiff, v. SMITH-PALLUCK ASSOCIATES CORP., d/b/a LAS VEGAS ATHLETIC CLUBS, Defendant. Case No. 2:17-cv-02001-MMD-CWH. (D. Nev.). This is a dispute regarding repeated calls from LVAC to Thomas on her cellular telephone regarding a debt. Thomas brought suit against LVAC, alleging claims for negligent and willful violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) (claims one and two) and for state law deceptive trade practices. Thomas now moves to amend her complaint to (1) allege additional facts about LVAC's automatic telephone dialing equipment, (2) assert claims for a putative class, and (3) drop her deceptive trade practices claim. LVAC does not oppose dropping the deceptive trade practices claim, but it argues amendment to assert class action claims would be futile because Thomas consented to the calls in her LVAC membership agreement. Thomas replies the class claims are not futile, because ambiguities in the membership agreement must be construed against LVAC, and the agreement does not provide for contact through an automatic telephone dialing system for collections purposes. LVAC moves to stay the litigation, arguing the law on what equipment constitutes an automatic telephone dialing system is in flux. LVAC points to two forthcoming rulings one from the FCC, the agency tasked with construing the TCPA, and one from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit arguing that those decisions will alter the law governing this case. Having reviewed and considered the unopposed motion to stay, and for the reasons stated in the motion, the court will stay this litigation pending the FCC or Ninth Circuit's ruling, whichever is earlier. In particular, the court is persuaded that a stay is appropriate because it appears the FCC is poised to determine whether dialing equipment similar to the equipment at issue in this case. Given that the court is staying the litigation, it will deny the motion to amend without prejudice for Thomas to renew the motion and for the parties to supplement their briefs, if necessary, after the stay is lifted. A full-text copy of the District Court's September 6, 2018 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybdjq3ob from Leagle.com. Andrea Thomas, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew I. Knepper -- matthew.knepper@knepperclark.com -- Knepper & Clark, LLC, David H. Krieger -- dkrieger@hainesandkrieger.com -- Haines & Krieger, LLC & Miles N. Clark -- miles.clark@knepperclark.com -- Knepper & Clark LLC. Smith-Palluck Associates Corp., doing business as, Defendant, represented by Lindsay C. Demaree -- DEMAREEL BALLARDSPAHR.COM -- Ballard Spahr LLP, Stacy H. Rubin -- RUBINS BALLARDSPAHR.COM -- Ballard Spahr LLP & Joel Edward Tasca -- TASCA BALLARDSPAHR.COM -- Ballard Spahr LLP. SOHO GRAND HOTEL: Mercer Alleges Disabilities Act Violation ----------------------------------------------------------- STACEY MERCER, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOHO GRAND HOTEL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-07341-AKH (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 14, 2018) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant owns and controls the website www.sohogrand.com. The Defendant failed to ensure that all of its reservation systems, including its online reservation systems (a) identify and describe disabled accessible features of the Hotel in detail; (b) identify and describe disabled accessible features of ADA compliant guest rooms in detail; (c) permit disabled individuals to independently assess whether the Hotel and its available guestrooms meet their individual accessibility needs, by describing accessible and inaccessible features; and (d) allow reservations to be taken for accessible guestrooms in the same manner as for non-accessible guestrooms. Soho Grand Hotel, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York. The Company is engaged in the hotel business. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nolan Klein, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF NOLAN KLEIN 39 Broadway, Ste. 2250 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (646) 560-3230 E-mail: klein@nklegal.com SPEARMINT RHINO: Failed to Pay Overtime Wages, Garcia Says ---------------------------------------------------------- STEPHON GARCIA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and on behalf o f the general public, the Plaintiff, v. SPEARMINT RHINO CONSULTING WORLDWIDE, INC.; THE SPEARMINT RHINO COMPANIES WORLDWIDE, INC., DBA BLUE ZEBRA ADULT CABARET, DBA DAMES 'N GAMES; and DOES 1-100, the Defendants, Case No. BC718994 (Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 22, 2018), alleges that Defendants violated the California Labor Code by failing to pay all overtime wages, failing to provide meal periods, failing to provide rest periods, and failing to pay wages due at termination and during employment. The action is brought on behalf of Plaintiff and all other aggrieved employees of Defendants and/or Does who worked a shift of at least five hours without receiving a meal period; worked four hours, or a major fraction thereof, without receiving a ten minute net rest break; were not provided accurate itemized wage statements; were not paid compensation for all time worked at the straight or overtime rate; were not paid the applicable minimum wage; were not paid waiting time penalties; were not provided paid sick days for all hours worked; were not reimbursed for business expenses; and were not paid all wages owed twice per month. Spearmint Rhino is a chain of strip clubs that operates venues throughout the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia. The club opened in 1989 as a supplement to the existing Peppermint Elephant Restaurant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Turley, Esq. David Mara, Esq. Jamie Serb, Esq. Tony Roberts, Esq. Alexandra Shipman, Esq. THE TURLEY & MARA LAW FIRM, APLC 7428 Trade Street San Diego, CA 92121 Telephone: (619) 234 2833 Facsimile: (619) 234 4048 SUNTRUST BANK: Randle Suit Alleges Racial Discrimination -------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Randle and Allison Taylor, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Suntrust Bank, Inc. and Suntrust Investment Services, Inc., Defendants, (D.D.C. June 26, 2018) Case No. 18-cv-01525, seeks reinstatement, compensatory and punitive damages, costs and reasonable attorney's fees under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. SunTrust Bank, Inc. is a publicly-traded, financial services firm headquartered in Atlanta GA. Plaintiffs worked for Suntrust as a broker-dealer covering branches in Maryland and in Washington, DC. They were allegedly subject to discrimination for being African-American, denied of resources, promotions, titles, teaming opportunities and business opportunities, including lucrative client accounts because of race. [BN] Plaintiffs appear pro se. SWITCH INC: Farach Appointed Lead Plaintiff in Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of Nevada granted Oscar Farach's Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Counsel in the case captioned MINGBO CAI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. SWITCH, INC., et al., Defendants. No. 2:18-cv-01471-JCM-VCF. (D. Nev.). The complaint alleges that Defendants violated several Securities Act provisions. In appointing a lead plaintiff in securities class action litigation, the court shall adopt a presumption that the most adequate plaintiff is the person or group of persons that (aa) has either filed the complaint or made a motion in response to a notice under subparagraph (A)(i); (bb) in the determination of the court, has the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class; and(cc) otherwise satisfies the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Farach is the presumptively most adequate plaintiff in this case. He filed a timely motion in response to the notice published on Business Wire. Of the three individuals or entities that submitted motions for appointment as lead counsel, Farach demonstrated the largest financial interest in the case. Farach satisfied the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 in that his claims are typical of the claims of the class and he is an adequate representative of the class. A full-text copy of the District Court's September 6, 2018 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycnk4cco from Leagle.com. Mingbo Cai, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Laurence M. Rosen -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. Oscar Farach, Lead Plaintiff, Plaintiff, represented by Lesley F. Portnoy -- lportnoy@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Lionel Z. Glancy -- lglancy@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Robert V. Prongay -- rprongay@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP & Andrew R. Muehlbauer, Muehlbauer Law Office, Ltd. Kissimmee Utility Authority Employees' Retirement Plan, Movant, represented by Brian O. O'Mara -- bomara@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP. Donald Powell & Thomas J Moore, Movants, represented by Patrick R. Leverty -- pat@levertylaw.com -- Leverty & Associates Chtd. Switch, Inc., Rob Roy, Gabe Nacht, Zareh Sarrafian, Donald Snyder, Tom Thomas & Bryan Wolf, Defendants, represented by KEVIN M. MCDONOUGH -- kevin.mcdonough@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP, Ava M. Schaefer, Pisanelli Bice & Todd L. Bice, Pisanelli Bice PLLC. SYMONS AMBULANCE: Fails to Pay Wages to Paramedics, Marx Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- CORY MARX, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SYMONS AMBULANCE; SYMONS EMERGENCY SPECIALTIES, INC.; and DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. BC717309 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 14, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses. The Plaintiff Marx was employed by the Defendants as paramedic. Symons Emergency Specialties, Inc., doing business as Symons Ambulance, provides ambulance services to nursing facility, hospital, prison, clinic, medical group, and other organizations. The company was incorporated in 1995 and is based in San Bernardino, California with additional locations in Bishop, Corona, Tustin, Murrieta, Beaumont, and Fallbrook, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J.D. Henderson, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF J.D. HENDERSON 215 North Marengo Avenue, Suite 322 Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (626) 529-5891 E-mail: JDLAW@charter.net - and - John F. McCarthy, Esq. MCCARTHY LAW 2851 Camino del Rio S., Suite 430 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 736-8910 Facsimile: (844) 735-8360 E-mail: John@McCarthyLawCA.com TAKEDA PHARMA: Class Certification Bid in Weisberg Suit Denied -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned Alan Weisberg, the Plaintiff, v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00784-PA-JC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Percy Anderson entered an order: 1. denying Plaintiff's motion for class certification; 2. denying Plaintiff's request for leave to conduct further discovery, as he has not explained how such discovery would enable him to satisfy the requirements under Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 23 for either putative class; 3. denying as moot Takeda's evidentiary objections; and 4. denying as moot Takeda's request to strike and for leave to file a sur-reply. The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that any uniform contract exists across the Nationwide Class, that the terms of that contract would be the same for each class member, or that breach could be discerned on a classwide basis. With such individualized inquiries to be resolved, the Plaintiff has not demonstrated that common questions predominate for the Nationwide Class. Accordingly, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has not established that common questions predominate for either putative class under Rule 23(b)(3). Plaintiff also has failed to demonstrate that class resolution would be superior to alternative methods of litigation, as the pervasiveness of individualized inquiries would render this action unmanageable. Thus, the Motion is denied because Plaintiff has failed to satisfy either requirement of Rule 23(b), in addition to his failure to demonstrate typicality or adequacy under Rule 23(a). TALOS ENERGY: Suits by Stone Energy Stockholders Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------------- Talos Energy 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 cases entitled, John Heinrich v. Stone Energy Corporation, et al., Allen Miskowiec v. Stone Energy Corporation, et al., and Anthony Franchi v. Stone Energy Corporation, et al., have been dismissed. On January 4, 2018 and February 2, 2018, two putative class action complaints challenging the Transactions were filed on behalf of purported Stone stockholders in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaints are captioned John Heinrich v. Stone Energy Corporation, et al., Case 1:18-cv-00054-GMS and Allen Miskowiec v. Stone Energy Corporation, et al., Case 1:18-cv-00202-RGA. On February 8, 2018, a third putative class action complaint challenging the Transactions was filed on behalf of purported Stone stockholders in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana and is captioned Anthony Franchi v. Stone Energy Corporation, et al., Case 6:18-cv-00167. The complaints assert, among other things, claims under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act against Stone and certain members of its board of directors and challenges the adequacy of the disclosures made in the version of this consent solicitation statement/prospectus filed with the SEC on December 29, 2017. The Miskowiec and Franchi lawsuits also name Talos Energy LLC as an additional defendant and the Franchi lawsuit names Talos Production LLC as additional defendant. The defendants believe that the claims asserted against them in the lawsuits are without merit and intend to defend vigorously against all claims asserted. The Heinrich lawsuit was dismissed on June 6, 2018. The Miskowiec lawsuit was dismissed on May 15, 2018. The Franchi lawsuit was dismissed on July 25, 2018. Talos Energy Inc., an independent oil and gas company, focuses on the offshore exploration and production in the United States Gulf of Mexico and the shallow waters off the coast of Mexico. The company is headquartered in Houston, Texas. TELIGENT INC: Continues to Antitrust Suit over Generic Drugs ------------------------------------------------------------ Teligent, 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, In re Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation Teligent said, "To date, twelve putative class action antitrust lawsuits have been filed against the Company along with co-defendants, including Taro Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. and Perrigo New York Inc." One "opt-out" action has additionally been filed against the Company along with thirty-four generic manufacturer co-defendants regarding the pricing of econazole nitrate cream along with twenty-nine additional drug products not manufactured or sold by the Company. All actions have been consolidated by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for pre-trial proceedings as part of the In re Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation matter, and the class actions have been consolidated into three actions: the direct purchaser, end payer and indirect reseller actions. The class plaintiffs seek to represent nationwide or state classes consisting of persons who directly purchased, indirectly purchased, paid and/or reimbursed patients for the purchase of generic econazole from July 1, 2014 until the time the defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct ceased or will cease. The opt-out plaintiffs allege a conspiracy by thirty-five generic manufacturers to fix prices for thirty drug products, including econazole nitrate cream, in violation of federal antitrust laws. The opt-out plaintiffs seek treble damages for alleged price overcharges for the thirty drug products identified in the complaint during the alleged period of conspiracy, and also seek injunctive relief against the defendants. All of these cases are in their initial stages and motions to dismiss have been filed with respect to each of the three consolidated class actions. Teligent said, "Due to the early stage of these cases, we are unable to form a judgment at this time as to whether an unfavorable outcome is either probable or remote or to provide an estimate of the amount or range of potential loss. We believe these cases are without merit, and we intend to vigorously defend against these claims." Teligent, Inc., a specialty generic pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, and markets generic topical, branded generic, and generic injectable pharmaceutical products in the United States and Canada. Teligent, Inc. was founded in 1977 and is based in Buena, New Jersey. TORY BURCH: Minniti Sues Over Unsolicited SMS Ads ------------------------------------------------- Lauren Minniti, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff, v. Tory Burch LLC, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-61433, (S.D. Fla., June 26, 2018), seeks statutory and treble damages, injunctive relief, compensation and attorney fees for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005. Tory Burch designs and manufactures apparel and accessories. It operates over ninety boutiques throughout the United States. Plaintiff received two unsolicited text messages on her cellular telephone advising her that Tory Burch had mailed her a $50 gift card and inviting her into the Aventura mall store to use the gift card.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan M. Kelly, Esq. ANDERSON & WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Ste. 500 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847)368-1500 Facsimile: (847)368-1501 Email: rkelly@andersonwanca.com TRIBUNE MEDIA: Sued in Illinois & Maryland over Price of TV Ads --------------------------------------------------------------- Tribune Media Company 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 faces several putative class action suits related to pricing of television advertising. On each of July 27, 2018, July 30, 2018 and August 2, 2018, a separate single plaintiff filed a putative class action lawsuit against the company and Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc (Sinclair), and in two instances, Tribune Broadcasting Company and other as-yet-unnamed third parties, and in one instance, other named third parties in the industry (collectively, the "Defendants") in the United States District Court for the Districts of Maryland and Illinois. These lawsuits allege that the Defendants coordinated their pricing of television advertising, thereby harming the plaintiff in each lawsuit and other class members as direct purchasers of television advertising. The plaintiff in each lawsuit seeks injunctive relief and money damages caused by the alleged antitrust violations. Tribune Media said, "We believe the above lawsuits are without merit and intend to defend them vigorously." Tribune Media Company, through its subsidiaries, operates as a media and entertainment company in the United States. Tribune Media Company was founded in 1847 and is based in Chicago, Illinois. TRISTAR PRODUCTS: Court Approves Settlement in Chapman Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the cases, KENNETH CHAPMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TRISTAR PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant, Case Nos. 16-CV-1114, 17-CV-2298 (N.D. Ohio), Judge James S. Gwin of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (i) approved the class settlement, (ii) granted in part the attorney fee request, and (iii) denied the Ohio class counsel's request for expenses. In May 2016, the Plaintiffs sued Tristar. With the lawsuit, the Plaintiffs allege that certain pressure cookers made by Tristar had a defect that allowed users to open the pressure cookers' lids even though built-up pressure remained inside the pressure cooker. As a result, the heated contents of the pressure cooker would burst onto the user, potentially harming them. The Plaintiffs alleged that the defect existed, despite Tristar's insistence that these pressure cookers were especially safe and that the pressure cookers' lids could not come off if pressure remained in the cooker. The majority of the Plaintiffs' claims survived the Defendant's motion to dismiss. The Court certified several state classes, but denied certification for the Plaintiffs' requested nationwide class. After litigating numerous motions in limine, the parties went to trial. On the first trial day, the parties completed voir dire and examined the Plaintiffs' expert and two of the named Plaintiffs. During an afternoon break, the parties met with Magistrate Judge Greenberg and renewed earlier discussions regarding potential settlement. After additional negotiations, the parties reached the proposed settlement at issue. While the Chapman litigation occurred in Ohio, there was also a California action, led by Plaintiff Pinon, dealing with the same alleged defect. After the Chapman Plaintiffs settled, Plaintiff Pinon transferred her case from California to the Court to join the settlement. Like the Chapman Plaintiffs, Plaintiff Pinon alleged that the lid-related defect existed in Tristar pressure cookers. Although Plaintiff Pinon's case was in an earlier stage than Chapman, the Pinon parties had begun discovery and litigated the Defendant's motion to dismiss to decision. Defendant Tristar has never admitted liability or conceded that their pressure cookers are defective in any way. The parties' proposed settlement applies nationwide to approximately 3.2 million Tristar pressure cooker purchasers. The settlement offers several types of relief to the class members. Importantly, to obtain any other relief, the class members must verify that they have watched or read a transcript of a safety video created to teach users the safe operation of their pressure cookers. Assuming they complete that step, the class members can submit a claim to receive a $72.50 credit off of one of three Tristar products. These products are an updated version of the pressure cooker at issue in the case (arguably with a better latching lid mechanism), a power air fryer, or an induction cooktop set. Each of these products cost about $159, and the class members must pay the difference between the product's retail cost and the value of the credit, plus any shipping and handling fees. Further, the class members must buy the product directly from Defendant Tristar and cannot combine the $72.50 credit with any other promotions Defendant Tristar may offer. The credit expires after 90 days. In addition to the $72.50 credit, the settlement gives the class members a one-year warranty extension on their Tristar pressure cookers. Defendant Tristar offers a similar six-year warranty to all consumers for $30, and so the approximate value of the one-year warranty extension is $5. Under the settlement, Tristar also agrees to pay up to $890,000 in notice and claims administration costs. The proposed settlement also includes benefits unique to the named Plaintiffs. The named Plaintiffs agree to settle their personal injury and property damage claims with Defendant Tristar for $25,000 each. The named Plaintiffs may also seek an incentive award of up to $10,000 for their efforts in litigating the case. In exchange for these benefits, all the class members agree to release all claims against Defendant Tristar relating to any alleged defects in the pressure cookers at issue, including personal injury or property damage claims. Finally, as part of the settlement, Tristar agreed that it would take no position on the class counsel seeking fees and expenses if those fees and expenses were less than approximately $2.5 million. The claims administrator estimates that settlement notice reached approximately 83 percent of class members. As of the end of the claims period, class members had filed 13,174 claims. Only 137 class members asked exclusion from the class settlement. Ninety-nine of those exclusion requests came from class members who have a personal injury claim. No class members objected to the proposed settlement. The parties seek the Court's approval of their proposed class settlement and attorney's fee request. On July 12, 2018, the Court held a fairness hearing on the proposed class settlement and fee request. At that hearing, the class counsel and the defense counsel argued in favor of approving the settlement. However, the United States Department of Justice and a representative for 18 State Attorneys General argued against the settlement and accompanying attorney's fee request. In objecting to the settlement, the Government Representatives mostly complain that the Plaintiffs' attorney fee application seeks too much. They posit that the settlement would have been greater if the attorney fee application had been lower. In response, the Defendant Tristar represented that the attorney fee application was independent of the settlement amount and represented that Defendant Tristar would not pay any higher settlement regardless if the attorney fee application had been lower. Judge Gwin granted the parties' motion to approve the proposed settlement. He certified the nationwide class as defined in the proposed settlement. He also approved $7,500 incentive awards for Plaintiffs Chapman, Vennel, and Jackson, and a $6,000 incentive award for Plaintiff Pinon. Finally, the Judge granted in part and denied in part the class counsel's motion for attorney's fees and costs. He approved $1,980,382.59 for the class counsel's fees, and denied the Ohio class counsel's request for expenses. A full-text copy of the Court's Aug. 3, 2018 Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/mT7dar from Leagle.com. Edwina Pinon, Individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by David B. Levin, Law Office of Todd M. Friedman, Meghan E. George & Todd M. Friedman . Tristar Products, Inc., Defendant, represented by Pamela M. Ferguson, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, Shawn A. Toliver -- Shawn.Toliver@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, John Q. Lewis -- john.lewis@tuckerellis.com -- Tucker Ellis, Jonathan F. Feczko -- jonathan.feczko@tuckerellis.com -- Tucker Ellis, Madeline Dennis -- madeline.dennis@tuckerellis.com -- Tucker Ellis, Mark F. Ram , Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy & Zachary J. Adams -- zachary.adams@tuckerellis.com -- Tucker Ellis. TSC OF LOUISIANA: Lainez Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Jorge Lainez and Yenni Sanchez, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated individuals, v. TSC of Louisiana, LLC, Matthew Sotile, LIJ Construction, LLC and Hector Sanchez, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00811, (M.D. La., August 31, 2018) seeks restitution of unpaid wages, an award of damages, attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. TSC is a construction contractor providing construction services, primarily drywall installation, metal framing and ceiling work on major projects in Louisiana. LIJ is in the business of providing laborers to perform construction work. Plaintiffs were employed by the defendants to perform construction work in the Parish of East Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Plaintiffs claim that they have worked in excess of 50 hours per week without being paid overtime wages.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel B. Davis, Esq. Randall E. Estes, Esq. ESTES DAVIS LAW, LLC 850 North Boulevard Baton Rouge, LA 70802 Telephone: (225) 336-3394 Facsimile: (225) 384-5419 Email: dan@estesdavislaw.com UNITED STATES: Immigration Director Faces Class Suit in N.D. Cal. ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lee Francis Cissna, Director, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. The case is captioned as J.L.; M.V.B.; M.D.G.B.; J.B.A.; individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LEE FRANCIS CISSNA, Director, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services; KIRSTJEN M. NIELSEN, Secretary, United States Department of Homeland Security; ROBERT COWAN, Director, National Benefits Center of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; and UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-04914-NC (N.D. Cal., Aug. 14, 2018). The case is assigned to Judge Nathanael M. Cousins. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is a component of the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS). [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Sirena Peleka Castillo, Esq. MANATT PHELPS PHILLIPS LLP 11355 W Olympic Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone: (310) 312-4336 E-mail: scastillo@manatt.com - and - Adrianne Elizabeth Marshack, Esq. Matthew P. Kanny, Esq. MANATT PHELPS PHILLIPS LLP 11355 W. Olympic Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone: (310) 312-4000 Facsimile: (310) 312-4224 E-mail: amarshack@manatt.com mkanny@manatt.com - and - Judith Maura London, Esq. 610 South Ardmore Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90005 Telephone: (213) 385-2977 E-mail: jlondon@publiccounsel.org - and - Kathleen Elizabeth Ingra Wise, Esq. MANATT PHELPS PHILLIPS LLP 11355 W. Olympic Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone: (310) 312-4100 E-mail: kwise@manatt.com - and - Keith Lee Wurster, Esq. LAWYER'S COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS OF THE SAN FRANCISCO 131 Steuart Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 543-9444 E-mail: kwurster@lccr.com - and - Mary Tanagho Ross, Esq.] 610 South Ardmore Ave Los Angeles, CA 90005 Telephone: (213) 385-2977 Facsimile: (213) 385-9089 E-mail: mross@publiccounsel.org - and - Matthew Brent Golper, Esq. MANATT PHELPS PHILLIPS LLP 695 Town Center Drive, 14th Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (714) 371-2511 E-mail: mgolper@manatt.com - and - Sara Lynn Van Hofwegen, Esq. 610 S Ardmore Ave Los Angeles, CA 90005 Telephone: (213) 201-4712 E-mail: svanhofwegen@publiccounsel.org UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS CLEVELAND: Mishandled Frozen Eggs, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- A.C. and B.C., on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS CLEVELAND MEDICAL CENTER; UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS HEALTH SYSTEM, INC.; UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS FERTILITY CENTER; and UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS AHUJA MEDICAL CENTER, INC., the Defendants, Case No. CV 18 902584 (Ohio Court of Common Pleas Cuyahoga County, Aug. 22, 2018), alleges that Defendants grossly mishandled and destroyed frozen eggs and embryos entrusted to their care, causing irreparable harm. According to the complaint, UH promised to preserve and protect Plaintiffs and class members' eggs and embryos until they were ready to use them. Despite a keen awareness of the precious, fragile and irreplaceable nature of the eggs and embryos in their care, UH kept Plaintiffs' eggs and embryos in a liquid nitrogen storage tank that it knew was failing. UH disabled the safety alarm system meant to alert staff if the tank failed. Sometime between March 3 and 4, 2018, there was an uncontrolled rise in temperature in the failing storage tank in which Plaintiffs' eggs and embryos were stored. No one was alerted until it was too late. As a result of UH's conduct, approximately 4,000 eggs and embryos were destroyed, affecting more than 950 individuals and families, including Plaintiffs. As one of UH's representatives has reportedly said of the incident, "It's absolutely devastating." University Hospitals of Cleveland is a major not-for-profit medical complex in Cleveland, Ohio, United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul W. Vincent, Esq. Adam J. Vincent, Esq. VINCENT ESQUIRE, LTD. 26600 Detroit Road, Suite 250 Westlake, OH 44145 Telephone: (440) 907 0077 Facsimile: (440) 214 7484 E-mail: Paul@VincentEsq.com Adam@VincentEsq.com - and - Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq. Lexi J. Hazam, Esq. Sarah R. London, Esq. Tiseme G. Zegeye, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 956 1000 Facsimile: (415) 956 1008 E-mail: ecabraser@lchb.com lhazam@lchb.com slondon@lchb.com tzegeye@lchb.com USG CORPORATION: Fitzgerald Balks at Merger Deal with Knauf ----------------------------------------------------------- SUSAN FITZGERALD, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. USG CORPORATION, STEVEN F. LEER, JENNIFER F. SCANLON, JOSE ARMARIO, WILLIAM H. HERNANDEZ, RICHARD P. LAVIN BRIAN KENNEY, GRETCHEN R. HAGGERTY, MATHER CARTER, JR. THOMAS A. BURKE, GEBR. KNAUF KG, GEBR. KNAUF VERWALTUNGSGESELLSCHAFT KG, C&G VERWALTUNGS GMBH, WORLD CUP ACQUISITION CORPORATION, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC., BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEBRASKA, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY ASSURANCE CORPORATION, NATIONAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, GENERAL RE LIFE CORPORATION, GENERAL REINSURANCE CORPORATION, and, GENERAL RE CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No. 2018-0603 (Del. Ch., Aug. 13, 2018), seeks to enjoin a shareholder vote on a proposed buyout, or, in the event that the shareholder vote is held, enjoin the consummation of the Proposed Buyout, until such time as the Company receives the requisite number of shares required by Section 203 for the consummation of the Proposed Buyout and shareholders are adequately informed that they are in the midst of a hostile takeover of USG. The case is a shareholder class action brought by Plaintiff on behalf of USG shareholders against Defendants for violations of statutory law, breaches of fiduciary duty, and/or other violations of state law arising out of their efforts to effectuate the sale of USG to Knauf. According to the complaint, on June 10, 2018, USG entered into an agreement and plan of merger with Knauf and World Cup Acquisition Corporation, pursuant to which Merger Sub will merge with and into the Company, with the Company surviving as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Knauf. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, USG shareholders will receive $44 in cash for each share of USG common stock that they own. This Merger Consideration and the Proposed Buyout are the result of the Board's reactionary response to coordinated and sustained pressure exerted by the Company's largest shareholders, Knauf and Berkshire. As a result of this coordinated activity, the Board suffered a stunning loss at its annual meeting, at which all four of its recommended directors up for election failed to secure the votes they needed to win election. Shortly thereafter, and despite months of publicly and privately fending off Knauf's advances, the Board surrendered to Knauf and Berkshire and agreed to a sale to Knauf that it had both publicly and privately decided was inadequate and not in shareholders' best interests. Worse, the Board, Knauf, and Berkshire intend to submit the Proposed Buyout to shareholders both (i) in violation of 8 Del. C. section 203, which requires a supermajority vote of all USG shareholders not affiliated with Knauf and Berkshire, and (ii) without informing USG shareholders that they are voting on a hostile takeover of their Company. Specifically, on July 20, 2018, the Board authorized the filing of a Form PREM 14A Preliminary Proxy Statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Proxy fails to include information identifying the Proposed Buyout as a hostile takeover attempt governed by Section 203 and misrepresents the number of affirmative votes of USG common stockholders required under that section to complete the Merger. USG Corporation, also known as United States Gypsum Corporation, is an American company which manufactures construction materials, most notably drywall and joint compound.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. Miles D. Schreiner, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405 New York, NY 10118 Telephone: (212) 971 1341 E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com mschreiner@monteverdelaw.com - and - Blake A. Bennett, Esq. COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A. The Brandywine Building 1000 West Street, 10th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 984 3800 WAL-MART STORES: Mays' Bid to Certify Wage Statement Class Nixed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned LERNA MAYS, the Plaintiff, v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-02318-AB-KK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Andre Birotte Jr. entered an order: 1. denying plaintiff's motion for class certification; 2. dismissing Plaintiff's second cause of action for violation of California Labor Code section 226(a) for lack of standing; and 3. directing Plaintiff to file an amended complaint in an attempt to cure the standing defects. The Court explained it cannot certify a class when the named Plaintiff has failed to allege facts sufficient to support standing. The Court cited Lierboe v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 350 F.3d 1018, 1022–23 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that a class may only be represented by a named plaintiff with standing); and Pence v. Andrus, 586 F.2d 733, 736–37 (9th Cir. 1978) ("In class actions, the named representatives must allege and show that they personally have been injured, not that injury has been suffered by other, unidentified members of the class to which they belong and which they purport to represent."). The Court also held that Plaintiff's second cause of action is dismissed for lack of standing, citing Bernhardt v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 279 F.3d 862, 868 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding that district courts may dismiss sua sponte an action for lack of standing) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3)). WIDEOPENWEST INC: Faces Suits in New York over IPO -------------------------------------------------- WideOpenWest, 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 faces a putative class action suit in New York involving the company's initial public offering. In June and July of 2018, putative class action complaints were filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York against WideOpenWest, Inc. and certain of the Company's current and former officers and directors, as well as Crestview Advisors, L.L.C., Avista Capital Partners, and each of the underwriter banks involved with the Company's initial public offering (IPO). The complaints allege violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with the IPO. The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of stockholders who purchased stock pursuant to or traceable to the IPO. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief. WideOpenWest said, "The Company believes the complaint and allegations to be without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against these actions. The Company is unable at this time to determine whether the outcome of the litigation would have a material impact on our results of operations, financial condition, or cash flows." WideOpenWest, Inc. operates as a cable operator in the United States. It provides high-speed data, cable television, voice over IP-based telephony, and business-class services to residential and business services customers. WRIGHT WASTE: McCall Action to Recover Overtime Pay --------------------------------------------------- Harvie L. McCall, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Wright Waste Management, LLC and Becky Wright, individually, Defendants, Case 18-cv-02127 (S.D. Tex., June 25, 2018), seeks to recover overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, costs of court, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Wright Waste Management, LLC is a Houston-based company that specializes in providing recycling services for commercial and industrial businesses. McCall is a driver who collects and transports materials to be recycled within the Houston area. Defendants failed to pay McCall overtime premiums for any hours worked over forty per week, says the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas B. Welmaker, Esq. WELMAKER LAW PLLC Austin, TX 78715 Phone: (512) 799-2048 Fax: (512) 253-2969 Email: doug@welmakerlaw.com XPRESSPA ONLINE: Burbon Alleges Disabilities Act Violation ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Xpresspa Online Shopping, LLC. The class action is captioned as Luc Burbon, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Xpresspa Online Shopping, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-07609 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 21, 2018). The suit alleges Americans with Disabilities Act violation. XpresSpa operates a network of airport spas for business and leisure travelers. [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 ********* 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 ***