/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/180920.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, September 20, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 189 Headlines ACCC INSURANCE: Faces Fairman Class Suit in S.D. Mississippi ADVANCED RETAIL: Williams Seeks Overtime Pay for Merchandisers ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Sued by Castro in N.Y. Over FDCPA Violations AMERICAN YUEXIANGGUI: Chiu Files Suit Asserting FLSA Breach AMERICOLLECT INC: Class Certification Sought in Kijek Suit AMPIO PHARMACEUTICALS: Shaffer Sues Over Share Price Drop ASCENSIONPOINT RECOVERY: Machnik's Bid for Certification Stayed ASPLUNDH TREE: Belloso Wins Certification of Employee Class BAPTIST HEALTH: Blake Tishman's Bid to Certify TCPA Class Denied BENCO DENTAL: Agrees to Settlement in Class-Action Lawsuit BLACK ISLAND: Faces Honeywell ADA Suit in M.D. Fla. BUFFALO, NY: Lathrop Sues BOE to Recover Overtime Pay C&C SECURITY: Lepe Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code CALIFORNIA-NEVADA METHODIST: Aman Seeks Unpaid Wages & OT Pay CALIFORNIA: Passes Bill Restoring Workers' Right to Class-Action CAMDEN DEVELOPMENT: Appeals Order in Morris Suit to 9th Cir. CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: Ritenour's Class Cert. Motion Denied CHILDREN'S MERCY: J.H. Suit Moved to Western District of Missouri COACH INC: Vaughn Seeks Certification of 2 Store Manager Classes CROSSROADS CORRECTIONAL: Local Attorneys Prep Class Suit CULPEPER COUNTY, VA: Rios Files Civil Rights Class Suit CV SCIENCES: Bragar Eagel Files Class Action Lawsuit CV SCIENCES: Rosen Law Files Class Action Lawsuit DAIRY FARMERS: 9,000 Farmers Paid in Class Action Suit DAKOTA COUNTY, MN: Sued by Lutgens Over Civil Rights Violations DEFENDERS INC: Certification of FLSA Collective Action Sought DOUGH MANAGEMENT: Rechtoris Files Suit Over Below Min. Wages EL FOGON: Naranjo Seeks to Recover OT Pay, Damages ELDORADO LOUNGE: Jackson Seeks Review of Ruling in Braxton Suit EQUIFAX INC: Duncan Man Files Class Action Suit After Cyber Attack FAUZIA KHAN: Whitney Seeks to Certify Class of Cook County Inmates FCA US: Faces Cummings Suit in N. Dist. New York FUN BRANDS: Website not Accessible to Blind People, Wu Says G. M. GOLDMAN: Chertok Sues over Unsolicited Telephone Calls GENERAL INFORMATION: Devon Smith Suit Goes to South Carolina GLOBAL CREDIT: Wins Prelim. Nod of Class Deal in Williams Suit GOSPEL FOR ASIA: Court Certifies Class, Subclass in Murphy Suit HERBALIFE LTD: Rodgers Suit over Live Events Transferred to Calif. HESKA CORP: Court Certifies Class in Fauley Suit HLY CHINESE: Li Sues Over Fair Labor Standards Act Violations ILLINOIS: Wage Class Certification Sought in Singer Suit INDEPENDENT TRUCKERS: Northrup Clarifies Class of Subscribers JAMBA INC: Turner et al. Allege False Advertising of Smoothies JPMORGAN CHASE: African American Advisors File Discrimination Suit JPMORGAN CHASE: Wins Prelim. Approval of Senegal Suit Settlement JUNO THERAPEUTICS: Pomerantz LLP Discloses Settlement of Lawsuit JUST ENERGY: Evangelista Seeks to Certify Class KAISER FOUNDATION: Williams Seeks Overtime Pay under Labor Code LANNETT COMPANY: Kaskela Law Files Class Action Lawsuit LONG ISLAND CONCRETE: Fails to Pay Wages, Perez et al. Say LOUISIANA: Hamilton's Bid to Certify Prisoners Class Tossed MCCARTHY BURGESS: Calonge Sues in E.D.N.Y. Over FDCPA Violations MCDONALD'S: Violated FCRA with Background Checks on Job Applicants MDL 2741: Barnes et al. vs Monsanto Consolidated in N.D. Calif. MDL 2741: Bookout et al. vs Monsanto Consolidated in N.D. Calif. MDL 2741: Boudreaux et al. vs Monsanto Consolidated in N.D. Calif. MDL 2741: Carroll et al. vs Monsanto Consolidated in N.D. Calif. MDL 2741: Dutton-Smith vs Monsanto Consolidated in N.D. Calif. MDL 2741: Hachmeister vs Monsanto Consolidated in N.D. Calif. MDL 2741: Hoffman et al. vs Monsanto Consolidated in N.D. Cal. MDL 2741: Hurst vs Monsanto Consolidated in N.D. Calif. MEDICAID: Caregivers File Federal Suit Over Budgeting System MEDNAX INC: Bragar Eagel Files Class Action MERCK & CO: Hoppers Sues over Sale of Zostavax Vaccine MERCK & CO: Roberts Sues over Sale of Zostavax Vaccine MICHAEL MARINOV: Wins Bid to Strike Wrong Memo in Garcia Suit MIDLAND CREDIT: Williams Suit Moved to E.D. Pennsylvania MONSANTO COMPANY: Coats Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MRS BPO: Guralenko Files Suit Over FDCPA Breach NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Panzarella Sues Over Illegal Collection Calls NEVADA: Shannon Appeals Decision in Suit v. DIR Over Lump-Sum Award NEWPORT SYNDICATE: Newlyweds Sue Over Hep A Exposure OISHI THAI: Violates Disabilities Act, Gomez Class Suit Claims OXY USA: Hitch Moves to Certify Class of Royalty Owners in Kansas OXY USA: Whisenant Suit Moved to Western District of Oklahoma PAPA JOHN'S: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit PENNSYLVANIA: Class-Action Suits vs. PHEAA Target Practices PRIMEFLIGHT AVIATION: Kuhn Suit Moved to E.D. California PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE: Stedman Suit Moved to W.D. Washington PROMPT NURSING: Filipino Nurses Class Certified in "Paguirigan" QUEEN'S HARBOUR: Faces Story Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. REGIONAL MEDICAL: Faces MSPA Suit in M. Dist. Florida REPROMED: Law Firms Team Up on Proposed Class Action ROYAL WINNIPEG: Canada's Ballet World Rocked by Abuse Scandal SAN BERNARDINO, CA: McKibben Wins Prelim. OK of $950K Settlement SANFORD LP: Spacone Appeals Class Cert. Denial to 9th Circuit SCRIPPS EXECUTIVE: Meisenheimer Sues over Inaccurate Pay Check SECORP INDUSTRIES: Court Certifies Class in Jensen Suit SETERUS INC: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Heinitz Alleges SHAMROCK FOODS: 9th Circuit Appeal Filed in Ruiz Class Suit SINCLAIR BROADCAST: My Philly Lawyer Asserts Sherman Act Breach SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIV: Ahad's Bid for Class Certification Denied SPRINGFIELD, MA: Disability Law Appeals Dist. Ct. Ruling STAGE STORES: Crosby Moves for Certification of Class Under FLSA STARBUCKS CORP: Court Denies Petition for Rehearing in Wage Suit SUBARU: To Settle Lawsuit Over WRX, WRX STI Engines SUNTRUST: Saint-Simon Suit Moved to S.D. Florida SUPERVALU INC: Wallace Balks at United Natural Foods Merger Deal SUSHI HOUSE: Accused by Gomez Suit of Violating Disabilities Act TBC CORP: Court Certifies Colorado & Florida Classes THALES AVIONICS: Faces Hamadah Wage-and-Hour Suit THIRD ROUND: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Mesch Suit Says TIGAMAN INC: $1.3M Sale of Roswell Property to Steven Approved TORONTO HYDRO: Faces Lawsuit Over High Rise Fire UNITED STATES: Class Cert. Bid in Lucas Suit Denied w/o Prejudice USG CORP: Lowinger Seeks to Halt Sale to Gebr. Knauf VOLUME SERVICES: Jeffries Appeals FCRA Suit Dismissal WESTERN EXPRESS: Hutto Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California WILLIAMS & FUDGE: Consumers Sue Student Loan Financial Company YONKERS RACING: Website not Accessible to Blind, Mendez Says ********* ACCC INSURANCE: Faces Fairman Class Suit in S.D. Mississippi ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against ACCC Insurance Company. The case is captioned as Melvin Fairman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ACCC Insurance Company, Case No. 2:18-cv-00162-KS-MTP (S.D. Miss., September 10, 2018). The lawsuit arises from insurance-related disputes. ACCC Insurance Company provides personal auto insurance. ACCC is a privately held company founded in 1997 and its corporate office is located in Houston, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Glenn S. Swartzfager, Esq. HAZZARD LAW, LLC 447 Northpark Drive Ridgeland, MS 39157 Telephone: (601) 977-5253 Facsimile: (601) 977-5236 E-mail: glenn.swartzfager@hazzardlaw.net ADVANCED RETAIL: Williams Seeks Overtime Pay for Merchandisers -------------------------------------------------------------- MEAGHAN WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ADVANCED RETAIL MERCHANDISING, INC., Case No. 8:18-cv-02104-VMC-AEP (M.D. Fla., Aug. 23, 2018), alleges that the Defendant failed to pay overtime to their merchandisers, including Meaghan Williams, as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, ARM employed merchandisers like Williams to install shelves in stores and stock them with merchandise. Although merchandisers regularly worked many hours in excess for 40 per week, ARM paid them a fixed weekly amount without any overtime pay in violation of the FLSA. Advanced Retail provides retail merchandising services to retailers and brand marketers to support their merchandising activities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C. Ryan Morgan, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PA 20 N. Orange Ave., 16th Floor P.O. Box 4979 Orlando, FL 32802-4979 Telephone: (407) 420 1414 Facsimile: (407) 425 8171 E-mail: RMorgan@forthepeople.com ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Sued by Castro in N.Y. Over FDCPA Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alltran Financial, LP. The case is titled as Alex Castro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Alltran Financial, LP, Case No. 2:18-cv-05055 (E.D.N.Y., September 7, 2018). The Plaintiff accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Alltran Financial, LP, specializes in revenue cycle, accounts receivable, and contact center solutions within healthcare, financial services, higher education, and government industries in the Unites States. The Company also offers, among other things, pre-service coverage and cleanup, and charge entry and physician billing services; and Medicaid eligibility and self pay collection services.[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 AMERICAN YUEXIANGGUI: Chiu Files Suit Asserting FLSA Breach ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Yuexianggui of LI LLC and Xing Mei Chen. The case is titled as Yvonne Chiu, on her own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. American Yuexianggui of LI LLC and Xing Mei Chen, Case No. 2:18-cv-05091 (E.D.N.Y., September 10, 2018). The Plaintiff accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act. American Yuexianggui of Li LLC is a New York domestic limited liability company with a corporate address in Old Westbury, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Troy, Esq. TROY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 119 Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762-1324 E-mail: troylaw@troypllc.com AMERICOLLECT INC: Class Certification Sought in Kijek Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Donna Kijek and Thomas Whalen move the Court to certify the class described in the complaint of their lawsuit styled DONNA KIJEK and THOMAS WHALEN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. AMERICOLLECT, INC., Case No. 2:18-cv-01428-DEJ (E.D. Wisc.), and further ask that the Court both stay the motion for class certification and to grant them (and the Defendant) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the Motion. Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class action complaint could moot a class representative's case by depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a class certification motion, the Plaintiffs assert, citing Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016). To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs."). While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement of a class representative's claims, the same decision cautions that other methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class, the Plaintiffs tell the Court, citing Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10839 *9-10 (7th Cir. June 20, 2017). The Plaintiffs assert that one defendant has attempted a similar tactic by sending a certified check to the proposed class representative. Bonin v. CBS Radio, Inc., No. 16-cv-674-CNC (E.D. Wis.); see also Severns v. Eastern Account Systems of Connecticut, Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 24, 2016). The Plaintiffs are obligated to move for class certification to protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiffs contend. As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs argue. The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as class representatives, and to appoint Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class counsel. The Plaintiffs are represented by: John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Jesse Fruchter, Esq. Ben J. Slatky, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com jfruchter@ademilaw.com bslatky@ademilaw.com AMPIO PHARMACEUTICALS: Shaffer Sues Over Share Price Drop --------------------------------------------------------- Steven Shaffer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Michael Macaluso and Thomas E. Chilcott, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-02252 (D. Colo., August 31, 2018), seeks statutory damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from violations of the federal securities laws. Ampio is a biopharmaceutical company which focuses on the development of therapies for the treatment of prevalent inflammatory conditions. It was developing Ampion, a low molecular anti-inflammatory biologic, for the treatment of pain due to osteoarthritis of the knee. Defendants failed to disclose that Ampion's clinical trials were inadequate and not well-controlled. On this news, shares of Ampio fell $2.25 per share or over 78% to close at $0.61 per share on August 8, 2018. Shares continued to fall another 21.3% the next day. Shaffer purchased Ampio common stock and lost substantially, says the complaint. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com ASCENSIONPOINT RECOVERY: Machnik's Bid for Certification Stayed --------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. William E. Duffin grants the motion to stay further proceedings on motion for class certification filed by the Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled AUDREY MACHNIK v. ASCENSIONPOINT RECOVERY SERVICES LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-01375-WED (E.D. Wisc.). On September 5, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a class action complaint. At the same time, the Plaintiff filed what the Court commonly refers to as a "protective" motion for class certification. In this Motion the Plaintiff moved to certify the class described in the complaint but also moved the Court to stay further proceedings on that Motion. In Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011), the court suggested that class-action plaintiffs "move to certify the class at the same time that they file their complaint." "The pendency of that motion protects a putative class from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs." However, because parties are generally unprepared to proceed with a motion for class certification at the beginning of a case, the Damasco court suggested that the parties "ask the district court to delay its ruling to provide time for additional discovery or investigation." Hence, the Plaintiff's motion to stay further proceedings is granted, Judge Duffin rules. The parties are relieved from the automatic briefing schedule set forth in Civil Local Rule 7(b) and (c). Moreover, Judge Duffin states, for administrative purposes, it is necessary that the Clerk terminate the Plaintiff's Motion for class certification. However, this Motion will be regarded as pending to serve its protective purpose under Damasco. ASPLUNDH TREE: Belloso Wins Certification of Employee Class ----------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled MILTON ANTONIO BELLOSO, the Plaintiff, v. ASPLUNDH TREE EXPERT, CO. and ASPLUNDH TREE EXPERT, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 6:17-cv-02020-PGB-GJK (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Paul Byron entered an order on August 24, 2018: 1. conditionally certifying a class of: "all Employees of Asplundh who: (1) are or were employed as "General Foreperson" in Regions 50, 52, and 55 during the preceding three (3) years; (2) were paid an "hourly rate"; and (3) worked more than forty hours in a work week without being paid proper overtime compensation"; 2. appointing Plaintiff's Counsel as class counsel; 3. directing Defendants to provide Plaintiff with the names, job titles, dates of employment, last known addresses, telephone numbers, and email addresses for everyone in the class; and 4. directing Plaintiff to revise notice by Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and as modified by this Order. BAPTIST HEALTH: Blake Tishman's Bid to Certify TCPA Class Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Jose Martinez denied without prejudice the motion for class certification filed by the Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled BLAKE TISHMAN, P.A., a Florida professional corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v. BAPTIST HEALTH SOUTH FLORIDA INC., BAPTIST SLEEP CENTERS, LLC, and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 0:17-cv-62230-JEM (S.D. Fla.). Judge Martinez instructed the Plaintiff to re-file the Motion at the appropriate time. The Plaintiff filed causes of action against the Defendant, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and conversion as a result of the Defendants sending the Plaintiff unsolicited advertisement by facsimile. Two days later, the Plaintiff filed the Motion, requesting that the Court certify this class: "Each person or entity that was sent one or more telephone facsimile messages after November 14, 2013 about outpatient diagnostic tests or home sleep tests available from or through Baptist Health South Florida or Baptist Sleep Centers." The Plaintiff concedes additional discovery is necessary for the Court to determine whether to certify the Class. The Defendants object to class certification on the basis that it is premature. BENCO DENTAL: Agrees to Settlement in Class-Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------- Patrick Kernan, writing for Times Leader, reports that a class-action lawsuit accusing Benco Dental of conspiring with two other dental-supply distributors has been settled, according to a statement issued on August 30 by the Pittston Township-based company. Reports say one of the parties involved will be paying out tens of millions of dollars. But the exact settlement terms for Benco remain unclear. The suit, initially filed in February 2016, accused the company of scheming with Patterson Companies Inc., of Minnesota, and Henry Schein Inc., of New York, to falsely inflate prices by pressuring dentists to not shop with cheaper distributors. The three companies combined make up 80 percent of the dental-supplies market. In Benco's statement, it maintains it did nothing wrong, in spite of reaching the settlement. "While we continue to believe that the lawsuit's claims are without merit, settlement allows us to avoid the time, expense and inherent uncertainty of litigation," a company spokesperson wrote. "In agreeing to the settlement, Benco made no admission of liability. We can now refocus our efforts on what we do best: driving dentistry forward." While Benco made no reference to the amount it would be paying in the settlement, New York-based Newsday is reporting that Henry Schein is expected to pay out $38.5 million. Schein also told Newsday that co-defendant Patterson Companies was expected to settle. Bloomberg reported that Patterson's stock price tumbled after Henry Schein's announcement of the settlement. The suit, initially filed by Dr. Sander I. White, a Delaware County dentist, claims the anti-competitive actions of Benco and the other companies began in at least February 2012. In April 2015, Benco consented to a $300,000 judgment in a Texas lawsuit that involved similar accusations. The Texas Dental Association (or TDA) claimed Benco and its partners conspired to boycott the TDA's 2014 annual meeting in attempts to stifle a new distributor. Benco similarly made no admission of wrongdoing in that case, and the $300,000 paid was to the state of Texas to cover legal fees.[GN] BLACK ISLAND: Faces Honeywell ADA Suit in M.D. Fla. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Black Island Management LLC. The case is styled as Cheri Honeywell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Black Island Management LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Case No. 2:18-cv-00603-SPC-MRM (M.D. Fla., September 10, 2018). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Black Island Management LLC is a Florida limited liability company located in Fort Myers Beach, Florida. The Company does business as Lovers Key Beach Club & Resort/Flippers On The Bay. The Flippers On The Bay restaurant is located at Lovers Key Resort in Fort Myers Beach.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jessica Lynn Kerr, Esq. THE ADVOCACY GROUP, LLC 200 SE 6th St., Suite 504 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-3424 Telephone: (954) 282-1858 Facsimile: (844) 786-3694 E-mail: jkerr@advocacypa.com BUFFALO, NY: Lathrop Sues BOE to Recover Overtime Pay ----------------------------------------------------- Jeffrey C. Lathrop, individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Board of Education for the Buffalo City School District, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00957 (W.D. N.Y., August 31, 2018), seeks to recover past and continuing unpaid overtime work, past and continuing underpaid overtime compensation (not at one and one-half regular rate of pay, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, post-judgment interest, costs, attorney's fees, declaratory and injunctive relief, and any other such relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Buffalo Public School District is a publicly funded school district organized and operating under the laws of the State of New York under the NY Board of Education. Lathrop, a Chief Engineer/Custodian, worked in excess of forty hours in a work week and were not compensated for such overtime work, say the conplaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Paul D. Weiss, Esq. BARTLO, HETTLER, WEISS, &TRIPI 22 Victoria Boulevard Kenmore, NY 14217 Tel: (716) 873-8833 Email: pweiss@bhwtlaw.com bnatale@bhwtlaw.com C&C SECURITY: Lepe Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code ------------------------------------------------------ ALVARO LUIS LEPE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. C&C SECURITY PATROL, INC., a California corporation; and DOES l through 50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. RG18918190 (Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 24, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages including regular wages and overtime wages under the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Defendants had a consistent policy of (1) unlawfully failing to pay Representative Plaintiff and Class Members for all hours worked, by including but not limited to shaving off hours worked by Representative Plaintiff and Class Members by rounding of their punch times; (2) failing to pay Representative Plaintiff and Class Members overtime wages for more than 8 hours of work in a work-day and/or more than 40 hours in a work-week; (3) failing to pay Representative Plaintiff and Class Members double-time wages for more than 12 hours of work in a work-day and for wages earned over 8 hours worked on the seventh day worked in a work-week; (4) unlawfully failing to provide Representative Plaintiff and Class Members with timely, statutorily mandated meal and rest periods and/or failing to properly compensate them for meal and rest period violations; (5) unlawfully failing to reimburse Representative Plaintiff and Class Members for business expenditures incurred in performing their job duties, (6) willfully failing to provide Representative Plaintiff and Class Member with accurate semi-monthly itemized wage statements that correctly identified the name of the employer; and (7) violating California's Unfair Competition Law.[BN] Attorneys for Representative Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Class: Kevin Allen, Esq. Daniel Yelton, Esq. VELTON ZEGELMAN P.C. 1261 Lincoln Avenue, Suite 208 San Jose, CA 95125 Telephone: (408) 505 7892 Facsimile: (408) 228 1930 E-mail: kallen@vzfirm.com dvelton@vzfirm.com - and - Daniel A. Menendez, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL A. MENENDEZ 1261 Lincoln Avenue, Suite 208 San Jose, CA 95125 Telephone (408) 479 4969 Facsimile (408) 273 6912 E-mail: daniel@siliconvalleylegal.com CALIFORNIA-NEVADA METHODIST: Aman Seeks Unpaid Wages & OT Pay ------------------------------------------------------------- LAURIE AMAN, an individual, on behalf of 141 1 herself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA-NEVADA METHODIST HOMES; and DOES 1 thru 50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. RG18918017 (Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 23, 2018), seeks payment of unpaid wages and overtime under the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, from at least four years prior to the filing of this action continuing to the present, the Defendant has had a consistent policy of failing to pay wages and/or overtime to all Proposed Class members when they work more than eight hours in a day or forty hours in a week. The Plaintiff and other members of the Proposed Class were not properly compensated for overtime at the appropriate rate of pay because Defendant failed to blend shift differential and/or "other" pay into their regular rate of pay for the purposes of determining the appropriate overtime rate. As such, Plaintiff and the Proposed Class were paid at a regular rate less than the rate required under California law. The Defendant provides retirement living options to seniors.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class: Eric B. Kingsley, Esq. Kelsey M. Szamet, Esq. KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC 16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200 411 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (818) 990 8300 Facsimile: (818) 990 2903 E-mail: eric@kingsleykingsley.com kelsey@kingsleykingsley.com - and - Walter L. Haines, Esq. UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP, PC E-mail: admin@uelglaw.com 5500 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 201 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Telephone: (562) 256 1047 Facsimile: (562) 256 1006 CALIFORNIA: Passes Bill Restoring Workers' Right to Class-Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- California's state senate passed a state assembly bill that will prevent employers from forcing workers to sign mandatory arbitration clauses as a condition of employment. The bill, known as AB 3080, comes as an urgent response to a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling. In May, the Court ruled that companies can force employees to sign a class-action lawsuit waiver that sends any such disputes to private arbitration instead. This ruling effectively stripped workers nationwide of their access to class-action lawsuits when it comes to workplace disputes, as it is widely expected that most non-unionized companies nationwide will force new hires and even existing employees to sign these waivers, which significantly limit an employer's exposure to legal liability. This poses a significant threat to the welfare, safety, and prosperity of workers, as class-action lawsuits are often the only effective means of recourse against an employer who is mistreating their employees or engaging in illegal activities. Carney Shegerian, the head of Los Angeles employment law firm Shegerian & Associates, noted that the Supreme Court ruling ignores this fact. "Class-action lawsuits are sometimes the only mechanism an ordinary person has against a company that's breaking the law," Shegerian said. "The majority on the Supreme Court made this ruling because they'd rather the law be friendly to businesses than hold those businesses accountable for breaking the law." Shegerian continued, "That ruling is essentially a giveaway to the rich, one that comes on the backs of workers who are suffering illegal treatment on the job -- like sexual harassment, for example. That's why the state legislature passed this new bill so quickly." AB 3080 arose from the #MeToo movement, because one of the common consequences of private arbitration is that it allows sexual misconduct to be hidden, so that other workers, clients, and customers at a company won't know that a given employee is actually a sexual predator. "We are at a time in this country when these age-old workplace abuses are finally coming into the light," Shegerian said, "and of course it's drawing a backlash from the rich and powerful, and their supporters on the Supreme Court. Fortunately, ordinary workers and their families also have a voice in the government, as AB 3080 shows." AB 3080 also attempts to protect itself from the inevitable legal challenges against it by allowing employees to sign the class-action waivers if they want to. Previous efforts in California to outlaw the waivers altogether failed, in large part because it was expected that such a law would be preempted either by federal law or by the Supreme Court. By allowing workers to sign the waivers voluntarily, there is no restriction of their rights either way. The bill now goes to Gov. Jerry Brown's desk for final signature. Headquartered in Santa Monica, California and with offices in San Diego, San Francisco, & New York, Shegerian & Associates is a law firm specializing in protecting the rights of employees who have been wronged by their employers. Carney Shegerian, Trial Lawyer of the Year Award winner for 2013, has won 80 jury trials in his career, including 37 seven-figure verdicts. Shegerian & Associates is passionately dedicated to serving the needs of its clients. For more information about the firm, visit www.ShegerianLaw.com. [GN] CAMDEN DEVELOPMENT: Appeals Order in Morris Suit to 9th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------ Defendant Camden Development, Inc., filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Katrina Morris v. Camden Development, Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-03089-GW-FFM, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles (Case No. BC697449). The Plaintiff seeks to recover alleged unpaid overtime, unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid rest period, and unpaid minimum wages under the California Labor Code. The appellate case is captioned as Katrina Morris v. Camden Development, Inc., Case No. 18-80108, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Respondent KATRINA MORRIS, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, is represented by: Edwin Aiwazian, Esq. LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC 410 Arden Avenue Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 265-1020 Facsimile: (818) 265-1021 E-mail: edwin@lfjpc.com Defendant-Petitioner CAMDEN DEVELOPMENT, INC., an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, is represented by: Brandon Reed McKelvey, Esq. MEDINA MCKELVEY LLP 983 Reserve Drive Roseville, CA 95678 Telephone: (916) 960-2211 E-mail: brandon@medinamckelvey.com CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: Ritenour's Class Cert. Motion Denied --------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Cormac J. Carney entered an order in the lawsuit entitled CANDICE RITENOUR, individually and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, and CHERYL WEISER, individually and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES, LLC, and DOES 1 through 100, Case No. 8:16-cv-02011-CJC-DFM (C.D. Cal.): -- granting the Defendant's motion to deny class certification; and -- denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On September 30, 2016, Plaintiffs Candice Ritenour and Cheryl Weiser filed this putative class action in California Superior Court, County of Orange, against Defendant Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC ("CMS"), alleging claims on behalf of all current and former hourly CMS employees in California. On November 4, 2016, the Defendant removed the action to the District Court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act. The Plaintiffs' operative Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") asserts eight state law causes of action for violations of the California Labor Code and Business & Professions Code: (1) failure to pay overtime wages, (2) failure to provide meal periods, (3) failure to provide rest periods, (4) failure to pay minimum wages, (5) failure to timely pay final wages, (6) failure to provide compliant wage statements, (7) failure to reimburse business expenses, and (8) unlawful business practices. The Plaintiffs' proposed class consists of all current and former hourly-paid or nonexempt employees who worked for CMS at any time from September 30, 2012 to final judgment. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification additionally outlines five distinct subclasses: (1) the "Meal Period Subclass," consisting of all members who worked at least one shift for more than five hours at any time during the relevant period, (2) the "Rest Period Subclass," consisting of all members who worked at least one shift of three and one-half hours or more at any time during the relevant period, (3) the "Wage Statement Subclass," consisting of all members who earned commissions or non-discretionary pay that "was not used to calculate the regular rate of pay" necessary for calculating overtime, (4) the "Waiting Time Subclass," consisting of all members of the Meal and Rest Period Subclasses whose employment with CS has terminated, and (5) the "Unfair Competition Law Subclass," consisting of all members who were subjected to "CMS' unlawful, unfair, and/or fraudulent business acts or practices." In his order, Judge Carney notes that the Plaintiffs have failed to show any "strict policy" regarding breaks or premiums, let alone one that applied to the entire class. Because the Plaintiffs have failed to show a uniform policy of failing to pay meal and rest period premiums, a wage statement claim on that basis fails, Judge Carney explaints. Judge Carney also states that a class action is not the superior method for adjudicating the Plaintiffs' claims. Given that the Plaintiffs have failed to show that CMS adopted a facially invalid policy with respect to meal and rest periods, meal and rest period premiums, or wage statements, the Court would have to consider putative class members' individual circumstances on a person-by-person basis. "Because classwide adjudication would require adjudication of putative class members' claims on an individual basis, the 23(b)(3) superiority requirement is not met," Judge Carney opines, citing See Gonzalez v. OfficeMax N. Am., 2012 WL 5473764, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2012). CHILDREN'S MERCY: J.H. Suit Moved to Western District of Missouri ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled J.H., by and through his Next Friend A.H. individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Children's Mercy Hospital, the Defendant, Case No. 1816-CV17775, was removed from the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri (Kansas City) on Aug. 24, 2018. The Missouri Western District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:18-cv-00675-ODS to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Ortrie D. Smith. Children's Mercy Hospital is a 367-bed comprehensive pediatric medical center in Kansas City, Missouri that integrates clinical care, research and medical education to provide care for patients ages birth to 21.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendant is represented by: Martin M. Loring, Esq. HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP - KCMO 4801 Main Street, Suite 1000 Kansas City, MO 64112-2551 Telephone: (816) 983 8142 Facsimile: (816) 983 8080 E-mail: martin.loring@huschblackwell.com COACH INC: Vaughn Seeks Certification of 2 Store Manager Classes ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled MARTHA VAUGHN, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated v. COACH, INC., DBA COACH LEATHERWARE CALIFORNIA INC., a Maryland corporation; and DOES 1-50 inclusive, Case No. 3:16-cv-04633-VC (N.D. Cal.), ask the Court to certify these classes: (1) Retail Store Manager Class: All individuals employed by Coach in the position of Store Manager at any Coach Retail Store in California at any time between June 29, 2012 and December 31, 2014; and (2) Small Outlet Store Manager Class: In addition to Plaintiff, all individuals employed by Coach in the position of Store Manager at any Coach Outlet Store with (a) annual sales in the lowest ten percent of Coach Outlet stores in California at any time after January 1, 2015, or (b) annual sales that would place the Coach Outlet store within the group comprising the lowest ten percent of Coach Outlet stores nationally at any time after January 1, 2015. The Plaintiff also seeks certification of such sub-classes as are necessary to manage the proposed class, including penalty sub-classes limited in time by the applicable statutes of limitation. Ms. Vaughn further asks the Court to (1) appoint her as representative of the classes, or later proposed and approved by the Court and any other sub-class the Court may devise; (2) to appoint Stanley D. Saltzman, Esq., of Marlin & Saltzman and Shaun Setareh, Esq., and H. Scott Leviant, Esq., of Setareh Law Group as Class Counsel; and (3) to issue other orders as necessary to effectuate the Court's certification Order. The Court will commence a hearing on November 29, 2018, at 10:00 a.m., to consider the Motion. The Plaintiff is represented by: Shaun Setareh, Esq. H. Scott Leviant, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 888-7771 Facsimile: (310) 888-0109 E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com scott@setarehlaw.com - and - Stanley D. Saltzman, Esq. MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP 29800 Agoura Road, Suite 210 Agoura Hills, CA 91301 Telephone: (818) 991-8080 Facsimile: (818) 991-8081 E-mail: ssaltzman@marlinsaltzman.com CROSSROADS CORRECTIONAL: Local Attorneys Prep Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Tod Palmer, writing for 41 KSHB Kansas City, reports that two local attorneys, Henry C. Service, Esq. and Arimeta DuPree, Esq are gathering information and documents for a legal takedown of the Missouri Department of Corrections. Service told 41 Action News that he's currently working to certify a group of several dozen inmates for a class-action lawsuit against Crossroads Correctional Center in Cameron, Missouri. Among the complaints, which family and friends voiced during a press briefing on September 1 with the Service and DuPree, conditions at Crossroads are unsanitary, the food service is unsatisfactory, and understaffing has led to Constitutional violations of inmates' rights. "People visiting contracted MRSA," Service said, referring to a drug-resistant strain of staphylococcus bacteria common in some prisons and hospitals. "It's unsanitary and there's been no action from the health department. If a child can get it from visiting, imagine what it's like for the people in there." Family and friends complain of being able to visit loved ones. Inmates, many of who were involved in an "uprising" in May to protest the conditions at the prison, have complained of being on forced lockdown months after the incident due to understaffing. "It's not a staffing issue," Service said. "It's a human rights issue." Service and DuPree are asking inmates and their families to gather relevant documents as well as lodge and log complaints as part of the evidence-gathering process. The problems at the prison haven't been limited to inmate complaints. The prison has consistently denied access to legislators and press seeking to assess the facility's conditions, especially since the May unrest, in violation of Missouri law. "Not to confuse the issue, but it sounds similar to another set of facilities where people were subjected to inhumane treatment and access to document the conditions was denied," Service said. "That seems to be the new normal. You cover it up, and don't even do a good cover up, then you look the press or politicians right in the eye and say everything is fine when it's not." Crossroads may only be the tip of the iceberg. "We want to expand it," Service said. But for now, he's content to try and make a difference at Crossroads. Some family members and friends of Crossroads inmates are planning protests, hoping to draw more attention to the issues at the facility.[GN] CULPEPER COUNTY, VA: Rios Files Civil Rights Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Scott Jenkins. The case is titled as Francisco Guardado Rios, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Scott Jenkins, Sheriff of Culpeper County, Virginia, in his individual capacity, Case No. 3:18-cv-00082-GEC (W.D. Va., September 10, 2018). The Plaintiff alleges violations of the Civil Rights Act. Scott Jenkins is the Sheriff of Culpeper County, Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel Emily Nadas, Esq. Simon Y. Sandoval-Moshenberg, Esq. Sophia Leticia Gregg, Esq. LEGAL AID JUSTICE CENTER 6066 Leesburg Pike #520 Falls Church, VA 22041 Telephone: (571) 620-5230 Facsimile: (703) 778-3454 E-mail: rnadas@justice4all.org simon@justice4all.org sophia@justice4all.org - and - Victor M. Glasberg, Esq. VICTOR M. GLASBERG & ASSOCIATES 121 South Columbus Street Alexandria, VA 22314 Telephone: (703) 684-1100 Facsimile: (703) 684-1104 E-mail: vmg@robinhoodesq.com CV SCIENCES: Bragar Eagel Files Class Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. discloses that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired CV Sciences, Inc., securities between June 19, 2018 and August 20, 2018, (the "Class Period"). Investors have until October 23, 2018 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose that its Patent #15/426,617: (1) received a non-final rejection from the USPTO on April 27, 2017; (2) a final rejection from the USPTO on December 14, 2017; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about CV Sciences' business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. If you purchased CV Sciences securities during the Class Period or continue to hold shares purchased before the Class Period, have information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters please; Brandon Walker, Esq. Melissa Fortunato, Esq. Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Telephone: (212) 355-4648 Website: www.bespc.com Email: fortunato@bespc.com walker@bespc.com [GN] CV SCIENCES: Rosen Law Files Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, disclosed the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of CV Sciences, Inc., from June 19, 2017 through August 20, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for CV Sciences investors under the federal securities laws. To join the CV Sciences class action, go to https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1405.html or call Phillip Kim, Esq. or Zachary Halper, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. According to the lawsuit, defendants during the Class Period made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) CV Sciences received a non-final rejection from the U.S. Patent Trademark Office ("USPTO") on April 27, 2017 regarding its principal pharmaceutical product, CVSI-007; (2) CV Sciences received a final rejection from the USPTO on December 14, 2017 regarding CVSI-007; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' statements about CV Sciences' business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 23, 2018. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1405.html Follow us for updates on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm or on Twitter: https://twitter.com/rosen—firm. View source version on businesswire.com:https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20180829005455/en/ Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. Zachary Halper, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 34thFloor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com zhalper@rosenlegal.com [GN] DAIRY FARMERS: 9,000 Farmers Paid in Class Action Suit ------------------------------------------------------ Boston Herald reports that thousands of Northeast dairy farmers are receiving their share of a $50 million settlement, nearly nine years after the farmers filed a class-action lawsuit against a national dairy marketing cooperative. Dairy Farmers of America paid an average of $4,000 to nearly 9,000 farms to settle a lawsuit that accused the marketing group of trying to drive down milk prices. The 2009 class-action lawsuit charged Dairy Farmers of America; its marketing arm, Dairy Marketing Services; and Dallas-based Dean Foods with working together to monopolize the market for raw milk in the Northeast. Dean Foods agreed to a separate $30 million settlement in 2011. The deals covered farmers in Delaware, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and the District of Columbia. [GN] DAKOTA COUNTY, MN: Sued by Lutgens Over Civil Rights Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against County of Dakota, et al. The case is captioned as Bryant Lutgens, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. County of Dakota, Loren Hanson, Jalen Sneddeker, Katherine Forbes and Ken Rodning, Case No. 0:18-cv-02634 (D. Minn., September 10, 2018). The Plaintiff alleges civil rights violations. Dakota County is the third-most populous county in the U.S. state of Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua R. Williams, Esq. Timothy M. Phillips, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JOSHUA R. WILLIAMS 2836 Lyndale Avenue South, Suite 160 Minneapolis, MN 55408 Telephone: (612) 486-5540 E-mail: jwilliams@jrwilliamslaw.com tphillips@jrwilliamslaw.com DEFENDERS INC: Certification of FLSA Collective Action Sought ------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled TEDDY ARCHER, TREY BERNADOU, SEDETRIC CHAMBLISS, ERVIN DESIR, BRODRICK FRANCIS, JAMES HUTCHINSON, DANIEL MANOFSKY, DEVON SPRINGER, ERIC STEWART, JESSE SWANSON, ANDREW WALLS, CALVIN WESLEY, CHRIS WOODRUFF, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. DEFENDERS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00470-RGA (D. Del.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to conditionally certify a Fair Labor Standards Act collective action and approve a notice to be sent to members of the class. Specifically, the Plaintiffs seek to certify a class consisting of: "all Security Advisors who are currently or were previously employed by Defenders as Security Advisors, who were not paid for work performed by them, particularly for time spent in connection with their travel to and from installation job sites and their attendance at lengthy meetings mandated by Defenders". The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ted E. Trief, Esq. Shelly L. Friedland, Esq. Stan Gutgarts, Esq. TRIEF & OLK 150 E. 58th Street, 34th Floor New York, NY 10155 Telephone: (212) 486 6060 E-mail: ttrief@triefandolk.com - and - Peter S. Pearlman, Esq. COHN LIFLAND PEARLMAN HERRMANN & KNOPF LLP Park 80 Plaza West One, 250 Pehle Avenue, Suite 401 Saddle Brook, NJ 07663 Telephone: (201) 845 9600 E-mail: psp@njlawfirm.com - and - Macy D. Hanson, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF MACY D. HANSON, PLLC The Echelon Center 102 First Choice Drive Madison, MS 39110 Telephone: (601) 853 9521 E-mail: macy@macyhanson.com - and - Brian D. Long, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 295 5310 E-mail: BDL@rl-legal.com DOUGH MANAGEMENT: Rechtoris Files Suit Over Below Min. Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Corey Rechtoris, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. Dough Management, Inc. and James Gronemann, individually, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00708, (N.D. Ind., August 31, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime hours owed under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Indiana Minimum Wage Law. Defendant operates numerous Domino's Pizza franchise stores and employs delivery drivers who use their own automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items to their customers. However, they used an unreasonably low approximation of the vehicle expenses causing their wages to fall below the federal minimum wage, notes the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew Haynie, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC 1701 N. Market Street, Suite 210 Dallas, TX 75202 Tel: (214) 210-2100 phone Fax: (214) 346-5909 Website: www.foresterhaynie.com EL FOGON: Naranjo Seeks to Recover OT Pay, Damages -------------------------------------------------- Juan Naranjo individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Pizza and Tacos El Fogon Corp., Taqueria el Fogon 2 Corp. and Filiberto Meza-Wattal, Case No. 18-cv-04979, (E.D. N.Y., September 1, 2018), seeks to recover overtime compensation, spread-of-hours pay, unlawful deductions and breach-of-contract and quantum meruit damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, Wage Theft Prevention Act and related provisions from Title 12 of New York Codes, Rules and Regulations. Defendants operate as "El Fogon," a restaurant located at 638 Manhattan Avenue, Brooklyn NY 11222 where Naranjo worked as a delivery worker. The Plaintiff contends that his duties included greater or equal time spent in non-tipped functions, such as dishwashing, sweeping and mopping, cleaning the counters, bathroom, basement and sidewalk, among others. Yet, the Defendants paid him at the lowered tip credit rate. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Franco, Esq. Lina Franco Law, P.C. 42 Broadway, Suite 12-126 New York, NY 10004 Tel (800) 933-5620 ELDORADO LOUNGE: Jackson Seeks Review of Ruling in Braxton Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Kenneth Jackson filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled MAURLANNA BRAXTON et al. v. ELDORADO LOUNGE, INC. et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-03661-BPG, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland at Baltimore. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, in a Second Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs filed a wage action against two Baltimore nightclubs at which they previously worked: Eldorado and Four One Four LLC, doing business as Kings & Diamonds. They also sued Defendant Kenneth Jackson, who owns El Dorado and holds a one-half ownership interest in Kings & Diamonds. In particular, the Plaintiffs allege violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"); the Maryland Wage and Hour Law ("MWHL"), as amended, of the Labor and Employment Article; and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law ("MWPCL"). In support of their claims, the Plaintiffs allege that they were employed by the Defendants as exotic dancers, but were not paid a minimum wage. Rather, they were paid by commission, receiving half the price of the drinks that customers of the clubs bought for them. The appellate case is captioned as Maurlanna Braxton v. Kenneth Jackson, Case No. 18-2051, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.[BN] Defendant-Appellant KENNETH JACKSON, of Baltimore, Maryland, appears pro se. Plaintiffs-Appellees MAURLANNA BRAXTON, BRITTANY SCOTT, STEPHANIE GAMBLE and BRIONNA WILLIAMS, On Behalf of Themselves and Other Similarly Situated Individuals, are represented by: Kenneth Christopher Gauvey, Esq. LAW PRACTICE OF KEN C. GAUVEY, LLC 201 North Charles Street Baltimore, MD 21201 Telephone: (410) 346-2377 E-mail: kgauvey@gauveylaw.com Defendants ELDORADO LOUNGE, INC., and FOUR ONE FOUR, LLC, are represented by: Russell Anthony Neverdon, Sr., Esq. LAW OFFICE OF RUSSELL A. NEVERDON, SR., LLC 711 Saint Paul Street Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: (410) 235-2184 E-mail: ransr@neverdonlaw.com EQUIFAX INC: Duncan Man Files Class Action Suit After Cyber Attack ------------------------------------------------------------------ Keith Fraser, writing for Vancouver Sun, reports that a Duncan man has filed a class-action lawsuit against Equifax after a cyber attack on the credit-monitoring service in 2017 breached the private information of thousands of Canadians. Daniel Thalheimer, 46, says he was a client with Equifax and got a letter from the company in October last year informing him that his personal data and information had been compromised, a situation he fears leaves him open to the ongoing risk of identity theft and fraud. The company didn't say exactly which information was impacted but indicated that his file included his social insurance number, name, address, date of birth, phone number and email address. The file also had his username, password and secret question and answer for the Equifax website. "With that information, you'd be able to walk into a bank and pose as me and have every document you need to get something," Thalheimer said. "So that scares me the most." His lawsuit, which was filed in B.C. Supreme Court and is believed to be the second such suit in B.C. and the third in Canada to be filed, says that the breach occurred between May 13 and July 30, 2017 and could have been avoided. It claims that the data breach occurred because of a vulnerability in a website application, which was exploited to gain access to files. The developer of the website application was notified of the vulnerability on Feb. 14, 2017 and an upgrade, which fixed the vulnerability, was released on March 6, 2017, says the suit. Equifax was notified directly that without the upgrade a remote attacker could exploit the identified vulnerability and take control of an affected system, says the lawsuit. Despite a company policy to implement security patches within 48 hours of notification, the upgrade was not installed by Equifax until July 30, 2017, well after the breach had occurred, claims the suit. On Sept. 7, 2017, Equifax, which has its principal executive offices in Atlanta but has a wholly owned subsidiary in Canada, announced that approximately 143 million U.S. consumers and an unspecified number of Canadians were impacted by the data breach. Equifax Canada issued a press release on Sept. 19, 2017 saying that 100,000 Canadians were affected. But less than a month later it stated that the number of Canadians whose personal information was impacted was actually about 8,000, with a further 11,670 Canadians whose credit card information was affected, according to the lawsuit. In March, the company said a further 2.4 million U.S. consumers had been impacted by the breach. Contained within Equifax's letter to Thalheimer was an offer for 12 months complimentary credit monitoring under a company plan that he had already been a member of at the time. David Moriarty, Esq. -- dm@rklitigation.ca -- a lawyer for Thalheimer, said that he was aware of at least one other similar class action lawsuit filed in B.C. and one in Ontario. When there is more than one class action lawsuit filed in a case, frequently counsel for the plaintiffs will work together and prosecute the action collectively, he added. "We're not part of any consortium or agreement at this stage. Whether we end up in one in the future, I don't know. We'll have to wait and see. It's very early for us." The lawsuit seeks to have the case certified as a class-action suit and also seeks general, special, aggravated and punitive damages. Equifax Canada said in an email that there would be no comment on ongoing litigation.[GN] FAUZIA KHAN: Whitney Seeks to Certify Class of Cook County Inmates ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit captioned Demetrius Whitney, individually and for a class, the Plaintiff, v. Fauzia Khan, Thomas Dart, Sheriff of Cook County, and Cook County, Illinois, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-04475 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify a class of: "all inmates at the Cook County Department of Corrections on or after January 1, 2017, assigned to be treated by the Residential Treatment Unit Dental Clinic, who have made a written request for dental care because of acute pain and who suffered prolonged dental pain because of lack of treatment." The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Morrissey, Esq. Thomas G. Morrissey, Esq. THOMAS G. MORRISSEY, LTD. 10150 S. Western Ave. Chicago, IL. 60643 Telephone: (773) 233 7900 FCA US: Faces Cummings Suit in N. Dist. New York ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against FCA US LLC. The case is captioned as Lisa Cummings, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FCA US LLC, Case No. 5:18-cv-01072-GTS-TWD (N.D.N.Y., September 7, 2018). The nature of suit is stated as other fraud. FCA US LLC designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles. The Company offers passenger cars, utility vehicles, mini-vans, trucks and commercial vans, as well as distributes automotive service parts and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd S. Garber, Esq. FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER LLP 445 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 605 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 824-3281 Facsimile: (914) 824-1561 E-mail: tgarber@fbfglaw.com FUN BRANDS: Website not Accessible to Blind People, Wu Says ----------------------------------------------------------- KATHY WU AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiffs, v. FUN BRANDS CENTERS II LLC AND BOUNCEU OF BROOKLYN INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-07705 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 23, 2018), alleges that Defendants failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using her computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some blind people who meet their definition have limited vision. Others have no vision. Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1 million people in the United States are visually impaired, including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000 visually impaired persons live in the State of New York. The Defendants' denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Because Defendants' website, www.bounceu.com, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendants' corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendants’ website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.[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: nyjg@aol.com danalgottlieb@aol.com G. M. GOLDMAN: Chertok Sues over Unsolicited Telephone Calls ------------------------------------------------------------ DANIEL CHERTOK, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. G. M. GOLDMAN & ASSOCIATES, INC., an Illinois corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2018CH10744 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Aug. 24, 2018), alleges that the Defendant made unsolicited telephone calls to residential or cellular telephones in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs residential telephone number is listed on the National Do-Not-Call Registry, and was listed on the DNC Registry at all relevant times. The Plaintiff received five unsolicited phone calls on his residential telephone number on July 10, 2018; July 25, 2018; August 8, 2018; August 13, 2018; and August 14, 2018. 9. The Defendant is responsible for making or causing the making of the phone calls that Plaintiff received. The Plaintiff never provided his residential telephone number to Defendant for any purpose whatsoever. The Plaintiff never gave, and Defendant never received, Plaintiffs nor express written consent to Defendant to receive phone calls on his residential telephone. The Defendant, whose products or services were solicited in the phone calls, derived economic benefit from the calls. G. M. Goldman & Associates, Inc. is doing business in insurance services industry.[BN] Counsel for Plaintiff and the Class: Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq. Sharon A. Harris, Esq. Matthew C. De Re, Esq. Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq. ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C. www.attomeyzim.com 77 West Washington Street, Suite 1220 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 440 0020 Facsimile: (312) 440 4180 E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com sharon@attorneyzim.com matt@attorneyzim.com nick@attorneyzim.com GENERAL INFORMATION: Devon Smith Suit Goes to South Carolina ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit titled Devon Smith, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. General Information Services, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00230, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina (Columbia) on Aug. 23, 2018. The South Carolina District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-02354-MGL to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Mary Geiger Lewis. The suit alleges Fair Credit Reporting Act violation. General Information is a provider of accurate, objective information to the insurance underwriting community.[BN] Attorneys for Devon Smith, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated: Steven Charles Babin, Jr., Esq. Brandi L. Staley, Esq. Lance Chapin, Esq. CHAPIN LEGAL GROUP LLC 580 South High Street, Suite 330 Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 221 9100 Facsimile: (614) 221 9272 - and - Matthew R Wilson, Esq. Michael J Boyle, Jr., Esq. MEYER WILSON CO., LPA 1320 Dublin Road, Suite 100 Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 224 6066 Facsimile: (614) 224 6000 Attorneys for General Information Services, LLC: Acacia Marie Perko, Esq. REMINGER CO., LPA 200 Civic Center Drive, Suite 800 Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 232 2628 Facsimile: (614) 232 2410 - and - Cindy D Hanson, Esq. KILPATRICK TOWNSEND AND STOCKTON LLP 1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800 Atlanta, GA 30309-4530 Telephone: (404) 815 6500 E-mail: cindy.hanson@troutman.com - and - H. Scott Kelly, Esq. Troutman Sanders, Esq. 600 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 3000 Atlanta, GA 30308 Telephone: (804) 697 2202 GLOBAL CREDIT: Wins Prelim. Nod of Class Deal in Williams Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois made a docket entry on September 12, 2018, in the case captioned Samuel Williams v. Global Credit & Collections, et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-03323 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the Honorable Gary Feinerman. The minute entry states that for the reasons set forth on the record, the Joint Motion for an order Conditionally Certifying Class and Granting Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement Agreement is granted. The parties are to meet and confer on proposed fairness and final approval hearing dates, then contact Courtroom Deputy Jackie Deanes for scheduling. GOSPEL FOR ASIA: Court Certifies Class, Subclass in Murphy Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Timothy L. Brooks grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class Action filed in the lawsuit captioned GARLAND D. MURPHY, III, MD, and PHYLLIS MURPHY, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GOSPEL FOR ASIA, INC.; GOSPEL FOR ASIA-INTERNATIONAL; K.P. YOHANNAN; GISELA PUNNOSE; DANIEL PUNNOSE; DAVID CARROLL; and PAT EMERICK, Case No. 5:17-cv-05035-TLB (W.D. Ark.). Judge Brooks certifies this nationwide class to pursue Civil RICO claim: All persons in the United States who donated money to GFA from January 1, 2009 through the date the Class is certified for Project Codes 1000-4900. Excluded from the Class are unknown donors; Defendants, their subsidiaries, affiliates, and employees; all persons who make a timely election to be excluded from the Class; governmental entities; the Special Discovery Master appointed in this case; and the Judge to whom this case is assigned and his/her immediate family. This subclass is certified to pursue claims for fraud, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act under Arkansas law: All persons in Arkansas who donated money to GFA from January 1, 2009 through the date the Class is certified for Project Codes 1000-4900. Excluded from the Class are unknown donors; Defendants, their subsidiaries, affiliates, and employees; all persons who make a timely election to be excluded from the Class; governmental entities; the Special Discovery Master appointed in this case; and the Judge to whom this case is assigned and his/her immediate family. Plaintiffs Garland D. Murphy, III, MD., and Phyllis Murphy are designated as Class Representatives for both defined classes. The Court designates the Stanley Law Group as Lead Class Counsel and the Bassett Law Firm as Class Counsel. Judge Brooks rules that no later than October 10, 2018, the Lead Class Counsel must submit a motion for approval of a proposed plan of notice and the proposed notice forms, in accordance with Rule 23(c)(2)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. GFA is a Christian missionary organization operating in South Asia, mainly in India. To fulfill its charitable purposes, GFA solicits donations from donors across the world. According to the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order, this lawsuit centers on the Plaintiffs' claims that, despite numerous representations, GFA did not, in fact, spend the donated -- and designated -- money in accordance with the donors' wishes or with GFA's representations. All told throughout the proposed class period, the parties agree that approximately $375 million in donations are at issue. As a result, the Plaintiffs have asserted a number of causes of action against GFA, including Civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act claims, fraud, unjust enrichment, and an Arkansas-specific claim under the ADTPA. HERBALIFE LTD: Rodgers Suit over Live Events Transferred to Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit titled JEFF RODGERS, PATRICIA RODGERS, MICHAEL LAVIGNE, JENNIFER LAVIGNE, CODY PYLE, JENNIFER RIBALTA, IZAAR VALDEZ, FELIX VALDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. HERBALIFE, LTD.; HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL, INC.; HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL OF AMERICA, INC., MARK ADDY, JILLIAN ADDY, DENNIS DOWDELL, GARRAIN S. JONES, CODY MORROW, CHRISTOPHER REESE, GABRIEL SANDOVAL, EMMA SANDOVAL, JOHN TARTOL, LESLIE R. STANFORD, FERNANDO RANCEL, LORI BAKER, MANUEL COSTA, MARK DAVIS, JENNY DAVIS, DANIELLE EDWARDS, GRAEME EDWARDS, THOMAS P. GIOIOSA, SANDRA GIOIOSA, ALCIDES MEJIA, MIRIAM MEJIA, PAULINA RIVEROS, RON ROSENAU, CAROL ROSENAU, AMBER WICK, JASON WICK, JORGE DE LA CONCEPCION, DISNEY DE LA CONCEPCION, JENNIFER MICHELI, GUILLERMO RASCH, CLAUDIA RASCH, SAMUEL HENDRICKS, AMY HENDRICKS, BRADLEY HARRIS, PAYMI ROMERO, ARQUIMEDES G. VALENCIA, RYAN BAKER, KRISTOPHER BICKERSTAFF, MARK MATIKA, ENRIQUE CARILLO, DANIEL J. WALDRON, SUSAN PETERSON, MICHAEL KATZ, and DEBI KATZ, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-23429, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Western Division - Los Angeles) on Aug. 27, 2018. The California Central District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-07480-DDP-MRW to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Dean D. Pregerson. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs seek to recover "from a corrupt organization of individuals and entities who act together, using misrepresentation and deceit, to sell access to a series of emotionally manipulative live events. The events are pitched as the guaranteed pathway to attaining life changing financial success with the multi-level marketing business opportunity sold by Defendant Herbalife. Events are held each month in dozens of locations across the country, and range in size from 200 to 20,000 attendees." If Defendants told the truth -- that there is no correlation between financial success and event attendance -- Plaintiffs would not have attended these so-called Circle of Success events, would not have paid for tickets to Circle of Success events, and would not have paid for incidental expenses (such as hotel and airfare) to attend Circle of Success events. According to a report by Curt Anderson for Fox News, the Rodgers estimate they lost over $100,000, including about $20,000 spent on attending Herbalife events. Now, the couple and others are suing the multi-level marketing company that sells its products through a network of distributors who recruit more distributors. The potential class-action case could involve more than 100,000 plaintiffs and might mean as much as $1 billion in damages.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Etan Mark, Esq. Donald J. Hayden, Esq. Lara O'Donnell Grillo, Esq. MARK MIGDAL & HAYDEN 80 S.W. 8th Street, Suite 1999 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 374-0440 E-mail: etan@markmigdal.com don@markmigdal.com lara@markmigdal.com eservice@markmigdal.com - and - Jason Jones, Esq. E-mail: jason@jonesatlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Gopi K. Panchapakesan, Esq. Mark T. Drooks, Esq. Paul S Chan, Esq. BIRD MARELLA BOXER WOLPERT NESSIM DROOKS LINCENBERG RHOW PC 1875 Century Park East 23rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201 2100 Facsimile: (310) 201 2110 E-mail: gkp@birdmarella.com mtd@birdmarella.com pchan@birdmarella.com - and - Steve I. Silverman, Esq. Todd Alan Levine, Esq. Erin E Bohannon, Esq. KLUGER KAPLAN SILVERMAN KATZEN AND LEVINE PL 201 South Biscayne Boulevard 17th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 379 9000 Facsimile: (305) 379 3428 E-mail: ssilverman@klugerkaplan.com tlevine@klugerkaplan.com ebohannon@klugerkaplan.com - and - Zachary Scott Foster, Esq. QUARLES BRADY LLP 101 East Kennedy Blvd., Suite 3400 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 387 0300 Facsimile: (813) 387 1800 E-mail: zachary.foster@quarles.com HESKA CORP: Court Certifies Class in Fauley Suit ------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit captioned SHAUN FAULEY, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. HESKA CORPORATION and JOHN DOES 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-02171 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Jorge Alonso entered an order on August 24, 2018, granting Plaintiff's motion for class certification of: "all persons or entities who were successfully sent one or more facsimiles regarding Heska Corporation's goods or services from March 12, 2011, through July 21, 2014, that either (1) contain no "opt-out notice" explaining how to stop future faxes or (2) contain an opt-out notice stating, "To unsubscribe from Heska's promotional faxes, please call 800- 464-3752, ext. 4565 or fax (970) 619-3008, and indicate your clinic name and fax number." A status hearing was set for September 11, 2018 at 9:30 a.m. HLY CHINESE: Li Sues Over Fair Labor Standards Act Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against HLY Chinese Cuisine Inc., et al. The case is titled as Chao Ping Li, individually and on behalf of all other employees similarly situated, and Jian Li, individually and on behalf of all other employees similarly situated v. HLY Chinese Cuisine Inc., doing business as: New HLY Chinese Cuisine, Hua Yao and Tao Liu, Case No. 1:18-cv-05077 (E.D.N.Y., September 10, 2018). The lawsuit arises from alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. HLY Chinese Cuisine Inc. is a New York domestic business corporation and operates a Chinese restaurant business. The Company does business as New HLY Chinese Cuisine, a restaurant in Flushing, New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rui Ma, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 10G Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (718) 353-8588 Facsimile: (718) 353-6288 E-mail: rma@hanglaw.com ILLINOIS: Wage Class Certification Sought in Singer Suit -------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned RICHARD SINGER, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, an Illinois Municipal Corporation; and PACE SUBURBAN BUS SERVICE, a division of the Regional Transportation Authority, Case No. 1:18-cv-00199 (N.D. Ill.), asks the Court to certify his second and third causes of action as a class action. Mr. Singer filed his complaint requesting relief on behalf of all Pace bus operators, who performed uncompensated work for Pace, thereby suffering damages of unpaid regular and overtime wages. His first cause of action was filed as a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), and the second and third causes of action were filed as a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the latter based on violations of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. The class under Rule 23 is defined as: All Pace bus operators who performed uncompensated work for Pace, for the three years prior to the complaint filing date, through the present, and who suffered similar wage and related damages as alleged in the complaint (hereinafter the "Illinois Wage Class"). Mr. Singer also asks the Court to approve future notice to the class of the pending action and appoint his counsel to serve as class counsel. The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott C. Polman, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF SCOTT C. POLMAN 8130 N. Milwaukee Ave. Niles, IL 60714 Telephone: (847) 292-1989 Facsimile: (847) 510-0581 E-mail: spolman.law@comcast.net - and - Stephen A. Chareas, Esq. STEPHEN A. CHAREAS, LTD. 8034 N. Milwaukee Ave. Niles, IL 60714 Telephone: (847) 692-3388 Facsimile: (847) 692-0400 E-mail: sacltd@sbcglobal.net INDEPENDENT TRUCKERS: Northrup Clarifies Class of Subscribers ------------------------------------------------------------- Pursuant to the Court's Order, the Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled John Northrup, Individually and on Behalf of a Class of Similarly Situated Individuals v. Independent Truckers Group, Inc., David E. Lindsey, Innovative Health Insurance Partners, LLC, and Cyberx Group, LLC, Case No. 8:17-cv-01890-CEH-JSS (M.D. Fla.), files his Supplement to Motion for Class Certification. The clarified class definition is stated as: All cellular telephone subscribers in the United States who had a phone number listed in the Call Logs (filed at Docket Nos. 54-5 through 54-9), where the Call Logs' entry for the phone number reflects that the June 30, 2017 "Obama Care" text message was "delivered" in the "Status" column; and where the phone number was assigned to a cell phone (as opposed to a landline or VoIP line) on June 30, 2017. Mr. Northrup explains that the class is limited to those entries on the Call Logs that are noted as "delivered" in the "Status" column. As stated in his original Motion for Class Certification, this narrows the universe of potential class members from 5,745 (which is the total number of text messages sent) to 2,717, the number of text messages that were noted as "delivered." The Call Logs clearly identify, in the "Status" column, which text messages were delivered. The Plaintiff is represented by: Cory S. Fein, Esq. CORY FEIN LAW FIRM 712 Main St., #800 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (281) 254-7717 Facsimile: (530) 748-0601 E-mail: cory@coryfeinlaw.com - and - Seth M. Lehrman, Esq. EDWARDS POTTINGER LLC 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 524-2820 Facsimile: (954) 524-2822 E-mail: seth@epllc.com JAMBA INC: Turner et al. Allege False Advertising of Smoothies -------------------------------------------------------------- TERI TURNER and DAVID LUNDQUIST, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. JAMBA, INC. and JAMBA JUICE COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-05168-DMR (N.D. Cal., Aug. 23, 2018), seeks to enjoin Jamba Juice from continuing its false advertising of "Jamba Juice Smoothies". According to the complaint, absent enjoining this false advertising, Jamba Juice will continue to mislead Plaintiff Lundquist and the other members of the New York Subclass as to the ingredient and nutritional profile of the Smoothies and, in doing so, irreparably harm each of the New York Subclass members. As a direct and proximate result of Jamba Juice’s violation of New York General Business Law section 350, the Plaintiff and the other members of the New York Subclass have also suffered an ascertainable loss of monies. By reason of the foregoing, the Plaintiff and the other members of the New York Subclass also each seek actual damages or statutory damages of $500, whichever is greater, pursuant to New York General Business Law section 350-e(3), and punitive damages. Jamba Juice controls and directs the ingredients, offerings, layout, and marketing for all Jamba Juice retail locations, whether directly owned or franchised. Jamba Juice's retail locations purportedly offer, among other products, "whole fruit and vegetable smoothies". Capitalizing on consumer demand, Jamba Juice markets its Smoothies as simple and nutritious. Jamba Juice claims, among other things, that the Smoothies will rejuvenate your body with healthy goodness and "help you be the best version of yourself." Jamba Juice's Smoothies, however, do not contain the ingredients, nutritional profile, and/or benefits marketed by it. Jamba Juice owns, operates, and franchises "Jamba Juice" retail locations across the United States.[BN] Counsel for Plaintiffs Teri Turner and David Lundquist and the Proposed Class: Maia C. Kats, Esq. Matthew B. Simon, Esq. CENTER FOR SCIENCE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST 1220 L Street, Northwest, Suite 300 Washington, District of Columbia 20005 Telephone: (202) 777-8381 Facsimile: (202) 265-4954 E-mail: mkats@cspinet.org msimon@cspinet.org - and - Michael R. Reese, Esq. George V. Granade, Esq. REESE LLP 100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor New York, NY 10025 Telephone: (212) 643 0500 Facsimile: (212) 253 4272 E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com ggranade@reesellp.com JPMORGAN CHASE: African American Advisors File Discrimination Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jerome Senegal, Erika Williams, Brent Griffin, Irvin Nash, Amanda Jason and Kellie Farrish, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A., Case No. 18-cv-06006 (N.D. Ill., August 30, 2018), seeks compensatory and punitive damages, prejudgment interest and attorneys' fees, costs and disbursements, equitable, injunctive and legal relief. JPMorgan Chase & Co. is a publicly-traded, global financial services firm and Fortune 500 corporation that is incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in New York City. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. is a wholly owned subsidiary of JPMorgan Chase and a nationally chartered bank. Plaintiffs are African American Chase financial advisors who work or worked as registered brokers and have been subjected to race discrimination and discriminatory policies and practices. They claim that African Americans are subject to higher rates of attrition and lower pay. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Linda D. Friedman, Esq. Suzanne E. Bish, Esq. George S. Robot, Esq. STOWELL & FRIEDMAN LTD. 303 W. Madison, Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60606 Tel: (312) 431-0888 Email: lfriedman@sfltd.com sbish@sfltd.com grobot@sfltd.com JPMORGAN CHASE: Wins Prelim. Approval of Senegal Suit Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois made a docket entry on September 12, 2018, in the case styled Jerome Senegal, et al. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A., Case No. 1:18-cv-06006 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the Honorable Manish S. Shah. The minute entry states that the motion to seal and the motion for preliminary approval are granted. The parties engaged in pre−suit investigation and mediation, at arm's length, and used a mediator. The proposed non−monetary and monetary relief are within the range of reasonableness for preliminary approval, because they provide tangible prospective and compensatory remedies commensurate with the claims and litigation risk in the case, according to the Minute Entry. The notice and claim procedures are reasonable and the proposed neutral administrator is qualified and appropriate. For settlement purposes, the Rule 23 requirements are met and the class certified, Judge Shah opines. A final approval hearing is set for December 18, 2018, at 10:30 a.m. The motion for final approval and fee petition are due on December 11, 2018. JUNO THERAPEUTICS: Pomerantz LLP Discloses Settlement of Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE In re JUNO THERAPEUTICS, INC. No. C16-1069-RSM SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION TO: ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES THAT PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED PUBLICLY TRADED COMMON STOCK OF JUNO THERAPEUTICS, INC. ("JUNO") FROM JUNE 4, 2016 TO NOVEMBER 22, 2016, BOTH DATES INCLUSIVE (THE "CLASS PERIOD"). PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY PROCEEDINGS IN THIS ACTION. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, that a hearing will be held on November 16, 2018, at 11:00 a.m., before the Honorable Ricardo S. Martinez at the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, 700 Stewart Street, Suite 13134, Seattle, WA 98101-9906, to determine whether (1) the proposed Settlement of the Class's claims against Defendants for $24,000,000 cash should be approved as fair, reasonable and adequate; (2) the proposed Plan of Allocation is fair and reasonable, and should be approved; (3) the application by Class Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses should be approved; (4) the Class Plaintiffs' application for reimbursement of costs and expenses should be granted; and (5) the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement filed with the Court. If you purchased or acquired Juno common stock between June 4, 2016 and November 22, 2016, your rights may be affected by the Settlement of this Action. If you have not received a detailed Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action, Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses, and Final Approval Hearing (the "Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release Form (the "Proof of Claim"), you may obtain copies by writing to the Settlement Administrator at Juno Therapeutics Securities Litigation, Settlement Administrator, c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box 170500, Milwaukee, WI 53217, Phone: 1-800-329-4562, or access the forms at www.junotherapeuticslitigation.com. If you are a member of the Class and wish to share in the Settlement money, you must submit a Proof of Claim no later than November 6, 2018, establishing that you are entitled to recovery. As further described in the Notice, you will be bound by any judgment entered in the Action, regardless of whether you submit a Proof of Claim, unless you exclude yourself from the Class, in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Notice, by no later than November 2, 2018. Any objections to the Settlement, proposed Plan of Allocation or attorney's fees and expenses must be filed and served, in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Notice, no later than November 2, 2018. Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, may be made to Class Counsel: Leigh Handelman Smollar, Esq., Pomerantz LLP, 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505, Chicago, IL 60603, lsmollar@pomlaw.com. INQUIRIES SHOULD NOT BE DIRECTED TO THE COURT, THE CLERK'S OFFICE, THE DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL. Dated: August 30, 2018 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON [GN] JUST ENERGY: Evangelista Seeks to Certify Class ----------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned DANIEL EVANGELISTA, the Plaintiff, v. JUST ENERGY MARKETING CORP., ET AL., the Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-02270-CJC-SS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on September 24, 2018, for an order: 1. certifying a class and Plaintiff's class claim for failure to reimburse expenses necessarily incurred in performing work for Defendants; and 2. designating Plaintiff as the class representative and designating Plaintiff's counsel as class counsel. Attorneys for Plaintiff: William J. Turner, Esq. Asha Dhillon, Esq. JONES, BELL, ABBOTT, FLEMING &FITZGERALD L.L.P. 601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3460 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5759 Telephone: (213) 485 1555 Facsimile: (213) 689 1004 E-mail: wmturner@jonesbell.com adhillon@jonesbell.com - and - Francisco Cabada, Esq. Sayema J. Hameed, Esq. CABADA & HAMEED LLP 1055 East Colorado Boulevard, Suite 500 Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (626) 204-4080 E-mail: cisco@cabadahameed.com sayema@cabadahameed.com KAISER FOUNDATION: Williams Seeks Overtime Pay under Labor Code --------------------------------------------------------------- ADONIA WILLIAMS, an individual, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, and on behalf of the State of California as a private attorney general, the PLAINTIFF, v. KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC., a California Corporation, KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, a California Corporation, and DOES 1 thru 50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. RG18917898 (Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 23, 2018), alleges that Defendants failed to pay overtime and failed to provide lawful rest periods and pay non-compliant rest period premiums in violation of the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff, the Classes, and the aggrieved employees consistently worked shifts more than four hours or a major fraction thereof, including shifts in excess of eight hours. They also often worked more than 40 hours in a week, but were not subject to collective bargaining agreements. The Defendants had a uniform and consistent policy of failing to pay wages and/or overtime and at the proper amounts to Plaintiff, the Overtime Classes, and the Overtime Aggrieved Employees when they work more than eight hours in a day and/or 40 hours in a week. Kaiser Foundation is a mental health organization based in Canada.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Classes: Craig J. Ackermann, CA ACKERMANN & TILAJEF, P.C. 1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 610 Los Angeles, CA 90035 Telephone: (310) 277 0614 Facsimile: (310) 277 0635 E-mail: cja@ackermanntilajef.com - and - David S. Winston, Esq. WINSTON LAW GROUP, P.C. 1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 610 Los Angeles, CA 90035 Telephone: (424) 288 4568 Facsimile: (424) 532 4062 E-mail: david@employmentlitigators.com - and - Jonathan Melmed, Esq. MELMED LAW GROUP P.C. 1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 610 Los Angeles, CA 90035 Telephone: (310) 824 3828 Facsimile: (310) 862 6851 E-mail: jm@melmedlaw.com LANNETT COMPANY: Kaskela Law Files Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------- Kaskela Law LLC has filed a shareholder class action lawsuit against Lannett Company, Inc. (NYSE: LCI) ("Lannett" or the "Company") on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities between February 7, 2018 and August 17, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors who purchased Lannett's securities during the Class Period may, no later than October 26, 2018, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the investor class. For additional information please visit http://kaskelalaw.com/case/lannett/. Lannett develops, manufactures, packages, markets, and distributes drugs that address a wide range of therapeutic areas. At all relevant times, Lannett had an exclusivity agreement with its primary supplier, Jerome Stevens Pharmaceuticals ("JSP"). JSP's products have historically accounted for over one-third of Lannett's sales. On August 20, 2018, Lannett disclosed that its distribution agreement with JSP will not be renewed. Following this news, shares of Lannett's common stock fell $8.15 per share, or over 60%, to close on August 20, 2018 at $5.35. The shareholder class action complaint alleges that defendants made a series of false and misleading statements and failed to disclose to investors during the Class Period that: (i) Lannett faced a substantial risk of the loss of its exclusivity agreement with JSP; (ii) accordingly, Lannett's reported revenues were unsustainable, and (iii) as a result, Lannett's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. The complaint further alleges that, as a result of the foregoing, investors purchased Lannett's securities at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period and have suffered significant investment losses. Lannett investors with financial losses in excess of $100,000 who seek to take a proactive role in this action are encouraged to contact Kaskela Law LLC (D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.) at (888) 715-1740 or skaskela@kaskelalaw.com to discuss their legal rights and options. Investors may also submit their information to the firm online at http://kaskelalaw.com/case/lannett/. D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. KASKELA LAW LLC 201 King of Prussia Road Suite 650 Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (484) 258 – 1585 (888) 715 – 1740 Email: skaskela@kaskelalaw.com [GN] LONG ISLAND CONCRETE: Fails to Pay Wages, Perez et al. Say ---------------------------------------------------------- JOHNNY PEREZ, ARCADIO FRIAS, and NESTOR RAMIREZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated who were employed by Long Island Concrete Inc., the Plaintiffs, v. LONG ISLAND CONCRETE INC., THOMAS J. PERNO, TJM CONSTRUCTION CORP., ZHL GROUP INC., LANMARK GROUP, INC., THE GUARANTEE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA USA, VIGILANT INSURANCE COMPANY, THE OHIO CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, and JOHN DOE BONDING COMPANIES 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 654227/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Aug. 24, 2018), seeks to recover prevailing wages, supplemental benefits, overtime wages and other monies, which Plaintiffs were statutorily and contractually entitled to receive for work they performed on behalf of Defendants within the State of New York, at various locations, including but not limited to, 424 Wythe Avenue, FDNY Rescue Company Firehouse 2 and The Park Avenue Armory. According to the complaint, ZHL and Lanmark, as the prime contractors, entered into one or more Public Works Contracts, containing provisions mandating that they pay and/or ensure payment of prevailing rates of wages and supplemental benefits to Plaintiffs. These prevailing wage rates and supplemental benefits to Plaintiffs were incorporated by reference into the Public Works Subcontracts between ZHL and LIC as well as Lanmark and LIC. The promise to pay and ensure payment of prevailing wages and supplemental benefits stated in the Public Works Contracts was made for the benefit of all workers furnishing labor on the sites of the Public Works Projects and, as such, the workers furnishing labor on the sites of the Public Works Projects are the third-party beneficiaries of that promise and the contracts entered into between Defendants and government agencies. Long Island Concrete, Inc. is a heavy concrete construction contractor serving construction mangers and contractors in NYC.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Steven Arenson, Esq. ARENSON, DITTMAR & KARBAN 200 Park Avenue, Suite 1700 New York, NY 10166 Telephone: (212) 490 3600 LOUISIANA: Hamilton's Bid to Certify Prisoners Class Tossed ----------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Shelly D. Dick terminated the Motion for Class Certification filed by the Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled MARCUS HAMILTON, WINTHROP EATON, MICHAEL PERRY, on their behalf, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated prisoners v. DARREL VANNOY, Warden of Angola; BURL CAIN, former Warden of Angola; JAMES CRUZE, Warden of Death Row; LESLIE DUPONT, Deputy Warden of Security; and JAMES LEBLANC, Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety Corrections, Case No. 3:17-cv-00194-SDD-RLB (M.D. La.). According to the Court order, the Plaintiffs' Motion is being withdrawn on consent of all Parties under two conditions: 1. the withdrawal of the Motion is without prejudice and with leave to refile after notification to the assigned Magistrate Judge that the Parties have not been able to reach a settlement; and 2. any such refiled motion to certify the class shall relate back to December 15, 2017, the date of the original filing of the Motion. The hearing set for September 13, 2018, is canceled. MCCARTHY BURGESS: Calonge Sues in E.D.N.Y. Over FDCPA Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against McCarthy, Burgess & Wolff, Inc. The case is styled as Michael R. Calonge, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. McCarthy, Burgess & Wolff, Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-05061 (E.D.N.Y., September 7, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. McCarthy, Burgess & Wolff, Inc. provides bankruptcy services. The Company offers outsourcing, third party collection, reporting, and analytic services. McCarthy, Burgess & Wolff serves customers in the State of Ohio.[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 MCDONALD'S: Violated FCRA with Background Checks on Job Applicants ------------------------------------------------------------------ Thomas Ahearn, writing for Employment Screening Resources, reports that a class action lawsuit filed in a Florida court claims that fast food giant McDonald's allegedly violated the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) when it conducted background checks on job applicants by failing to obtain proper authorization and disclosure in violation of the FCRA, according to a report from Top Class Actions. Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Danny O'Neill claims he and other job seekers were subject to background checks when they applied to work at McDonald's and were unaware that a consumer report would be pulled because the disclosure in the hiring paperwork contained other distracting information. Top Class Actions reports that O'Neill -- who applied for job with McDonald's in March 2018 -- also claims he and other job applicants subject to background checks during the application process were not properly notified of the consumer report that McDonald's pulled as required by the FCRA. The McDonald's class action lawsuit states: The FCRA… makes is presumptively unlawful to obtain and use a "consumer report" for an employment purpose. Such use becomes lawful if and only if the "user" -- in this case Defendant -- has complied with the FCRA's strict disclosure and authorization requirements. Plaintiff was distracted from the disclosure by the presence of additional information in the purported FCRA Disclosure. Specifically, Defendant unlawfully inserted extraneous provisions into forms purporting to grant Defendant authority to obtain and use consumer report information for employment purposes. Top Class Actions reports the class action lawsuit against McDonald's seeks to represent a nationwide Class of all current employees and job applicants who were not provided proper disclosure and authorization under the FCRA and is seeking damages for the alleged violations of the FCRA. The lawsuit is O'Neill v. McDonald's Corporation, Case No. 8:18-cv-02038-SDM-AEP, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Section 1681b(b)(2) of the FCRA requires users of consumer reports such as McDonald's to make "a clear and conspicuous disclosure" in writing to consumers before the report is procured "in a document that consists solely of the disclosure" indicating a report may be obtained for employment purposes. McDonald's is not the only company to face lawsuit for alleged FCRA violations. In July 2018, a subsidiary of PepsiCo agreed to pay $1.2 million to settle a class action lawsuit that claimed the company violated the FCRA "by procuring background reports for employment purposes without making certain required disclosures." Passed by Congress in 1970, the FCRA promotes the accuracy, fairness, and privacy of consumer information contained in the files of consumer reporting agencies (CRAs) and is intended to protect consumers from the willful and/or negligent inclusion of inaccurate information in their credit reports. In May 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled consumers must prove "concrete injury" in lawsuits for alleged "bare" violations of federal statutes like the FCRA in a case, Spokeo v. Robins, involving a man who claimed he suffered an injury when Spokeo published incorrect information about him on its site. The U.S. Supreme Court stated in its opinion: Article III standing requires a concrete injury even in the context of a statutory violation. For that reason, Robins could not, for example, allege a bare procedural violation, divorced from any concrete harm, and satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement of Article III. In January 2018, the Supreme Court denied a petition for a writ of certiorari that sought a review of its opinion following a ruling in August 2017 by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Appeals Court on remand from the Supreme Court that found Robins had sufficient concrete injury under Article III of the U.S. Constitution. The fact that employers are still targeted in class action lawsuits for technical violations of the FCRA even after the Supreme Court ruling in Spokeo is one of the "ESR Top Ten Background Check Trends" for 2018 selected by leading global background check firm Employment Screening Resources® (ESR). "In no way did the Supreme Court decision in Spokeo mean employers could relax obligations for FCRA compliance," said ESR founder and CEO Attorney Lester Rosen. "Employers must ensure they comply with the FCRA and work with a background screening firm that understands the FCRA inside and out." [GN] MDL 2741: Barnes et al. vs Monsanto Consolidated in N.D. Calif. --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled CLIFFORD BARNES AND PATRICIA BARNES, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, BAYER CORPORATION and BAYER AG, the Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-01065, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on Aug. 28, 2018. The Northern District of California of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-05253-VC to the proceeding. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiffs as a direct and proximate result of Defendant negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Barnes case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October 3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Plaintiffs each allege that they or their decedents developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of several or more years. Plaintiffs also allege that the use of glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning general causation, the background science, and regulatory history will be common to all actions. In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is 3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222 2222 Facsimile: (314) 421 0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MDL 2741: Bookout et al. vs Monsanto Consolidated in N.D. Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled CAROL BOOKOUT AND DONNIE BOOKOUT, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, BAYER CORPORATION and BAYER AG, the Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-01073, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on Aug. 28, 2018. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-05259-VC to the proceeding. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiffs as a direct and proximate result of Defendant negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Bookout case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October 3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Plaintiffs each allege that they or their decedents developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of several or more years. Plaintiffs also allege that the use of glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning general causation, the background science, and regulatory history will be common to all actions. In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is 3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222 2222 Facsimile: (314) 421 0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com Attorneys for Bayer Corporation: W. Jason Rankin, Esq. HEPLERBROOM LLC-EDWARDSVILLE 130 North Main Street P.O. Box 510 Edwardsville, IL 62025 Telephone: (618) 307 1138 Facsimile: (618) 656 1364 E-mail: wjr@heplerbroom.com MDL 2741: Boudreaux et al. vs Monsanto Consolidated in N.D. Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit titled STEVE BOUDREAUX AND DEBRA BOUDREAUX, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, BAYER CORPORATION and BAYER AG, the Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-01066, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on Aug. 28, 2018. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-05254-VC to the proceeding. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiffs as a direct and proximate result of Defendant negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Boudreaux case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October 3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Plaintiffs each allege that they or their decedents developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of several or more years. Plaintiffs also allege that the use of glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning general causation, the background science, and regulatory history will be common to all actions. In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is 3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222 2222 Facsimile: (314) 421 0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MDL 2741: Carroll et al. vs Monsanto Consolidated in N.D. Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled RICHARD A. CARROLL AND PAULETTA S. CARROLL, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, BAYER CORPORATION and BAYER AG, the Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-01061, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on Aug. 28, 2018. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-05250-VC to the proceeding. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiffs as a direct and proximate result of Defendant negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Carroll case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October 3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Plaintiffs each allege that they or their decedents developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of several or more years. Plaintiffs also allege that the use of glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning general causation, the background science, and regulatory history will be common to all actions. In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is 3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222 2222 Facsimile: (314) 421 0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MDL 2741: Dutton-Smith vs Monsanto Consolidated in N.D. Calif. -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled BRENDA DUTTON-SMITH, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, BAYER CORPORATION and BAYER AG, the Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-01072, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on Aug. 28, 2018. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-05257-VC to the proceeding. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiffs as a direct and proximate result of Defendant negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Dutton-Smith case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October 3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Plaintiffs each allege that they or their decedents developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of several or more years. Plaintiffs also allege that the use of glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning general causation, the background science, and regulatory history will be common to all actions. In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is 3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222 2222 Facsimile: (314) 421 0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com Attorney for Bayer Corporation W. Jason Rankin, Esq. HEPLERBROOM LLC-EDWARDSVILLE 130 North Main Street P.O. Box 510 Edwardsville, IL 62025 Telephone: (618) 307 1138 Facsimile: (618) 656 1364 E-mail: wjr@heplerbroom.com MDL 2741: Hachmeister vs Monsanto Consolidated in N.D. Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled JAKE E. HACHMEISTER, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, BAYER CORPORATION and BAYER AG, the Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-01064, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on Aug. 28, 2018. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-05251-VC to the proceeding. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiffs as a direct and proximate result of Defendant negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Hachmeister case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October 3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Plaintiffs each allege that they or their decedents developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of several or more years. Plaintiffs also allege that the use of glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning general causation, the background science, and regulatory history will be common to all actions. In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is 3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222 2222 Facsimile: (314) 421 0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MDL 2741: Hoffman et al. vs Monsanto Consolidated in N.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled KATHY HOFFMAN and HARRY HOFFMAN, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-01209, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on Aug. 27, 2018. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-05237-VC to the proceeding. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiffs as a direct and proximate result of Defendant negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Hoffman case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October 3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Plaintiffs each allege that they or their decedents developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of several or more years. Plaintiffs also allege that the use of glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning general causation, the background science, and regulatory history will be common to all actions. In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the lawsuits involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is the Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is 3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222 2222 Facsimile: (314) 421 0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MDL 2741: Hurst vs Monsanto Consolidated in N.D. Calif. ------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled WILLIAM HURST, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, BAYER CORPORATION, and BAYER AG, the Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-01070, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on Aug. 28, 2018. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-05256-VC to the proceeding. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiffs as a direct and proximate result of Defendant negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Hurst case is being consolidated with MDL 2741 in re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on October 3, 2016. These actions share common factual questions arising out of allegations that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, particularly its active ingredient, glyphosate, causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Plaintiffs each allege that they or their decedents developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of several or more years. Plaintiffs also allege that the use of glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning general causation, the background science, and regulatory history will be common to all actions. In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is 3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222 2222 Facsimile: (314) 421 0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MEDICAID: Caregivers File Federal Suit Over Budgeting System ------------------------------------------------------------ David Beard, writing for The Dominion Post, reports that caregivers for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities point out flaws in the new state Medicaid budgeting system in recent filings in a federal class action lawsuit. Program budget caps and other problems prevent their clients and family members from getting the care they need and prevent families from getting the support they need, they say in statements filed to support the case. The program is the Department of Health and Human Resources' Medicaid Title XIX Intellectual/Developmental Disability (IDD) Waiver program, operated by DHHR's Bureau for Medical Services (BMS). It serves 4,684 people enrolled, with a waiting list of more than 1,200, according to DHHR. The case is a class action suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern district of West Virginia by Mountain State Justice -- originally on behalf of five waiver clients and later broadened to take in the whole group -- against the DHHR secretary, originally Karen Bowling, now Bill Crouch. The filings from July and August are chiefly lawyerly wranglings over who should be granted summary judgment. But included in last week's papers are five declarations by caregivers and family members about flaws in the new care budget system created to replace the old secret, arbitrary algorithm determined by the court to violate due process. Rebecca Curtis, IDD Waiver manager for the Jackson County Development Center, said she's noticed several trends. One, most individuals are receiving budgets lower than 2017. People living at home -- rather than in Intensive Support Setting (ISS) sites -- have seen the steepest reductions. Four clients have had to stop or reduce day habilitation services, which are services to allow the client to pursue skills and interests outside the home. Three family caregivers speak to the problems of service caps -- typically caps on the amount of hours for a particular service such as direct care or respite time. (Documents abbreviate the names for client privacy.) For example, Bo M. requested $50,000 worth of services though he needs $73,000 worth, according to the state assessment and budget formula. He didn't try to get more. "Bo did not need more money than what was assigned to him," the caregiver said. "Rather, Bo needed services that he was not permitted to access due to the arbitrary service caps that were implemented by DHHR in 2015." Because the caps are absolute, Bo didn't bother asking for more. "Bo was unable to use the full amount of his assigned budget and unable to meet his needs, due to the arbitrary service caps." Tracy G. has a family member, Alexa, on the waiver. Tracy gave up her job for a lower-paying one to care for Alexa. She would need 50-60 hours per week to be able to return to her old job, including commuting time. Respite care hours caps don't allow that. "The suggestion that I could move all my respite care to the week leaving me with only a little over an hour of respite each weekend day is not feasible." That wouldn't even get her to the grocery store. "Alexa requires 24-hour care and receiving almost no respite on the weekends is very difficult on me and on my family and my emotional wellbeing." Mountain State Justice alleges discrimination In addition to calling attention to reduced access to services in its IDD Waiver lawsuit, Mountain State Justice also alleges that the Department of Health and Human Resources discriminates against the majority of waiver recipients by allotting more money to those who live outside their homes. In a recent filing, Mountain State said DHHR's new budget matrix system allots smaller budgets to the 75 percent of waiver clients who live at home than to the 25 percent who live in intermediate care facilities, nursing homes and group homes. "When budgets limit the ability to obtain services, smaller budgets necessarily limit access to all services, increasing community isolation and decreasing available options," it said. It cites the examples of two wavier clients who will be eligible for base budgets of $44,231 to stay at home. But without any changes in services or their medical conditions, they could receive $123,279 by moving to a group home. A group home setting, it said, poses no additional care or financial burdens on the families. So, DHHR is "discriminating against community-based recipients by favoring institutionalized recipients with more or better services, programs or activities." DHHR counters in its recent filing, "The differences between the process for authorizing those [home-based] services and the process for authorizing services provided to individuals living in institutions is not 'discrimination,' but simply reflects the reality that these are different benefits that are alternatives to each other." It continues, "For members living with their families, waiver services are intended to supplement, not supplant, care from family members. Even so, for those waiver members and families who desire to do so, DHHR permits family members to be paid to provide care, and over 3,000 family members are paid to do so." 'Frozen' funding In a July filing, DHHR's Patricia Nisbet, director of the Office of Home and Community Based Services in the Bureau for Medical Services, made some statements about the waiver program's annual budget shortfalls. "The state legislature has not appropriated any additional money to the IDD Waiver program since 2013, and funding for the program has been frozen at $89 million per year." But spending increased every year and was running about $65 million per year over budget. The overspending and subsequent client waiver budget and service cuts have been documented and reported here many times. However, Nisbet's statement that the budget was "frozen" doesn't jibe with testimony BMS has given to the Legislature. BMS officials admitted in at least one committee meeting that they never asked for more money despite the annual overruns. Legislators asked why no one called attention to the problem and BMS officials said the figures were included in budget documents presented to the finance committees. Legislators said later that putting numbers in documents isn't the same as calling attention to the numbers and asking for help. Asked about this discrepancy, Mark Drennan, executive director of the West Virginia Behavioral Healthcare Providers Association, told The Dominion Post in an email exchange, "It is up to the department to request an improvement package. To my knowledge they have not requested one. The Legislature could choose not to increase the line, but they did not 'freeze' it. If they need more funding they should request it with a detailed explanation." Nisbet notes in her filing that West Virginia spends more per person than all but two other states. The Dominion Post asked DHHR why it never asked for more money during the time in question. It said in an email, "The IDD Waiver program is reported on independently each month by DHHR's Bureau for Medical Services to the Legislature and has been on the agenda for discussion in budget presentations for the last several years. "The funding for the IDD Waiver program has continued to be at the same level since 2012. Structural changes to the program have resulted in additional wavier slots being added to the program within the allocated budget by the Legislature. "DHHR is committed to caring for the most vulnerable citizens in the state and Medicaid's ability to control cost growth in the IDD waiver will result in more West Virginians being served."[GN] MEDNAX INC: Bragar Eagel Files Class Action ------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of stockholders of MEDNAX, Inc.. Stockholders have until the deadlines listed below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case can be found at the link provided. Class Period: February 2, 2016 - July 27, 2017 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 10, 2018 The complaint alleges that, on July 28, 2017, Mednax announced, during its second quarter earnings call with investors and analysts, that the company failed to complete any acquisitions of anesthesiologist practices during the quarter. Significantly, the company also disclosed that any future anesthesiologist acquisitions were unlikely, which Mednax attributed to the "challenging" payor mix combined with "continued . . . growth in compensation expense for nurse anesthetists." To learn more about the MEDNAX class action go to: https://bespc.com/mednax/. Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a New York-based law firm concentrating in commercial and securities litigation. For additional information about Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. please go to www.bespc.com. Brandon Walker, Esq. Melissa Fortunato, Esq. Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Tel. No. (212) 355-4648 E-mail: walker@bespc.com fortunato@bespc.com [GN] MERCK & CO: Hoppers Sues over Sale of Zostavax Vaccine ------------------------------------------------------ ROBERT HOPPER, an individual; and RITA HOPPER, an individual, the Plaintiffs, vs. MERCK & CO., INC., MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP., the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-13262 (D.N.J., Aug. 28, 2018), alleges that Plaintiff sustained severe and permanent personal injuries as a result of the manufacture, marketing, advertising, promotion, distribution and/or sale of Zostavax (TM). According to the complaint, despite information and potential correlation between being administered the Zostavax vaccine and developing an infection within a relatively short period of time, leading to the development of shingles or varicella-zoster virus pneumonia, Merck failed to properly address and provide this information both to patients and the medical providers prescribing the vaccine. Robert Hopper was inoculated with Defendants' Zostavax vaccine on or about October 10, 2016 from a Walmart pharmacy located in Hartselle, AL 35640 for routine health maintenance and for the prevention of shingles. The vaccine did not prevent shingles, but rather caused Plaintiff to contract a persistent strain of herpes zoster. Shortly after receiving Defendants' Zostavax vaccine Plaintiff developed a painful rash on the left side of his face, surrounding his left eye, accompanied by headaches and a reduction in left eye vision. In response to these complaints, on or about October 16, 2016, the Plaintiff presented to Decatur Med-Surg. Clinic and was diagnosed as suffering from shingles, and it was recommended that Plaintiff follow-up with an optometrist for future evaluation. On October 17, 2016, Plaintiff presented to Louis Cain, M.D., an optometrist at the Laser Eye Center, P.C., located in Huntsville, AL 35802, and it was noted that Plaintiff exhibited a severe reduction in his left eye vision. Thereafter, on or about April 26, 2018, Plaintiff underwent extracapsular cataract removal surgery to remove a cataract that developed as a result of the damage to his left eye. As a direct and proximate result of these malfunctions, the Plaintiff suffered painful injuries and damages, and required extensive medical care and treatment. As a further proximate result, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer significant medical expenses, and pain and suffering, and other damages. Zostavax was designed, developed, marketed, and sold with the intended purpose of preventing shingles, which is caused by the varicella zoster virus (VZV). Varicella zoster is a virus that causes chickenpox. Once the varicella zoster virus causes chickenpox, the virus remains inactive (dormant) in the nervous system for many years. VZV can be reactivated due to factors such as disease, stress, aging, and immune modulation caused by vaccination. When reactivated, varicella zoster replicates in nerve cells and is carried down the nerve fibers to the area of skin served by the ganglion that harbored the dormant virus. In May of 2006, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the Zostavax (TM) vaccine to be marketed and sold in the United States by Merck. Zostavax (TM) was initially indicated for the "the prevention of herpes zoster (shingles) in individuals 60 years of age and older when administered as a single-dose." FDA Approval Letter, May 25, 2006. FDA approval was based in large part on the results of the Shingles Prevention Study (SPS) supported by Merck.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas R. Farnolo, Esq. NAPOLI SHKOLNIK, LLC 400 Broadhollow Road Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (212) 397 1000 E-mail: nfarnolo@napolilaw.com MERCK & CO: Roberts Sues over Sale of Zostavax Vaccine ------------------------------------------------------ DIANA ROBERTS, the Plaintiff, v. MERCK & CO., INC. and MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP., the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-13141 (D.N.J., Aug. 23, 2018), alleges that Plaintiff sustained severe and permanent personal injuries as a result of the manufacture, marketing, advertising, promotion, distribution and/or sale of Zostavax (TM). According to the complaint, despite information and potential correlation between being administered the Zostavax vaccine and developing an infection within a relatively short period of time, leading to the development of shingles or varicella-zoster virus pneumonia, Merck failed to properly address and provide this information both to patients and the medical providers prescribing the vaccine. On or about September 11, 2016, Ms Diana Roberts received the Zostavax vaccine for its intended purpose: the prevention of shingles. As a direct result of the vaccine, Plaintiff suffered from a Shingles outbreak, in addition to chronic pain, rash and lesions to various parts of his body. The Plaintiff did not have a Shingles outbreak until February 16, 2017. As a direct result of the vaccine, Ms. Roberts suffered mental and emotional distress due to resulting physical limitations and seriousness of her condition. Further, as a tragic consequence of Merck's wrongful conduct, the Plaintiff suffered serious, progressive, permanent, and incurable injuries, as well as significant conscious pain and suffering, mental anguish, emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life, physical impairment and injury. The Plaintiff incurred medical expenses and other economic harm as a direct result of use of Zostavax (TM). Zostavax was designed, developed, marketed, and sold with the intended purpose of preventing shingles, which is caused by the varicella zoster virus (VZV). Varicella zoster is a virus that causes chickenpox. Once the varicella zoster virus causes chickenpox, the virus remains inactive (dormant) in the nervous system for many years. VZV can be reactivated due to factors such as disease, stress, aging, and immune modulation caused by vaccination. When reactivated, varicella zoster replicates in nerve cells and is carried down the nerve fibers to the area of skin served by the ganglion that harbored the dormant virus. In May of 2006, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the Zostavax (TM) vaccine to be marketed and sold in the United States by Merck. Zostavax (TM) was initially indicated for the "the prevention of herpes zoster (shingles) in individuals 60 years of age and older when administered as a single-dose." FDA Approval Letter, May 25, 2006. FDA approval was based in large part on the results of the Shingles Prevention Study (SPS) supported by Merck.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas R. Farnolo, Esq. NAPOLI SHKOLNIK, LLC 400 Broadhollow Road Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (212) 397 1000 E-mail: nfarnolo@napolilaw.com MICHAEL MARINOV: Wins Bid to Strike Wrong Memo in Garcia Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois made a docket entry on September 12, 2018, in the case entitled Andres Garcia, et al. v. Michael Marinov, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-03525 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the Honorable Robert M. Dow Jr. The minute entry states that: -- Defendants' unopposed motion to strike incorrectly filed memorandum in support of motion to dismiss and to substitute instanter, corrected memorandum is granted; and -- Briefing schedule on the pending motions [4], [6] and [38] is as follows: * responses are due on October 9, 2018; * replies are due on October 23, 2018; * motion is taken under advisement; and * the Court will issue a ruling by mail. MIDLAND CREDIT: Williams Suit Moved to E.D. Pennsylvania -------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled SONDRA WILLIAMS, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED CONSUMERS, the Plaintiff, v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2018-06330-TT, was removed from the Court of Common Please of Chester County, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) on Aug. 23, 2018. The Pennsylvania Eastern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-03611-JHS to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Hon. Joel H. Slomsky. The suit alleges Fair Debt Collection Act violation. Midland Credit, a licensed debt collector, assists customers in resolving past-due financial obligations through various education and payment.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Nicholas J. Linker, Esq. ZEMEL LAW LLC 1373 Broad St., Suite 203-C Clifton, NJ 07013 Telephone: (862) 227 3106 E-mail; nl@zemellawllc.com Attorneys for Midland Credit Management, Inc.: Lauren M. Burnette, Esq. MESSER STRICKLER LTD 450-106 State Road 13 N, Suite 326 St. Johns, FL 32259 Telephone: (904) 201 9120 E-mail: lburnette@messerstrickler.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Coats Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ----------------------------------------------------------- Mildred Coats, Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-01403-SNLJ (E.D. Mo., Aug. 23, 2018), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. Monsanto Company was an agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation. It was headquartered in Creve Coeur, Greater St. Louis, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kirk J. Goza, Esq. GOZA & HONNOLD LLC 9500 Nall Ave. Suite 400 Overland Park, KS 66207 Telephone: (913) 451 3433 Facsimile: (913) 839 0567 E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com MRS BPO: Guralenko Files Suit Over FDCPA Breach ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against MRS BPO, LLC. The case is styled as Dmytro Guralenko, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. MRS BPO, LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-05056 (E.D.N.Y., September 7, 2018). The Plaintiff accuses MRS BPO of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. MRS BPO, LLC, a debt collection agency, provides accounts receivables solutions. The Company offers first and third party collections services that include skip tracing, letters, human interaction, scoring, and credit reporting; and analytic solutions that include effective scoring and regression analysis, voice analytics, identifying manual processes that can be automated, and increasing customer retention levels.[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 NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Panzarella Sues Over Illegal Collection Calls ---------------------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Panzarella and Joshua Panzarella, individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff, v. Navient Solutions, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-03735 (E.D. Pa., August 31, 2018), seeks compensatory damages including interest, reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this action, including counsel fees and expert fees, rescission or a rescissory measure of damages and such equitable/injunctive or other relief under the Telephone Consumers Protection Act. Defendants attempted to collect a debt incurred by the Panzarellas arising from a student loan, notes the complaint. They placed unauthorized calls using an automatic telephone dialing system with a pre-recorded or artificial voices. Plaintiffs expressly revoked any prior express consent to receive calls to her cellular phone, it adds. Navient Solutions, Inc. -- https://www.navient.com/about -- provides loan management, servicing and asset recovery solutions to clients in higher education and business clients, as well as federal, state, and local governments. The company offers financial services in the areas of education loan, private student loan and asset recovery. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David P. Mitchell, Esq. MANEY & GORDON, P.A. 101 East Kennedy Blvd., Suite 3170 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 221-1366 Fax: (813) 223-5920 Email: David@MitchellConsumerLaw.com - and - Robert P. Cocco, Esq. ROBERT P. COCCO, P.C. 1500 Walnut Street, Suite 900 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Tel: (215) 351-0200 NEVADA: Shannon Appeals Decision in Suit v. DIR Over Lump-Sum Award ------------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Joseph Shannon, Penny Lucille Behrens, Christopher Robert Braggs and Jose Lopez Gomez filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit styled Joseph Shannon, et al. v. Joseph Decker, et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-00875-JAD-GWF, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, Las Vegas. Joe "JD" Decker is the Administrator for the Division of Industrial Relations in Nevada's Department of Business and Industry. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Sept. 17, 2018, the District Court granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case. The Plaintiffs bring this putative class action, alleging that current and former administrators of the Division of Industrial Relations (DIR) violated their civil rights by failing to update actuarial tables that insurers use to calculate lump-sum awards under Nevada's workers' compensation scheme. The Defendants move to dismiss all of the plaintiffs' claims. They contend that the Plaintiffs (1) have failed to show that state action caused their deprivations because private insurers, not the state, calculated their benefits; (2) lack a property interest in a particular calculation of a lump-sum payment; (3) were given notice and an opportunity to be heard if they disagreed with their lump-sum payments; (4) cannot show that the Administrators' failure to update the actuarial table was arbitrary or irrational; and (5) cannot show that the defendants intentionally discriminated against them to support their equal-protection claim. The Defendants also raise a qualified-immunity defense. The appellate case is captioned as Joseph Shannon, et al. v. Joseph Decker, et al., Case No. 18-16697, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Appellants Penny Lucille Behrens, Christopher Robert Braggs, Jose Lopez Gomez and Joseph Shannon's opening brief is due on November 7, 2018; -- Appellees Joseph Decker, Steve George and Donald L. Soderberg's answering brief is due on December 7, 2018; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants JOSEPH SHANNON, PENNY LUCILLE BEHRENS, CHRISTOPHER ROBERT BRAGGS and JOSE LOPEZ GOMEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Leon Greenberg, Esq. Dana Sniegocki, Esq. LEON GREENBERG PROFESSIONAL CORP. 2965 S. Jones Boulevard, E-4 Las Vegas, NV 89146 Telephone: (702) 383-6085 E-mail: leongreenberg@overtimelaw.com dana@overtimelaw.com - and - James P. Kemp, Esq. KEMP & KEMP 7435 W. Azure Drive Las Vegas, NV 89130 Telephone: (702) 258-1183 E-mail: jp@kemp-attorneys.com Defendants-Appellees JOSEPH DECKER, STEVE GEORGE and DONALD L. SODERBERG, in their individual capacities, are represented by: Sarah A. Bradley, Esq. AGNV - NEVADA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 100 North Carson Street Carson City, NV 89701 Telephone: (775) 684-1213 E-mail: sbradley@ag.nv.gov - and - Steven G. Shevorski, Esq. AGNV - OFFICE OF THE NEVADA ATTORNEY GENERAL (LAS VEGAS) 555 East Washington Avenue Las Vegas, NV 89101 Telephone: (702) 486-3420 E-mail: SShevorski@ag.nv.gov NEWPORT SYNDICATE: Newlyweds Sue Over Hep A Exposure ---------------------------------------------------- James Leggate, writing for 9 WCP Cincinnati, reports that a newlywed couple filed a class action complaint against the Newport Syndicate after they allege their entire wedding was exposed to hepatitis A. Jeff and Kameron Slavey held their wedding reception with 240 guests at the Syndicate on Aug. 3. The party racked up a bill of more than $13,000, according to the lawsuit, which was filed in Campbell County circuit court on August 29. But on Aug. 15, the Northern Kentucky Health Department alerted the newlyweds that they needed to inform all their guests that they may have been exposed to hepatitis A, and they they should get vaccinated immediately. Health officials declared an outbreak of hepatitis A in Northern Kentucky on Aug. 15, saying there had been 56 cases of the virus, including an employee at the Newport Syndicate. NKY health officials warned that the employee was handling food at the venue from July 25 to Aug. 11. The Aug. 15 warning gave the couple just 48 hours to notify all of their guests within the two-week incubation window for hepatitis A, according to the lawsuit. The potential exposure to the virus created "fear, stress and trauma" for the couple and their guests, the lawsuit alleges. Even worse, Kameron Slavery and some of the wedding guests were pregnant on the day of the wedding. Their fear was even greater, according to the lawsuit. Newport Syndicate general manager Betsi Rutkowski said she couldn't immediately comment on the lawsuit. The employee in question is "completely fine," Rutkowski said. The lawsuit alleges the Newport Syndicate breached its duty to maintain a safe eating environment by employing a person with hepatitis A, and that the venue was negligent by serving food that may not have been safe to eat. After the employee was diagnosed, the Newport Syndicate disinfected all surfaces which may have been contaminated and advised its employees to get vaccinated. Hygiene practices were also reinforced. "We went immediately into full force action ... We still wanted to make sure all guests that come into this building feel safe, and we've done everything we can do," Rutkowski previously told WCPO. It is uncommon to contract hepatitis A from a restaurant employee, according to health officials. They still advised anyone who ate at the Syndicate from July 25 to Aug. 11 to get vaccinated, and to always wash their hands thoroughly after using the bathroom and before preparing food.[GN] OISHI THAI: Violates Disabilities Act, Gomez Class Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Oishi Thai, LLC. The case is styled as Andres Gomez, on his own and on behalf of all other individuals similarly situated v. Oishi Thai, LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-23681-DPG (S.D. Fla., September 7, 2018). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Oishi Thai, LLC, operates the Oishi Thai Restaurant located in North Miami Beach, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jessica Lynn Kerr, Esq. JESSICA L. KERR, P.A. DBA THE ADVOCACY GROUP 200 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 504 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 282-1858 Facsimile: (844) 786-3694 E-mail: jkerr@advocacypa.com OXY USA: Hitch Moves to Certify Class of Royalty Owners in Kansas ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled HITCH ENTERPRISES, INC., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. OXY USA Inc., Case No. 6:18-cv-01030-EFM-KGG (D. Kan.), seeks certification of this class: All royalty owners in Kansas wells: (a) where Oxy USA Inc. was the operator (or, as a non-operator, separately marketed gas); (b) who were paid royalties for production of gas, NGLs, or Helium from July 1, 2007 to April 30, 2014; and (c) whose gas was moved over the ONEOK/West Texas Gas/NNG lines to the Jayhawk Plant for processing. Excluded from the Class are: (1) the Office of Natural Resources Revenue, formerly known as the Mineral Management Service (Indian tribes and the United States); (2) all presiding judge(s) together with their immediate family members; (3) Oxy USA Inc. its affiliates, its predecessors-in-interest, and their respective employees, officers, and directors; and (4) royalty owners who receive royalty under the leases expressly allowing the deduction of processing expenses. These leases all provide for royalties on gas to be paid at market value "less a proportionate part of any . . . taxes and the costs incurred by Lessee in delivering, processing or otherwise marketing such gas or other substances." The Lease Schedule identifies these seven (7) leases as "Express Deduction" or "ED" Leases: OXY-HITCH-00001401; OXY-HITCH-00001404; OXY-HITCH-00001407; OXY-HITCH-00001410; OXY-HITCH-00001413; OXY-HITCH-00001416; and OXY-HITCH-00001419. These ED Leases are all dated in 2007, share lessors with the surname Watson, and cover one or more wells in Section 24, Township 30S, Range 32W in Haskell County, Kansas. This royalty owners' class action seeks recovery for Defendant's failure to properly pay royalties on gas produced from hundreds of Kansas wells and processed under one gas contract to more than 1,800 royalty owners who have leases that contain the implied duty to market under Kansas law. The Plaintiff also asks the Court to appoint it as class representative, and to appoint its counsel as class counsel. The Plaintiff is represented by: Rex A. Sharp, Esq. Barbara C. Frankland, Esq. Ryan C. Hudson, Esq. Scott B. Goodger, Esq. REX A. SHARP, P.A. 5301 W. 75th Street Prairie Village, KS 66208 Telephone: (913) 901-0505 Facsimile: (913) 901-0419 E-mail: rsharp@midwest-law.com bfrankland@midwest-law.com rhudson@midwest-law.com sgoodger@midwest-law.com OXY USA: Whisenant Suit Moved to Western District of Oklahoma ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Tony R. Whisenant on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. OXY USA Inc., the Defendant, Case No. CJ-17-00012, was removed from the Beaver County District Court to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma (Oklahoma City) on Aug. 23, 2018. The Oklahoma Western District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:18-cv-00819-HE to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Joe Heaton. OXY USA offers exploration, production, and marketing of crude oil and natural gas. OXY USA Inc. was formerly known as Cities Service Oil and Gas Corp.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Rex A Sharp, Esq. REX A SHARP PA 5301 W 75th St Prairie Village, KS 66208 Telephone: (913) 901 0505 Facsimile: (913) 901 0419 E-mail: rsharp@midwest-law.com Attorneys for OXY USA Inc.: Lisa T Silvestri, Esq. GABLE & GOTWALS 100 W 5th St., Suite 1100 Tulsa, OK 74103-4217 Telephone: (918) 595 4800 Facsimile: (918) 595 4990 E-mail: lsilvestri@gablelaw.com PAPA JOHN'S: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, disclosed the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Papa John's International, Inc. (NASDAQ:PZZA) from February 25, 2014 through July 19, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Papa John's investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Papa John's class action, go to https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1379.html or call Phillip Kim, Esq. or Zachary Halper, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. According to the lawsuit, defendants during the Class Period made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Papa John's executives, including John H. Schnatter, engaged in a pattern of sexual harassment and other inappropriate workplace conduct; (2) Papa John's Code of Ethics and Business Conduct was inadequate to prevent the foregoing misconduct; (3) the foregoing conduct would foreseeably have a negative impact on Papa John's business and operations, and expose Papa John's to reputational harm, heightened regulatory scrutiny, and legal liability; and (4) as a result, Papa John's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 29, 2018. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1379.html Follow us for updates on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm or on Twitter: https://twitter.com/rosen—firm. Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. Zachary Halper, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 34thFloor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com zhalper@rosenlegal.com.[GN] PENNSYLVANIA: Class-Action Suits vs. PHEAA Target Practices ----------------------------------------------------------- Deb Erdley, writing for Trib Live, reports that Arianne Gallagher knew attending law school at the University of Pittsburgh would require taking on a lot of debt. The native of Chicora, a tiny borough in Butler County, already had borrowed for her undergraduate education from Pitt but believed she could handle more debt and tap the federal government's income-based loan repayment plan to repay the money. The plan allows borrowers who work public service jobs to pay a percentage of their income every year and then forgives any remaining debt after a decade. Like thousands of others, Gallagher counted on student loan payments being akin to paying rent or car payments. That is not the case. Today, she is a plaintiff in one of 10 class-action lawsuits filed against the Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency that have been bundled in federal court in Philadelphia. The plaintiffs -- borrowers from 10 states -- say they represent tens of thousands who have been saddled with additional debt because PHEAA cannot or will not properly process their payments. The agency, which conducts its federal loan business as FedLoan Servicing, does not comment on pending litigation, spokesman Keith New said. But he maintains PHEAA is living up to the terms of its contracts with the U.S. Department of Education. The federal agency hired PHEAA to process payments on 7.6 million student loans, which represents about a quarter of the $1.3 trillion in federal student loan debt owed by 44 million Americans. The consolidated PHEAA suit is the latest sign of trouble in the student loan arena. Both PHEAA and Navient, the nation's largest student loan servicer, are awash in lawsuits filed by state attorneys general and angry borrowers who claim the agencies make it difficult for them to remain current in payments. In 2016, the federal direct student loan program, one of several federal loan programs, saw 1.1 million defaults — which equals about 3,000 a day, or one every 28 seconds. Rohit Chopra, a U.S. Federal Trade commissioner and former student loan ombudsman for the federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, analyzed the numbers and said they bear "an uncanny resemblance" to problems in the mortgage servicing market that set off the recession a decade ago. "The default rates on student loans are alarmingly high," Chopra said. "And there are some serious questions about how student loan servicers might be responsible for many of these defaults. Importantly, in the federal student loan program it is easy to avoid default if you get the right information because all borrowers are entitled to repay their loans based on income." Chopra said PHEAA, the nation's second-largest student loan servicer, at the end of last year had the lowest percentage of borrowers in current repayment status, the highest percentage of those considered severely delinquent and highest percentage who had defaulted. "Ultimately, we need to wake up to the fact that our student loan system is badly broken," Chopra said. "We are overdue for an overhaul because today too many people are worse off by going to college and college should be about getting ahead, not getting pushed behind." Mounting debt Gallagher hasn't defaulted and insisted she intends to repay her debt. But PHEAA has made that increasingly difficult and has added $13,000 to the total of what she owes, which now stands at $160,000, she said. Today, Gallagher, 32, works for the federal government in Washington, D.C. She always hoped to land there. She knew she'd never earn the kind of money made by attorneys in high-profile private practices. But that was OK. "I thought I could have an opportunity to help people working public service or advocacy," said Gallagher, who earned an undergraduate degree from Pitt in 2008. Gallagher hoped to work at a job she loved, make ends meet and be debt free in 10 years through income-based repayments in the public service loan forgiveness program. Participants in the plan must certify their income to PHEAA every year. The agency then recalculates monthly payments based on the borrower's adjusted income. That's where things went awry, Gallagher said. Every year, she would certify her paperwork to PHEAA In January. But the agency failed to process her paperwork in time in 2014, 2016 and 2017. In 2014, PHEAA placed Gallagher in forbearance — a kind of financial limbo — while it resolved her account. She wasn't permitted to make a payment that February while loan servicers recalculated her payments. That added an extra month onto her payment plan. The agency placed her into forbearance again in 2016 for two months, which added another two months of payments for Gallagher. PHEAA then capitalized the interest she owed, adding another $13,000 to what she owed — a move that meant interest began ticking up on even more debt. In 2017, when she inquired about whether a different payment plan might be more advantageous, PHEAA changed her payment plan over the phone and more than doubled her monthly payment to $1,900. By then, she began talking to lawyers at Carlson Lynch in Pittsburgh. They filed a lawsuit on her behalf late last year. "I took on the debt, and I know I'm responsible for paying it. I just don't want it to be this high," Gallagher said. 'All over it' No one ever anticipated PHEAA would grow to what it has become. A judge on the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals recently wrote that it now operates more like a private corporation than a state agency. The Pennsylvania Legislature created PHEAA in 1963 to insure student loans issued through banks and tasked the agency with making higher education more accessible to Pennsylvanians. Today, it makes most of its income processing and collecting payments on a portfolio of more than $400 billion in student debt -- which is more than 10 times the annual budget of the state that created PHEAA. The agency's board includes 18 state lawmakers, two appointees by Gov. Tom Wolf and the state secretaries of banking and education. Pennsylvania lawmakers tapped $101 million of PHEAA's profits this year to help underwrite a state grant program for 150,000 needy Pennsylvania college students. The grants capped out at $4,123 this year. The agency usually wins when borrowers sue -- but the cost of defending lawsuits is adding up, and officials have noticed. Between January 2016 and this April, the PHEAA paid $2.5 million for outside lawyers to work on 32 cases alone. The agency also paid more than $1.8 million to settle 29 lawsuits between Jan. 1, 2015, and June 30. As the tobacco and asbestos industries learned, there is a potential for hundreds of billions of dollars in payouts to those on the losing side in multidistrict class-action suits. State Sen. Wayne Fontana, a Brookline Democrat and PHEAA board vice chairman, said the lawsuits often are discussed during closed-door executive sessions. PHEAA officials maintain many of the lawsuits are frivolous, Fontana said. "Sometimes it is just someone trying to get out of paying their loans, but I don't just dismiss them. I ask about them. . . . They eat into what we have to pay for student grants," Fontana said. "The disturbing thing is everyone is suing these days, and the cost to defend those suits is high. We're defending these things. Is it the case that somebody here is not being efficient or being unfair? I don't know that that's the case," he said. "But if you think we're not conscious of it, that's not the case. We're all over it and looking at the costs." Serve and collect But the multidistrict litigation in Philadelphia is different. Consolidation is a special process reserved for complex cases with numerous defendants. Tobacco and asbestos cases were handled similarly, as are cases involving deadly missteps by the pharmaceutical industry. Such filings can culminate in massive financial payouts. PHEAA should be concerned, Chopra said. He said PHEAA's status as the sole servicer for the public service loan forgiveness program -- the one into which Gallagher enrolled -- focused a spotlight on the agency. Congress predicted the program that began in 2007 would see the debts of many borrowers forgiven in 10 years. Yet, only a handful has made it through the maze of repayment. Chopra said he hears complaints almost daily about borrowers who have submitted paperwork to PHEAA repeatedly without success. "There is not a day goes by that we don't hear from borrowers struggling to navigate the public service loan forgiveness program," Chopra said. "Some wonder whether the Department of Education is exercising adequate oversight on its servicers." Plaintiffs in the pending class-action suit in Philadelphia wonder whether it's a matter of negligence on the part of the agency, or whether PHEAA's contracts actually incentivize delays that increase borrowers' debt and add months or years to payments PHEAA was hired to collect. Borrowers enrolled in public service loan forgiveness tend to stay on top of payments and are vocal about such issues, said Persis Wu, a lawyer with the National Consumer Law Center. As additional data comes in, it may settle the argument once and for all. But Wu said it likely won't go away anytime soon. "PHEAA is an incredibly complicated organization in that it has incredibly aggressive collection tactics and that has it collecting from the people it was originally trying to serve," Wu said.[GN] PRIMEFLIGHT AVIATION: Kuhn Suit Moved to E.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Herta Guadalupe Kuhn on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, the Plaintiff, v. PrimeFlight Aviation Services, Inc., doing business as: PrimeFlight of DE, Inc, a Delaware Corporation; which will do business in California; and Prime Flight Aviation Services, Inc., an Ohio Corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 34-02018-00235596, was removed from the California Superior Court, County of Sacramento, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (Sacramento) on Aug. 27, 2018. The California Eastern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-02340-JAM-AC to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge John A. Mendez. PrimeFlight provides airline services, aircraft services and airport services using cutting-edge technology and a commitment to safety.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Meghan Sherry Maertz, Esq. Oman Otkupman, Esq. OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM 28632 Roadside Drive, Suite 203 Agoura Hills, CA 91301 Telephone: (818) 293 5623 E-mail: meghan@olfla.com roman@olfla.com Attorneys for PrimeFlight Aviation Services: Collin Dennis Cook, Esq. Christopher M. Ahearn, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2050 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 490 9000 Facsimile: (415) 490 9001 E-mail: ccook@fisherphillips.com cahearn@laborlawyers.com PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE: Stedman Suit Moved to W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit titled Joel Stedman and Karen Joyce, on Behalf of Herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Progressive Insurance Co., a foreign automobile insurance company, the Defendant, Case No. 18-00002-18376-6-SEA, was removed from the King County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington (Seattle) on Aug. 24, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-01254 to the proceeding. Progressive Corporation is one of the largest providers of car insurance in the United States. The company also insures motorcycles, boats, RVs and commercial vehicles, and provides home insurance through select companies.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Duncan Calvert Turner, Esq. BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER PLLC 19929 Ballinger Way Ne, Ste 200 Seattle, WA 98155 Telephone: (206) 621 6566 E-mail: dturner@badgleymullins.com - and - Randall C Johnson, Jr. Esq. MYERS & COMPANY 1530 Eastlake Avenue East Seattle, WA 98102 Telephone: (206) 890 0616 E-mail: rcjj.law@gmail.com Attorneys for Progressive Insurance Co.: James Raymond Morrison, Esq. Paul Karlsgodt, Esq. BAKER HOSTETLER LLP (WA) 999 3RD AVE., STE 3600 SEATTLE, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 332 1380 E-mail: jmorrison@bakerlaw.com pkarlsgodt@bakerlaw.com PROMPT NURSING: Filipino Nurses Class Certified in "Paguirigan" --------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Nina Gershon grants the motion for class certification filed in the lawsuit titled ROSE ANN PAGUIRIGAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PROMPT NURSING EMPLOYMENT AGENCY LLC d/b/a/ SENTOSA SERVICES, SENTOSACARE LLC, SENTOSA NURSING RECRUITMENT AGENCY, BENJAMIN LANDA, BENT PHILIPSON, BERISH RUBENSTEIN a/k/a BARRY RUBENSTEIN, FRANCIS LUYUN, GOLDEN GATE REHABILITATION & HEALTH CARE CENTER LLC, and SPRING CREEK REHABILITATION AND NURSING CENTER, Case No. 17-cv-1302 (NG) (JO) (E.D.N.Y.). The Plaintiff's motion to certify a class comprised of all nurses, who were recruited by the Defendants in the Philippines and were employed by the Defendants in the United States at any time since December 23, 2008, is granted against all the Defendants and with respect to all claims under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Judge Gershon appoints the Plaintiff's counsel as class counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g). The Plaintiff is directed to submit, within 30 days of the date of this Order, a proposed form of notice in accordance with Rule 23(c)(2)(B). Plaintiff Rose Ann Paguirigan brings claims for violations of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act and declaratory judgment against the Defendants. The Plaintiff also brings a breach of contract claim against Prompt Nursing, Landa, Philipson, and Rubenstein. QUEEN'S HARBOUR: Faces Story Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct. -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Queen's Harbour Yacht & Country Club Owners Association Inc. and MAY Management Services, Inc. The case is styled as Nicole Story, On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated v. Queen's Harbour Yacht & Country Club Owners Association Inc. and MAY MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., Case No. 16-2018-CA-006181-XXXX-MA (Fla. Cir. Ct., Duval Cty., September 10, 2018). Queens Harbour Yacht & Country Club Owners Association Inc. is a property owners association. Queen's Harbour Yacht and Country Club is a gated community in Jacksonville, Florida. MAY Management Services, Inc., was founded in 1988. The Company's line of business includes renting, buying, selling and appraising real estate.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan Garrett Moore, Esq. FIRST COAST CONSUMER LAW 340 3rd Avenue S, Suite A Jacksonville Beach, FL 32250-6767 Telephone: (904) 242-7070 E-mail: ryan@beacheslaw.com REGIONAL MEDICAL: Faces MSPA Suit in M. Dist. Florida ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Regional Medical Center Bayonet Point Volunteers Association, Inc. The case is captioned as MSPA Claims 1, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, as Assignee of Florida Healthcare Plus, on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated Medicare Advantage Organizations in the State of Florida v. Regional Medical Center Bayonet Point Volunteers Association, Inc., a Florida Profit Corporation, Case No. 8:18-cv-02224-SDM-JSS (M.D. Fla., September 7, 2018). The nature of suit is stated as "Contract: Recovery Medicare." Regional Medical Center Bayonet Point Volunteers was founded in 1981 and is headquartered in Hudson, Florida. The Company's line of business includes providing general medical and surgical hospital services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frank Carlos Quesada, Esq. MSP RECOVERY LAW FIRM 5000 SW 75th Ave., Suite 400 Miami, FL 33155 Telephone: (305) 614-2222 Facsimile: (866) 582-0907 E-mail: fquesada@msprecovery.com REPROMED: Law Firms Team Up on Proposed Class Action ---------------------------------------------------- Tamara Shephard, writing for Toronto.com, reports that two law firms are moving forward co-operatively toward filing a certification motion with the courts on a proposed class action lawsuit against an Etobicoke-based fertility company after a storage tank malfunction. Toronto woman Qi Zhang, 39, told the Toronto Star in July that she was devastated after learning a malfunction destroyed her frozen eggs. Zhang is suing ReproMed, the Etobicoke-based Toronto Institute for Reproductive Medicine, through her law firm Gluckstein and Harte, seeking more than $25 million in special and aggravated damages. The lawsuit, detailed in a statement of claim filed on July 5 at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, alleges the company was negligent in inspecting, monitoring and maintaining embryos, sperm and eggs in its storage freezer. In late May, the freezer experienced a vacuum pump failure and the temperature rose, which destroyed its storage content, according to the statement of claim. The lawsuit names ReproMed and its director, Dr. Alfonso P. Del Valle, as well as the U.S.-based cryogenic tank manufacturer Chart Industries and its distributor, Praxair Canada Inc. Anne Spafford, Esq.-- aspafford@lerners.ca-- a lawyer at Lerners LLP, who represents ReproMed and Del Valle, said they are aware of the lawsuit, but would not comment on it as the matter is before the courts. Jillian Evanko from Chart Industries also said they do not comment on pending litigation. Praxair Canada Inc. did not respond to the Guardian's requests for comment. The court must certify the action as a class action before it may proceed. Toronto law firm Siskinds LLP had also filed a notice of action on June 14 at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Brampton on behalf of a Mississauga couple. Lawyers for the plaintiffs caution the 47 people affected by the malfunction against accepting any deals with the clinic prior to receiving legal advice. Those affected may contact lawyer Jordan Assaraf, Esq. -- assaraf@gluckstein.com -- or at 416-408-4252 or lawyer Bridget Moran, Esq. -- bridget.moran@siskinds.com -- or at 519-660-7842. Zhang, who spoke to The Toronto Star through a translator, said she had stored 65 of her eggs with ReproMed earlier this year at a cost of more than $10,000. As a "single mother with no partner," Zhang said storing her eggs gave her hope for expanding her family in the future. The statement of claim indicates her doctor emailed Zhang early in June with news the freezer had failed. "I sat in my car and I was crying for a long period of time," she told the Star. "I was so terrified. The security for my future is now gone." Zhang said it was particularly difficult to tell her seven-year-old daughter she may never have siblings. Jordan Assaraf, lawyer with Gluckstein and Harte, said there's a failure to regulate fertility clinics in Ontario. "We inspect restaurants, why not inspect fertility clinics," Assaraf said in an email to The Guardian. "The corner store is inspected more than the place of business which stores and preserves your reproductive material (eggs, embryos and sperm)."[GN] ROYAL WINNIPEG: Canada's Ballet World Rocked by Abuse Scandal ------------------------------------------------------------- The Guardian, reports that from a small dance company on the prairies of Canada it grew into one of the country's most prestigious cultural institutions -- gaining international prominence as the first ballet in the Commonwealth to receive the royal charter from the Queen. Now, however, the spotlight is on the Royal Winnipeg Ballet for other reasons, after an Ontario court gave the go-ahead to a class-action lawsuit alleging that a former instructor pressurised students -- many of them underage -- to pose for semi-nude or nude photographs and later may have sold some of the pictures online. The allegations are connected to the ballet's school, which recruits and trains aspiring dancers from across Canada and around the world. After years of whispers, former students began speaking out in 2012; media picked up on the story three years later. The allegations span nearly 30 years and show a pattern: accusing an instructor who doubled as the ballet's photographer of cajoling them into taking off their clothes so that he could photograph them in various stages of undress or in sexually provocative positions. The accusations are among a series of claims that have rocked Canada's most vaunted cultural institutions, from women who came forward with stories of CBC broadcaster Jian Ghomeshi in 2014 to a sexual harassment complaint against the former artistic director of the Montreal Symphony Orchestra, Charles Dutoit. The orchestra has launched an investigation. After denying the allegations, Ghomeshi was found not guilty in 2016 of four counts of sexual assault and one count of choking, while Dutoit has denied the allegation. Sarah Doucet was a student at the Royal Winnipeg Ballet school in the 1990s. She said she was 16 or 17 when she approached Bruce Monk to take photographs of her for her portfolio. Initially, nothing seemed amiss when the two met to take a few shots of her in the dance studio. After that, Monk suggested they move to a private office for headshots, she claimed. He closed the office door before setting up his camera, she said. "And then he slowly, gently but very persistently, insisted I removed the straps off my shoulders," Doucet claimed. Worried about upsetting an instructor at the highly competitive school, Doucet said she did as she was told. Monk then took several topless photographs of her, she claimed. "I don't remember how it ended. I've tried, but I don't know how I got out of the room but it didn't go any further," she said. Humiliated by what had happened, she did not tell anyone at the time about her experience. None of the allegations against Monk or the Royal Winnipeg Ballet has been proved in court. Both Monk and the ballet have filed statements of defence denying the accusations. As other students began coming forward with similar accounts, police in Winnipeg launched an investigation in 2015. It was then that allegations also emerged that Monk -- an accomplished photographer whose images hang on the walls of Canada's National Gallery -- had been selling some of the pictures online, according to the statement of claim. The discovery added another layer to the trauma, said Doucet, now 46 and living in Toronto. The thought that pictures of her topless might be hanging on a wall somewhere in the world, she said, "is highly triggering and traumatising". Crown prosecutors in Manitoba ultimately decided not to lay charges against Monk, citing the slim chances of obtaining a conviction. According to court documents, the police investigation had focused on three women, including Doucet, who had all been photographed before 1993 -- the year that Canada strengthened its laws on child-abuse images. The documents noted that Monk's conduct, if proven, was "not unlawful" under the child-abuse images laws in force at the time, according to crown attorneys. Doucet turned to the civil courts. "This was the only thing that I had left," she said. "It was the only avenue to get them to take responsibility for what they've done." The class action, filed earlier this summer with Doucet as the lead plaintiff and on behalf of former students who claim they had their pictures taken in a private setting by Monk between 1984 and 2015, alleges that Monk breached his fiduciary duty to the students. It also argues that the Royal Winnipeg Ballet was vicariously liable for Monk's interactions with students, said lawyer Margaret Waddell, Esq. -- marg@waddellphillips.ca "They were the ones that put a camera in his hands and told the students that they were to expect to be photographed by him, and created the environment, we say, where this was allowed to happen." The Royal Winnipeg Ballet declined to comment on the lawsuit or the allegations. Monk, who was dismissed in 2015, did not respond to a request for comment sent to his lawyer. Among the issues the court is expected to consider, said Waddell, is whether students can meaningfully consent when being told to do something by an instructor who wields control over their career. "Imagine being, for example, a 16-year-old student and your instructor is telling you to remove your clothes so that he can photograph you," she said. "That can be a highly traumatic experience whether or not he then uses those photographs to publish them online and sell them for his own gain." For Doucet, the focus is now on steeling herself for what could be a years-long court battle -- something she never imagined when she went public with her allegation. "The past four years have been the hardest four years of my life," she said. Speaking out has dislodged emotions she had long buried, adding to her struggles with trusting men in positions of power. "The way that it spreads into family and friends and work life and personal life and self-esteem -- it affects everything," she said. "It's time for us to stop feeling like we did something, like we were complicit in this, because we weren't."[GN] SAN BERNARDINO, CA: McKibben Wins Prelim. OK of $950K Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable Jesus G. Bernal granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class and Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement in the lawsuit captioned Dan McKibben, et al. v. John McMahon, et al., Case No. 5:14-cv-02171-JGB-SP (C.D. Cal.). John McMahon is the Sheriff of the San Bernardino County, California. Two settlement classes are certified for settlement purpose only: a. Damages Class: Individuals who, between October 22, 2012 (two years prior to the filing of the original complaint, which is the statute of limitations period under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983) and March 31, 2018 (the end of the month in which the settlement was reached in principle) were gay, bisexual, and/or transgender inmates housed in the Alternative Lifestyle Tank of the San Bernardino County Jail facility known as West Valley Detention Center; and b. Injunctive Relief Class: Individuals who currently are, or in the future will be, gay, bisexual, and/or transgender inmates housed in the San Bernardino County jails, including but not limited to those housed in the Alternative Lifestyle Tank. The key financial terms of the Settlement Agreement are: -- Gross settlement amount ("Class Fund"): $950,000; -- Expert, consulting, mediation costs: $37,000; -- Settlement administration costs: $40,00; -- Service award to class representatives: $60,500; -- Net settlement amount: $812,500; and -- Attorneys' fees and costs: $1,100,000. Barrett S. Litt, Esq., David McLane, Esq., and Lindsay Battles, Esq., of Kaye, McLane, Bednarski & Litt, and Melissa Goodman, Esq., Amanda Goad, Esq., Brendan Hamme, Esq., and Aditi Fruitwala, Esq., of the ACLU Foundation of Southern California are appointed as class counsel for purposes of settlement only. Named Plaintiffs Pedro Guzman, Nick Ou, Sean Lint, Anthony Oliver, Timothy Walker, Ilich Vargas, William Kennedy, Jonathan Robertson, Steve Aka Lynn Price, Bryan Bagwell, Christopher Crawford, Frederick Crockan, Taheash White, Michael Aka Madison Hatfield, and Kevin Aka Veronica Pratt are preliminarily appointed as class representatives. JND Legal Administration is appointed as the settlement administrator. The settlement notice is approved in form and substance for use in the administration of the Settlement Agreement. The Court grants the parties the authority to finalize the contact information, Web site address, response dates, and fairness hearing dates in accordance with this Order. Settlement class members will have until January 7, 2019, to file a claim, opt-out, or file an objection to the Settlement Agreement. The final approval hearing is scheduled for February 11, 2019, at 9:00 a.m. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Barrett S. Litt, Esq. KAYE MCLANE BEDNARSKI AND LITT LLP 975 East Green St. Pasadena, CA 91106 Telephone: (626) 844-7660 Facsimile: (626) 844-7670 E-mail: blitt@kmbllaw.com - and - Amanda C. Goad, Esq. ACLU OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 1313 W 8th Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 977-9500 E-mail: agoad@aclu.org The Defendants are represented by: Nathan A. Oyster, Esq. BURKE WILLIAMS AND SORENSEN LLP 444 S Flower St., Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 236-0600 Facsimile: (213) 236-2700 E-mail: noyster@bwslaw.com SANFORD LP: Spacone Appeals Class Cert. Denial to 9th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff David Spacone filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled David Spacone v. Sanford, LP, Case No. 2:17-cv-02419-AB-MRW, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Aug. 23, 2018, the Hon. Andre Birotte, Jr., entered an order denying Plaintiff's motion for class certification of: "all individuals who purchased one or more KG Stay Fresh Container Products in California from January 31, 2013, until the date of trial." The Court found that class certification is not appropriate because Spacone (1) lacks standing to raise claims under the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law, and Unfair Competition Law, (2) fails to provide the Court an ascertainable proposed class, (3) presents an atypical member of his proposed class under Rule 23(a)(3), and (4) is not an adequate class representative. The appellate case is captioned as David Spacone v. Sanford, LP, Case No. 18-56208, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript must be ordered by October 10, 2018; -- Transcript is due on November 9, 2018; -- Appellant David Spacone's opening brief is due on December 19, 2018; -- Appellee Sanford, LP answering brief is due on January 22, 2019; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant DAVID SPACONE, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, is represented by: Liana Carter, Esq. Robert Kenneth Friedl, Esq. Jordan L. Lurie, Esq. Bevin Allen Pike, Esq. Ryan Wu, Esq. Tarek Zohdy, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-4811 E-mail: Liana.Carter@CapstoneLawyers.com robert.friedl@capstonelawyers.com Jordan.Lurie@capstonelawyers.com Bevin.Pike@capstonelawyers.com Ryan.Wu@CapstoneLawyers.com tarek.zohdy@capstonelawyers.com Defendant-Appellee SANFORD, LP, Erroneously Sued As Elmers Products, Inc., a Delaware corporation, is represented by: Jean-Paul P. Cart, Esq. SCHIFF HARDIN LLP One Market Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 901-8732 Facsimile: (415) 901-8701 E-mail: jcart@schiffhardin.com SCRIPPS EXECUTIVE: Meisenheimer Sues over Inaccurate Pay Check -------------------------------------------------------------- CRYSTAL MEISENHEIMER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SCRIPPS EXECUTIVE HEALTH MEDICAL GROUP, INC., a private, non-profit entity; SCRIPPS HEALTH, a private, non-profit entity; SCRIPPS HEALTH AND HEALING CENTER, a private, non-profit entity; SCRIPPS HEALTH INPATIENT PROVIDERS MEDICAL GROUP, INC., a private, non-profit entity; SCRIPPS HEALTH PLAN SERVICES, INC., a private, non-profit entity; and DOES 1 through 25, Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 37-2018-00042819-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 24, 2018), alleges that Defendants have failed to provide Plaintiffs with adequate and accurate wage statements with defects including but not limited to failing to provide the name and address of the employing entity, among other defects. According to the complaint, on March 24, 2014, the Plaintiff began working for Defendants at Defendants' hospital located at 10666 North Torrey Pines Road, La Jolla, CA 92037. The Defendants issued inadequate pay stubs to Plaintiff and to the Plaintiff Class. Specifically, itemized statement failed to provide the name of the legal entity which is the employer and provided an incorrect address in violation of Labor Code section 226(a)(8). The itemized statements provided to Plaintiff stated "Scripps Health Payroll", which as far as Plaintiff can ascertain is not a legal entity or a registered fictitious business name in the County of San Diego.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua D. Gruenberg, Esq. Josh P. Pang, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JOSHUA D. GRUENBERG 2155 First Avenue San Diego, CA 92101-3542 Telephone: (619) 230 1234 Facsimile: (619) 230 1074 - and - Efaon Cobb, Esq. Justin Hewgill, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF HEWGILL & COBB 2169 First Avenue San Diego, CA 92101-3542 Telephone: (619) 786 7459 Facsimile: (619) 377 6026 SECORP INDUSTRIES: Court Certifies Class in Jensen Suit ------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned Jensen, the Plaintiff, v. Secorp Industries, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-02890-RGK-GJS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge R. Gary Klausner entered an order granting Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Court concludes that the plaintiff met all all four factors for certification: 1. Each class member would likely have little individual interest in controlling the litigation. Because each class member's claim would arise from SECORP's failure to pay for on call hours and would be based on the same legal argument, there would be little need to independently litigate a substantially similar case 31 times over. To be sure, some putative class members' individual recoveries may be high enough to justify an individual lawsuit, but an individual lawsuit would still be unnecessarily duplicative and time-consuming given the commonalities here. 2. The Court is not aware of any litigation already begun against SECORP related to this issue. 3. The proposed class is comprised of workers based off the coast of the Central District of California, and the case turns on the application of California state labor law, so it is desirable to concentrate litigation of the claims here. 4. The likely difficulties in managing the class do not outweigh the benefits. As the Court has explained, it can resolve the issue of liability "in one stroke." While it may be necessary to make individual damages determinations, the Court can base such determinations on straightforward mechanical calculations. Such an approach would be simpler than managing substantially similar lawsuits. SETERUS INC: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Heinitz Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Seterus, Inc. The case is titled as Robert J. Heinitz, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, and Sandra L. Heinitz, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Seterus, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-01076-LEK-ATB (N.D.N.Y., September 7, 2018). The Plaintiffs bring the lawsuit over alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Seterus, Inc., operates as a loan servicing company. The Company's services include loan application, underwriting, processing, vendor management, document preparation and loan closing. Seterus was formerly known as IBM Lender Business Process Services Inc. and changed its name in July 2011. The company was founded in 2007 and is based in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Seterus, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of International Business Machines Corporation.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Elmer R. Keach, III, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ELMER ROBERT KEACH, III, P.C. One Pine West Plaza, Suite 109 Albany, NY 12205 Telephone: (518) 434-1718 Facsimile: (518) 770-1558 E-mail: bobkeach@keachlawfirm.com SHAMROCK FOODS: 9th Circuit Appeal Filed in Ruiz Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Raul Guerrero, Mario Ruiz and Robert Torres filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit entitled Mario Ruiz, et al. v. Shamrock Foods Company, Case No. 2:17-cv-06017-SVW-AFM, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Sept. 4, 2018, the Hon. Stephen V. Wilson grants the Defendant's motion for summary judgment and moots the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class. According to its civil minutes, the Court granted the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment because the named Plaintiffs lack standing to pursue the one claim in this case. Thus, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification is moot. The Plaintiffs, commercial drivers who were employed by Shamrock in California, have filed a class action lawsuit, alleging on their behalf and the putative class, a single claim for a procedural violation of the disclosure requirements under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The appellate case is captioned as Mario Ruiz, et al. v. Shamrock Foods Company, Case No. 18-56209, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Appellants Raul Guerrero, Mario Ruiz and Robert Torres' opening brief is due on November 9, 2018; -- Appellee Shamrock Foods Company's answering brief is due on December 10, 2018; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants MARIO RUIZ, RAUL GUERRERO and ROBERT TORRES, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Aashish Yadvendra Desai, Esq. DESAI LAW FIRM, P.C. 3200 Bristol Street Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (949) 614-5830 Facsimile: (949) 271-4190 E-mail: aashish@desai-law.com Defendant-Appellee SHAMROCK FOODS COMPANY, an Arizona corporation, is represented by: Kara Maciel, Esq. CONN MACIEL CAREY LLP 5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 660 Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (202) 909-2730 E-mail: kmaciel@ebglaw.com - and - Andrew Jonathon Sommer, Esq. CONN MACIEL CAREY LLP 870 Market Street, Suite 1111 San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 268-8881 E-mail: asommer@connmaciel.com SINCLAIR BROADCAST: My Philly Lawyer Asserts Sherman Act Breach --------------------------------------------------------------- My Philly Lawyer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc., Tribune Media Company, Tribune Broadcasting Company, LLC and Does 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-02713, (D. Md., August 31, 2018) seeks damages, injunctive relief and other relief for violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Defendants are media companies who are accused by the Plaintiff of conspiring to fix, raise, stabilize, and maintain prices for commercials to be aired on broadcast television stations throughout the United States by sharing competitively sensitive information through their advertising sales teams. My Philly Lawyer is a law firm located in Philadelphia, PA and purchased television advertising from one or more of the Defendants. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John R. Solter, Jr., Esq. AZRAEL, FRANZ, SCHWAB & LIPOWITZ, LLC 101 E. Chesapeake Avenue, 5th Floor Baltimore, MD 21286 Tel: (410) 821-6800 Email: jsolter@azraelfranz.com - and - Eugene A. Spector, Esq. William G. Caldes, Esq. SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C. 1818 Market Street, Suite 2500 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: (215) 496-0300 Fax: (215) 496-6611 Email: espector@srkattorneys.com bcaldes@srkattorneys.com - and - David P. McLafferty, Esq. MCLAFFERTY LAW FIRM, P.C. 923 Fayette Street Conshohocken, PA 19428 Tel: (610) 940-4000 Fax: (610) 940-4007 Email: dmclafferty@mclaffertylaw.com SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIV: Ahad's Bid for Class Certification Denied ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Sue E. Myerscough denied the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification filed in the lawsuit titled SAJIDA AHAD, MD, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY and SIU PHYSICIANS & SURGEONS, INC., Case No. 3:15-cv-03308-SEM-TSH (C.D. Ill.). The Court finds that the Plaintiff has not shown the requirements of commonality and typicality under Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff Sajida Ahad, M.D., brings this suit alleging gender-based pay discrimination on behalf of herself and a class of female physicians employed by Defendants: the Board of Trustees of Southern Illinois University and SIU Physicians & Surgeons, Inc. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants paid the Plaintiff and other female physicians substantially lower compensation than male physicians for the same or similar work. The Plaintiff brings her claims pursuant to the Illinois Equal Pay Act, and the Illinois Civil Rights Act. SPRINGFIELD, MA: Disability Law Appeals Dist. Ct. Ruling -------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Disability Law Center, Inc., M. W. and Parent/Professional Advocacy League filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled S.S., et al. v. City of Springfield, et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-30116-MGM, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Springfield. The appellate case is captioned as M.W., a minor, by his parents, et al. v. City of Springfield, et al., Case No. 18-1867, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Sept. 7, 2018, Defendants Springfield Public Schools and Springfield, MA, filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit. That appellate case is entitled S.S., et al. v. City of Springfield, et al., Case No. 18-1813. The District Court previously granted the Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings based on the Absence of IDEA Exhaustion in the case. The one-count complaint alleged the Defendants violated Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), with respect to S.S. and members of the proposed class by failing to provide the educational programs and services that would have allowed them equal access to the educational resources offered students attending neighborhood schools. In the course of arguing that the Plaintiffs lack standing, the Defendants raised concerns about IDEA exhaustion. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that Docketing Statement, Transcript Report/Order form, and Appearance form are due on September 24, 2018.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant M. W., a minor, by his parents, L.N. and A.N., on behalf of himself and other similarly situated students, is represented by: Elizabeth M. Bresnahan, Esq. Jeff Goldman, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1 Federal Street Boston, MA 02110-1726 Telephone: (617) 951-8945 E-mail: elizabeth.bresnahan@morganlewis.com jeff.goldman@morganlewis.com Plaintiffs-Appellants PARENT/PROFESSIONAL ADVOCACY LEAGUE, DISABILITY LAW CENTER, INC., and S. S., a minor, by his mother, S.Y., on behalf of himself and other similarly situated students, are represented by: Alison Barkoff, Esq. CENTER FOR PUBLIC REPRESENTATION 1825 K St. NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 854-1270 E-mail: abarkoff@cpr-us.org - and - Michael D. Blanchard, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1 State Street Hartford, CT 06103-0000 Telephone: (860) 240-2700 E-mail: michael.blanchard@morganlewis.com - and - Matthew T. Bohenek, Esq. Elizabeth M. Bresnahan, Esq. Jeff Goldman, Esq. Robert E. McDonnell, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1 Federal Street Boston, MA 02110-1726 Telephone: (617) 951-8945 E-mail: matthew.bohenek@morganlewis.com elizabeth.bresnahan@morganlewis.com jeff.goldman@morganlewis.com robert.mcdonnell@morganlewis.com - and - Ira A. Burnim, Esq. Jennifer Mathis, Esq. BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW 1101 15th St, NW, Suite 1212 Washington, DC 20005-5002 Telephone: (202) 467-5730 E-mail: irab@bazelon.org jenniferm@bazelon.org - and - Sandra J. Staub, Esq. CENTER FOR PUBLIC REPRESENTATION 22 Green St. Northampton, MA 01060-0000 Telephone: (413) 586-6024 E-mail: ddorfman@cpr-ma.org sstaub@cpr-ma.org Defendants-Appellees SPRINGFIELD, MA and SPRINGFIELD PUBLIC SCHOOLS are represented by: Stephen L. Holstrom, Esq. Mary Jane Kennedy, Esq. Melinda Marsh Phelps, Esq. BULKLEY RICHARDSON & GELINAS LLP 1500 Main Street, Suite 2700 Springfield, MA 01115-5507 Telephone: (413) 781-2820 E-mail: sholstrom@bulkley.com mkennedy@bulkley.com mphelps@bulkley.com Defendants-Appellees SPRINGFIELD, MA, SPRINGFIELD PUBLIC SCHOOLS, DOMENIC J. SARNO, JR., in his official capacity as Mayor of City of Springfield, and DANIEL J. WARWICK, in his official capacity as Superintendent of Springfield Public Schools, are represented by: Edward M. Pikula, Esq. CITY OF SPRINGFIELD 36 Court St., Room 210 Springfield, MA 01103-0000 Telephone: (413) 787-6085 E-mail: attyemp@aol.com Defendant-Appellee SPRINGFIELD, MA, is represented by: Mary Ellen MacDonald, Esq. BULKLEY RICHARDSON & GELINAS LLP 1500 Main Street, Suite 2700 Springfield, MA 01115-5507 Telephone: (617) 368-2500 E-mail: mmacdonald@bulkley.com - and - Lisa Caryl deSousa, Esq. CITY OF SPRINGFIELD 1600 E Columbus Ave. Springfield, MA 01103 Telephone: (413) 886-5205 E-mail: ldsousa@springfieldcityhall.com Defendant DOMENIC J. SARNO, JR., in his official capacity as Mayor of City of Springfield, is represented by: Melinda Marsh Phelps, Esq. BULKLEY RICHARDSON & GELINAS LLP 1500 Main Street, Suite 2700 Springfield, MA 01115-5507 Telephone: (413) 272-6237 E-mail: mphelps@bulkley.com Interested Party S. B. is represented by: Elizabeth M. Bresnahan, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1 Federal Street Boston, MA 02110-1726 Telephone: (617) 951-8638 E-mail: elizabeth.bresnahan@morganlewis.com Interested Party UNITED STATES is represented by: Karen L. Goodwin, Esq. U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 300 State St., Suite 230 Springfield, MA 01105-2926 Telephone: (413) 785-0269 E-mail: karen.goodwin@usdoj.gov - and - Anne Langford, Esq. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 950 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20530-0001 Telephone: (202) 616-2727 E-mail: anne.langford@usdoj.gov - and - Michelle L. Leung, Esq. Cynthia A. Young, Esq. U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 1 Courthouse Way, Suite 9200 Boston, MA 02110-0000 Telephone: (617) 748-3626 E-mail: Michelle.Leung@usdoj.gov STAGE STORES: Crosby Moves for Certification of Class Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned MAYA CROSBY and DENEEN PATTON, on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated v. STAGE STORES INC., Case No. 3:18-cv-00503 (M.D. Tenn.), ask the Court to conditionally certify a Fair Labor Standards Act class consisting of: All persons who at any time from May 30, 2015 through the date of final judgment in this matter have worked as hourly, non-exempt employees whose titles included without limitation Sales Associates, Visual Associates, eCommerce Fulfillment Associates, Custodian Freight Associates, Counter Managers, Cosmetic Sales Mangers, Beauty Advisors, and Assistant Store Managers (collectively "Hourly Workers") in Defendant's United States locations that operate under the brand names Stage, Peebles, Goody's, Bealls, and Palais Royal. The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to authorize the issuance of notice to potential collective members pursuant to the Plaintiffs' proposed notice distribution process, notifying them of this action and of their right to join this action by filing a consent form in accordance with Section 16(b) of the FLSA. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Molly Brooks, Esq. Elizabeth V. Stork, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 245-1000 E-mail: mb@outtengolden.com estork@outtengolden.com - and - Laura Iris Mattes, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP One California Street, 12th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 638-8800 Facsimile: (415) 638-8810 E-mail: imattes@outtengolden.com - and - Charles P. Yezbak, III, Esq. YEZBAK LAW OFFICE PLLC 2002 Richard Jones Rd. Suit B-200 Nashville, TN 37215 Telephone: (615) 250-2000 E-mail: yezbak@yezbaklaw.com STARBUCKS CORP: Court Denies Petition for Rehearing in Wage Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- John Breslin, writing for Northern California Record, reports that the California Supreme Court has denied a petition from Starbucks for a rehearing after issuing an earlier opinion that state wage-and-hour laws do not include the federal "de minimis" doctrine. The court modified slightly the wording of its July 26 opinion, but denied the rehearing petition in a case involving a shift supervisor who claimed he was not paid for regular off-the-clock work. In its short ruling denying the petition, the Supreme Court stated, "We hold that the relevant California statutes and wage order have not incorporated the de minimis doctrine found in the FLSA." The "de minimis" doctrine, in place for many decades and incorporated into the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, essentially states that employers do not have to pay for the small amount of time an employee spends on the premises after clocking out, usually calculated at anywhere between 10 or 15 minutes and less. Douglas Troester, a shift supervisor who worked for the company for 17 months, sued for unpaid wages after clocking out. He had to activate the store alarm, lock the front door and walk workers to their cars, which took him an additional four to 10 minutes a shift, according to the lawsuit. It was calculated he worked an extra 13 hours, with lost wages amounting to just over $100. But the Supreme Court said, while the rule may inform state law, it is not applicable in California to regular work, however small the amount of time it takes, that "the relevant statutes and wage order do not allow employers to require employees to routinely work for minutes off the clock without compensation." The justices did "leave open" the argument against wage claims for irregular and brief activities. There are concerns that the Supreme Court ruling could lead to an uptick in class action claims. Indeed, within hours of the opinion being handed down, the case was cited in a motion that argued for class certification against retailers, H&M. But defense lawyers Michael S. Kan, Esq. and Kevin D. Phillips, Esq. of Epstein, Becker and Green, argued that while there may be an increase in class action lawsuits, the Supreme Court "rejected the application of the rule under the facts presented, it did not address a much larger question." And that question, they argued in a post, is whether "highly individualized" arguments over small amounts of time could justify certification. "And while Troester certainly suggests that employers in California will face an increased number of class actions alleging that certain insignificant amounts of time should have been compensated, plaintiffs' difficulty in actually getting classes certified on such claims appears relatively unchanged," they wrote.[GN] SUBARU: To Settle Lawsuit Over WRX, WRX STI Engines --------------------------------------------------- Patrick Everett Tadeo, writing for Yahoo News, reports that following a class-action lawsuit filed against Subaru of America in 2017 alleging that the 2.5-liter engine of Subaru WRX and WRX STI models made between 2012 to 2017 are prone to failing prematurely, the Japanese carmaker has reportedly agreed to settle with the complainants. In the lawsuit, the complainants alleged that Subaru knew of the defects with the engine's rotating assemblies, specifically its connecting rod bearings, main bearings, and the channels of engine lubrication, yet failed to tell its customers about it. Based on the lawsuit, metal debris within the engine oil hampers the oil's ability to protect the engine's components, resulting in excessive contact between the engine bearings that culminates with the engine failing prematurely. According to CarComplaints.com, the original lawsuit was filed in late 2017. A separate lawsuit with the same issue was also filed in the same court in December 2017. As more complaints about the issue surfaced, the two lawsuits were then consolidated and refiled in March 2018 before Subaru decided to settle the lawsuit. Recently, both Subaru and the complainants have agreed to a settlement which will then be enforced following the approval of the judge. The agreed-to settlement are: -- Subaru will cover the repairs as part of an extended warranty for the affected vehicles for up to eight years or 100,000 miles (160,934 kilometers), whichever comes first. -- Subaru will compensate customers who experienced the alleged issue prior to selling or trading in their cars up to a maximum of USD4,000. -- Subaru will reimburse customers up to 100 percent of expenses incurred for the parts and labor paid to repair the vehicle with the dealer during the extended warranty period. -- Subaru will reimburse customers who had their car serviced in an independent repair shop as long as the car was first presented to a Subaru dealership although a cap will be set on the amount–from USD3,500 to USD6,500–depending on the parts to be replaced -- Subaru will reimburse all towing and rental car expenses incurred as a result of the repair if it (the repair) required more than two full days in a single period. -- The attorneys of both parties have also agreed that certain conditions and modifications done to the car will exclude it from being repaired under the extended warranty, like changes to the engine control units or the use of any "piggyback" devices to alter the signals from the engine control units. So, do you have a 2012-2017 Subaru WRX or WRX STI that fits the bill?[GN] SUNTRUST: Saint-Simon Suit Moved to S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit titled ERLANDE SAINT-SIMON and other similarly situated employees, the Plaintiff, v. SUNTRUST, the Defendant, Case No. 18-024927-CA-01, was removed from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami) on Aug. 23, 2018. The Florida Southern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-23416-RNS to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. The suit alleges Fair Labor Standards Act violation. SunTrust is an American bank holding company. It had US$199 billion in assets as of March 31, 2018.[BN] Attorneys for Erlande Saint-Simon and other similarly situated employees: Jason Saul Remer, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC Court House Tower 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416 5000 Facsimile: (305) 416 5005 E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com Attorneys for SunTrust: Caryn Diamond Shaw, Esq. Andrew X. Froman, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 200 South Orange Avenue, Suite 1100 Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 541 0888 Facsimile: (407) 541 0887 E-mail: cshaw@fisherphillips.com afroman@laborlawyers.com SUPERVALU INC: Wallace Balks at United Natural Foods Merger Deal ---------------------------------------------------------------- BRIAN WALLACE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. SUPERVALU, INC., DONALD R. CHAPPEL, IRWIN S. COHEN, PHILIP L. FRANCIS, MARK GROSS, ERIC G. JOHNSON, MATHEW M. PENDO, FRANCESCA RUIZ DE LUZURIAGA, FRANK A. SAVAGE, and MARY A. WINSTON, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01311-UNA (D. Del., Aug. 24, 2018), alleges that the Defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in connection with a proposed merger between SuperValu and Jedi Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of United Natural Foods, Inc. According to the complaint, on July 25, 2018, the Board caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger, pursuant to which SuperValu's stockholders will receive $32.50 in cash for each share of SuperValu common stock they hold. On August 21, 2018, to convince SuperValu shareholders to vote in favor of the Proposed Merger, the Board authorized the filing of a materially incomplete and misleading Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A with the Securities and Exchange Commission, in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The date of the shareholder meeting was scheduled for September 6, 2018. While Defendants are touting the fairness of the Merger Consideration to the Company's shareholders in the Proxy, they have failed to disclose certain material information that is necessary for shareholders to properly assess the fairness of the Proposed Merger, thereby rendering certain statements in the Proxy false and/or misleading. In particular, the Proxy contains materially incomplete and misleading information concerning (i) the financial projections for the Company; and (ii) potential conflicts of interests with the Company's financial advisors, Barclays Capital Inc. and Lazard Freres & Co. LLC. It is imperative that the material information that has been omitted from the Proxy is disclosed to the Company's shareholders prior to the forthcoming shareholder vote, so that they can properly exercise their corporate suffrage rights. SuperValu, Inc. is an American retailing company. The corporation, headquartered in the Minneapolis suburb of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, has been in business for nearly a century.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Van Gorder, Esq. Nadeem Faruqi, Esq. James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 20 Montchanin Road, Suite 145 Wilmington, DE 19807 Tel.: (302) 482-3182 E-mail: mvangorder@faruqilaw.com nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com jwilson@faruqilaw.com SUSHI HOUSE: Accused by Gomez Suit of Violating Disabilities Act ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sushi House, Co. The case is titled as Andres Gomez, on his own and on behalf of all other individuals similarly situated v. Sushi House, Co., Case No. 1:18-cv-23683-RNS (S.D. Fla., September 7, 2018). The lawsuit arises from alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Sushi House, Co., is a privately held company in Aventura, Florida. The Company operates Sushi Bars.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jessica Lynn Kerr, Esq. JESSICA L. KERR, P.A. DBA THE ADVOCACY GROUP 200 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 504 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 282-1858 Facsimile: (844) 786-3694 E-mail: jkerr@advocacypa.com TBC CORP: Court Certifies Colorado & Florida Classes ---------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled JULIE HAMILTON, et al., the Plaintiffs, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TBC CORPORATION, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01060-DMG-JEM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dolly M. Gee entered an order on August 24, 2018: 1. certifying a Colorado Class with respect to Plaintiffs' claims under Colorado law: "all persons who reside in Colorado who purchased or acquired a Power King Towmax STR trailer tire, from February 9, 2014 to the present." Excluded from the Class are (1) governmental entities; (2) Defendants, any entity in which Defendants have a controlling interest, and Defendants' officers, directors, affiliates, legal representatives, employees, co- conspirators, successors, subsidiaries and assigns; (3) the judicial officers and their immediate family members and associated court staff assigned to this case; and (4) those persons who have suffered personal injuries as a result of the alleged defects of the Power King Towmax STR trailer tire. 2. certifying Florida Class with respect to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act claim: "all persons who reside in Florida who purchased or acquired a Power King Towmax STR trailer tire, from February 9, 2013 to the present." Excluded from the Class are (1) governmental entities; (2) Defendants, any entity in which Defendants have a controlling interest, and Defendants' officers, directors, affiliates, legal representatives, employees, co- conspirators, successors, subsidiaries and assigns; (3) the judicial officers and their immediate family members and associated court staff assigned to this case; and (4) those persons who have suffered personal injuries as a result of the alleged defects of the Power King Towmax STR trailer tire. 3. certifying Sam Flowers as the representative of the Colorado Class and Nestor Diaz as representative of the Florida Class; and 4. certifying law firm of Keller, Fishback & Jackson LLP as class counsel. THALES AVIONICS: Faces Hamadah Wage-and-Hour Suit ------------------------------------------------- EYAD HAMADAH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. THALES AVIONICS, INC. dba THALES INFL YT EXPERIENCE, a Delaware corporation, MORSON INTERNATIONAL INC., a Delaware corporation, DOMINIQUE GIANNONI, an individual, BENJAMIN LEUNG, an individual; and DOES 1-100, the Defendants, Case No. 30-2018-01014075-CU-OE-rnc (Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 23, 2018), alleges that Defendants failed to pay minimum wages, failed to pay overtime compensation, failed to pay for all hours worked, failed to provide meal periods, failed to provide rest breaks, and failed to provide itemized wage statements, under the California Labor Code.` The case arises out of Defendants' ongoing egregious violations of California's wage and hour laws. The Defendants have committed, and continue to commit, these violations purposefully, with the intent to cut costs by depriving their employees of the wages to which they are entitled, as is evidenced by the fact that Defendants have taken deliberate steps to cover up their violations. Thales Avionics, Inc. manufactures navigation systems, radars, and surveillance systems for the aerospace industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Caleb Liang, Esq. Kevin B. Kelly, Esq. LLT ATTORNEYS LLP 300 South Grand Ave., 14th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 612 8900 Facsimile: (213) 612-3773 THIRD ROUND: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Mesch Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Third Round, L.P., et al. The case is styled as Keyla Mesch and Victoria Adams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Third Round, L.P., Second Round, L.P. and Second Round Sub, LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-05085 (E.D.N.Y., September 10, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Third Round, L.P., is a Texas Limited Partnership with a principal place of business in Travis County, Texas. Second Round, L.P., is a Texas Limited Partnership with a principal place of business in Travis County. Second Round Sub, LLC, is a Texas Limited Liability Company with a principal place of business in Travis County. The Defendants are regularly engaged, for profit, in the collection of debts allegedly owed by consumers, and are "debt collectors" as defined by the FDCPA.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 203-7600 Facsimile: (516) 706-5055 E-mail: csanders@barshaysanders.com TIGAMAN INC: $1.3M Sale of Roswell Property to Steven Approved -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Lisa Ritchey Craig of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Georgia authorized Tigaman, Inc.'s sale of the real property known as 1002 Canton Street, Roswell, Georgia to Steven Peters, LLC, for $1,275,000. A hearing on the Motion was held on Sept. 10, 2018. Subject to and contingent upon Live Oak Banks' receipt of the Live Oak Payment, the Real Property will be transferred free and clear of all interests, liens, encumbrances, and/or alleged secured indebtedness of any kind or nature, with all such Real Property Interests to attach to any net proceeds of the $1,275,000 gross sales price in the order of their priority. The sale of the Real Property is subject to the following conditions, which the Debtor is authorized to fulfill: (A) Live Oak Bank will receive at closing, immediately available funds constituting all net proceeds from the sale of the Real Property (after payment of only necessary, normal, customary, and reasonable closing fees and expenses, including pro-rated real property taxes, and realtor's or broker's commissions, if any), and which Live Oak Payment will be provided by Live Oak Bank, and which Live Oak Payment will be received by Live Oak Bank no later than 5:00 p.m. (ET) on the closing date; (B) delivery of a draft HUD-1 settlement statement, not later than one business days in advance of the closing of the sale of the Real Property, evidencing and confirming proposed payment of only necessary, normal, customary, and reasonable closing fees and expenses, payment of all net proceeds to Live Oak Bank, and that no proceeds from the sale of the Real Property are to be paid to the Debtor, any of the Debtor's affiliates or insiders; and (C) delivery of a true and correct copy of the actual, fully executed settlement statement, not later than three business days after the closing of the sale of the Real Property, confirming and evidencing payment of only necessary normal, customary, and reasonable closing fees and expenses, payment of all net proceeds to Live Oak Bank, and that the Debtor, the Debtor's affiliates received no proceeds from the sale of the Real Property. In the event Live Oak Bank objects to the HUD-1 settlement statement, then the counsel for the Debtor may coordinate and schedule an expedited hearing on any remaining issues with notice to Live Oak Bank and the United States Trustee. The Closing Attorney is only authorized to disburse the following funds at closing: (A) the Live Oak Payment, (B) Payment of any real property taxes and (C) if Live Oak Bank does not object, payment of other necessary normal, customary, and reasonable closing fees and expenses, except broker commissions. All other funds, including, but not limited to, broker commissions will be held in escrow by the Closing Attorney until further order of the Court. Pursuant to, and in accordance with, Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 6004(h), and notwithstanding the possible applicability of any Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure or statute that might otherwise provide to the contrary, the terms and provisions of the Order will be immediately effective and enforceable upon its entry, and no stay of execution, enforceability or effectiveness will apply to the Order. The Purchaser: STEVEN PETERS, LLC 10400 Woodstock Road Roswell, Georgia About Tigaman Inc. Tigaman, Inc., owns a cat clinic in Roswell, Georgia. Tigaman, Inc., previously filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (Bank. N.D. Ga. Case No. 13-59458) on May 1, 2013. Tigaman again sought protection under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. N.D. Ga. Case No. 18-63874) on Aug. 17, 2018. In the petition signed by Michael Ray, president, the Debtor disclosed $1,701,329 in assets and $1,541,335 in liabilities. TORONTO HYDRO: Faces Lawsuit Over High Rise Fire ------------------------------------------------ Kamil Karamali, writing for Global News, reports that the gymnasium of the Rosedale Day School in Toronto's St. James Town district has been transformed into somewhat of a department store, with clothes, backpacks and school supplies all laid out on rows of tables. It's also got all the hustle and bustle you'd normally expect during the back-to-school shopping season, except all of the customers have one thing in common -- they're all displaced residents of 650 Parliament. "I'm so grateful what's being done by the city and the Red Cross," said Mohan Abadi. He, his two children and pregnant wife were some of the roughly 1,500 residents left homeless after a six-alarm fire tore through the 650 Parliament Street apartment building on Aug. 21. On August 28, Mayor John Tory had made a public plea for clothing and financial donations -- and Toronto delivered. "I would say by 36 hours, we probably had enough to accommodate the initial commitment which was a set of clothing and shoes for every child -- which is 320 kids, and now we have way in excess of that," said Tory. Every family displaced by the highrise fire was allowed to walk out of the gym with 20 items. But many of the residents are looking for a lot more than that, with a lot of uncertainty revolving around their living situations. Many of them have been staying at hotels, but were kicked out for the Labour Day long weekend since many of the rooms were booked. Abadi says his family had to leave their hotel on August 31 and will only be able to stay at their current accomodations until late September. "My wife is nine months pregnant, high-risk pregnancy," said Abadi. "She will definitely have the baby before the 22nd of September, and we're going to have our baby in a motel. It's very pathetic to think of this sort of thing." Mayor Tory was swarmed by concerned residents on his way to the school, where the donated goods were kept. Many of them asked the city to step in and do more. Hicham Jbara showed the mayor how much his hand was shaking from stress and anger because he and his wife aren't sure what their next move will be. "Myself on August 28, I don't know where I' m going to go. I had a heart attack three months ago," said Jbara. "I don't need another heart attack." John Tory said the city is helping the landlord, who is trying to find apartments for the residents. But they are only able to find them "10 at a time." "If there's a cost involved, we're going to send [the landlord] a bill," said Tory. "If they don't pay the bill, we're going to add it to their property taxes or commence legal action." "I realize there's frustration . . . that we can't act faster," added Tory. "In the city, you know it's tight. So finding apartment and other hotel rooms is a challenge for us, but we're addressing that challenge." Tory adds that of the 1,500 displaced residents, about half of them found places to stay with friends and families. Approximately 700 need temporary homes in hotels or rental units. Out of that number, about 200 are in "an uncertain state." "The goal is to have everybody housed better than a community center," said Tory. "But at the very least, people will be in community center where they are well fed or well looked after." Now, two law firms have combined forces to kick-start the initial stages of a class-action lawsuit, on behalf all the residents, against the building management and Toronto Hydro. "Strength is in numbers in an action like this. It's not economically feasible for one individual to commence a lawsuit because, relatively speaking, each individual does not have an enormous claim to pursue," said Sharon Strosberg, Esq. -- sharon@strosbergco.com -- partner at Strosberg Sasso Sutts LLP. Strosberg, who has also partnered with Charney Lawyers, adds that the plaintiff(s) will be seeking monetary reimbursement, but the extent of that depends on how long they're out of their homes. "As we understand . . . what kind of losses they're incurring, I'll be able to know more as the story unfolds, could be two months could be six months, we don't know right now," said Strosberg. The Notice of Action filed says the plaintiff(s) claims $20 million in "general damages and the cost of administering the plan of distribution of the recovering this action" and $10 million in "special damages, pecuniary damages, aggravated damages and punitive damages." Strosberg says the next step is to file a statement of claim within the next 30 days, where a judge will then determine whether it's appropriate to move forward with the case as a class-action lawsuit.[GN] UNITED STATES: Class Cert. Bid in Lucas Suit Denied w/o Prejudice ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Dolly M. Gee entered a Civil Minutes in the lawsuit entitled Lucas R., et al. v. Alex Azar, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-05741-DMG-PLA (C.D. Cal.): -- denying the Defendants' motion to dismiss as moot; and -- denying without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Alex Michael Azar, II, is United States Secretary of Health and Human Services. On June 29, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed a Class Action Complaint ("CAC") alleging four causes of action: (1) denial of due process arising out of the Office of Refugee Resettlement's ("ORR's") policies and practices concerning custodians' fitness; (2) denial of due process arising out of ORR's policies and practices relating to the restrictive placement of alien minors; (3) a cause of action arising out of ORR's unlawful administration of psychotropic drugs; and (4) a cause of action arising out of ORR's policy and practice of blocking legal assistance in matters relating to custody, medication, and release. On August 2, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking certification of certain classes of alien minors, who are subject to the policies and practices alleged in the CAC. On August 17, 2018, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the CAC. The motion for class certification and the motion to dismiss are set for a hearing on September 21, 2018 at 9:30 a.m. On September 7, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint ("FAC") as a matter of right. Among other things, the FAC: (1) joins two new Plaintiffs to this action (i.e., Sirena P. and Benjamin F.), (2) includes a fifth cause of action for discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and (3) indicates that the Plaintiffs intend to represent two new classes of alien minors whom ORR has allegedly discriminated against on the basis of their disabilities. In light of the Plaintiffs' FAC, the Court denies as moot Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Court further denies without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Given that the Defendants seek the dismissal of this action, it is appropriate to resolve any such motion to dismiss before or at the same time that the Court determines whether to certify the Plaintiffs' proposed classes, Judge Gee opines. "Additionally, because Plaintiffs intend to represent two new proposed classes, the interests of judicial economy and efficiency counsel against ruling on the pending class certification motion," Judge Gee notes. "If Defendants intend to move to dismiss the FAC, then the forthcoming motion to dismiss and motion for class certification shall both be noticed for a hearing at the same date and time." USG CORP: Lowinger Seeks to Halt Sale to Gebr. Knauf ---------------------------------------------------- Robert Lowinger, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. USG Corporation, Jose Armario, Thomas A. Burke, Matthew Carter, Jr., Gretchen R. Haggerty, William H. Hernandez, Brian A. Kenney, Richard P. Lavin, Steven F. Leer and Jennifer F. Scanlon, Case No. 18-cv-05989, (N.D. Ill., August 30, 2018), Defendants, seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating or closing the acquisition of USG Corporation by Gebr. Knauf KG and its indirect wholly-owned subsidiary, World Cup Acquisition Corporation; rescinding it in the event defendants consummate the merger; rescissory damages; costs of this action, including reasonable allowance for plaintiff's attorneys' and experts' fees; and such other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, USG's stockholders will receive $43.50 in cash for each share of USG common stock they own. According to the complaint, the merger documents omitted material information, as well as the valuation analyses performed by Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC. Said disclosure of projected financial information is material because it provides stockholders with a basis to project the future financial performance of a company, and allows stockholders to better understand the financial analyses in support of its fairness opinion, adds the complaint. USG, through its subsidiaries and joint ventures, is a manufacturer of building materials for residential, non-residential construction, as well as gypsum, performance materials and ceilings. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bruce C. Howard, Esq. SIPRUT PC 17 N. State Street, Suite 1600 Chicago, IL 60602 Tel: (312) 236-0000 Fax: (312) 948-9212 Email: bhoward@siprut.com - and - Aaron Brody, Esq. Michael J. Klein, Esq. STULL, STULL & BRODY 6 East 45th Street New York, NY 10017 Tel: (212) 687-7230 Email: abrody@ssbny.com VOLUME SERVICES: Jeffries Appeals FCRA Suit Dismissal ----------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Doris Jeffries filed an appeal from a court ruling in her lawsuit entitled Doris Jeffries v. Volume Services America, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-01788-CKK, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The appellate case is captioned as Doris Jeffries v. Volume Services America, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-7139, in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Sept. 18, 2018, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly granted Defendant Volume's Motion to Dismiss the case. The Plaintiff used a credit card to make a purchase from the Volume, doing business as Centerplate and Centerplate/NBSE, and, in some fashion, 10 Doe Defendants. To memorialize the transaction, the Defendants provided the Plaintiff with one or more electronically printed receipts that contained the following pieces of information from her credit card: the full 16-digit card number, the expiration date, and the brand. The Plaintiff brought a putative class action against the Defendants for allegedly violating the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003. FACTA amended the Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970. The transaction allegedly occurred after the effective date of the amendment. Centerplate seeks dismissal of the action under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Judge Kollar-Kotelly finds that the Plaintiff cannot escape her obligation to establish standing under Article III simply by pointing to the potential availability of relief on the merits. She has found that the Plaintiff has not alleged a sufficiently imminent risk of harm such that she experienced a concrete injury in fact. Rather, the Plaintiff has merely speculated as to a potential future injury. Only if the Plaintiff had experienced a concrete injury in fact, even without any actual damage, could the Court proceed to consider the Plaintiff's entitlement to statutory damages, ruled Judge Kollar-Kotelly. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that Application for Admission is due on October 10, 2018.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant Doris Jeffries, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Chant Yedalian, Esq. CHANT & COMPANY 1010 N. Central Ave. Glendale, CA Telephone: (877-574-7100 E-mail: chant@chant.mobi Defendant-Appellee Volume Services America, Inc., doing business as Centerplate And Centerplate/nbse, is represented by: Mark Bayer, Esq. BARNES & THORNBURG LLP 2100 McKinney Avenue, Suite 1250 Dallas, TX 75201-6908 Telephone: (214) 258-4101 E-mail: mark.bayer@btlaw.com - and - Scott Neal Godes, Esq. BARNES & THORNBURG LLP 1717 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20006-4623 Telephone: (202) 289-1313 E-mail: scott.godes@btlaw.com WESTERN EXPRESS: Hutto Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The lawsuit entitled Hutto, et al. v. Western Express Inc., et al., Case No. CIVDS1820597, was removed on September 7, 2018, from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Bernardino to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Eastern Division - Riverside). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:18-cv-01909 to the proceeding. The lawsuit arises from labor-related issues. The Plaintiffs are Jacquelyn Hutto and John McDaniel, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated. Western Express Inc. is a Tennessee Corporation and does business as Western Express Transport of California Inc. Western Express is an asset based truckload carrier. The Company offers truckload van, dedicated fleet, flatbed transportation, expedited truck & rail, and logistics services throughout the United States.[BN] Defendant Western Express Inc. is represented by: Richard D. Marca, Esq. VARNER AND BRANDT LLP 3750 University Avenue, Sixth Floor Riverside, CA 92501 Telephone: (951) 274-7777 Facsimile: (951) 274-7770 E-mail: Richard.Marca@varnerbrandt.com WILLIAMS & FUDGE: Consumers Sue Student Loan Financial Company -------------------------------------------------------------- Jenie Mallari-Torres, writing for Northern California Record, reports that consumers have filed a class-action lawsuit against a student loan financial company, alleging they received unsolicited calls and text messages that advertised services. The class-action lawsuit was filed against Williams & Fudge Inc. and Does 1-10, student loan financial company, claiming a violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The plaintiffs seek up to $1,500 for each call, according to the lawsuit. Jogert Abrantes filed a complaint individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated on Aug. 29, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, against the defendants alleging that they violated the TCPA through intrusive and unwanted calls. The consumers allege that in September 2017 they "suffered invasion of their privacy and intrusion on their seclusion, caused by defendants' transmission of unsolicited text messages to advertise their service," according to the complaint. The calls and text messages were transmitted with equipment that had the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers, according to the complaint. The plaintiffs hold Williams & Fudge Inc. and Does 1-10 responsible, because the defendants allegedly continued to make calls without prior express consent to place the calls, and unlawfully utilized an automatic telephone dialing system and/or an artificial or pre-recorded voice. The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek judgment against defendants for statutory and treble damages, and all other relief that the Court deems just. They are represented by Todd M. Friedman, Esq. -- tfriedman@toddflaw.com -- Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. -- abacon@toddflaw.com -- Meghan E. George, Esq. -- mgeorge@toddflaw.com -- and Thomas E. Wheeler, Esq. -- rtwheelerlaw@gmail.com -- of Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman in Woodland Hills. U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California Case number 18-cv-01169 [GN] YONKERS RACING: Website not Accessible to Blind, Mendez Says ------------------------------------------------------------ HIMELDA MENDEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. YONKERS RACING CORPORATION d/b/a EMPIRE CITY CASINO, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-07699 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 23, 2018), alleges that Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. According to the complaint, the Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its goods and services offered thereby and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using her computer. Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some blind people who meet this definition have limited vision. Others have no vision. Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1 million people in the United States are visually impaired, including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American Foundation for the Blind’s 2015 report, approximately 400,000 visually impaired persons live in the State of New York. Because Defendant's website, www.empirecitycasino.com, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Yonkers Racing Corporation owns and operates a gaming and entertainment facility.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12 Fl. Brooklyn, N.Y. 11201 Telephone: (929) 575 4175 Facsimile: (929) 575 4195 E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal - and - Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, N.Y. 10003-2461 Telephone: (212) 228 9795 E-mail: nyjg@aol.com danalgottlieb@aol.com ********* 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 ***