/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/181127.MBX C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, November 27, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 237 Headlines 20 EAST: Tucker Files Suit in NY for ADA Violation 60-10 BAKERY: Underpays Catering Staff, Capir Suit Alleges ACCESS WITH SUCCESS: Faces Theodore Suit in D. Massachusetts ACURIAN INC: Vallianos Sues over Autodialed Text Messages AEFFE USA: Olsen Files Suit Over ADA Breach AETNA INC: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in Isett FLSA Class Suit AGA TRUCK: Haikevich Seeks Minimum Wages & OT under FLSA ALARM.COM HOLDINGS: California Case Settlement Awaits Initial OK AMERICAN GENERAL: Bid to Dismiss 1st Amended Buck Suit Denied ASPEN INSURANCE: Supplemental Brief on Representative Claim Ordered ASSET RECOVERY: Povolotsky Sues Over Debt Collection Practices ASSET RECOVERY: Rossi Suit in NY Asserts FDCPA Breach AUPAIRCARE INC: 10th Cir. Flips Arbitration Bid Denial in Beltran AVATAR VENTURES: Fischler Asserts ADA Breach AXON ENTERPRISE: Richey Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed BATH & TENNIS: Violates Disabilities Act, Tucker Says BRANCH BANKING: Court Narrows Claims in Lee TCPA Suit BRISTOL MYERS: Still Faces CheckMate-026 Trial-Related Suit BROOKLINEN INC: Fischler Files ADA Suit in New York CAMPING WORLD: Strougo Sues over Share Price Drop, Gander Deal CELGENE CORP: Judgment on Pleadings Bid in Antitrust Suit Denied CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: J. Gillespie Suit Stayed Until May 2019 CENTURY PARK: Penarouque Seeks to Certify FLSA Class CHAMPION PETFOODS: Loeb Seeks to Certify Class CHANGE GROUP: Tucker Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CHARLES FIERGOLA: Kitchner Suit Moved to W.D. Wisconsin CHICO PRODUCE: Hearing on Class Certification Bid Continued Dec. 13 CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Awaits Court OK on Bid to Dismiss Kelley Suit CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Bid to File 3rd Amended "Ong" Complaint Pending CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Claims in Gordon and Lawson/Conard Suit Narrowed CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Court Narrows Claims in Credit Unions' Suit CNA NATIONAL: Fourth Circuit Appeals Filed in Justice Suit COLORADO: Rabinkov Files Civil Rights Class Suit v. DOC CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Spek Files FDCPA Suit in Penn. CREDIT MANAGEMENT: Court Preliminarily Approves Class Settlement DAYTON ANDREWS: Ditmar Sues Over Illegal SMS Ads DENKA PERFORMANCE: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Taylor Suit DRAFTKINGS INC: Fischler Suit Asserts ADA Violation DYCOM INDUSTRIES: Tung Sues over Misleading Financial Reports ENHANCED RECOVERY: Court Partly Strikes Answer to Keller FDCPA Suit ENHANCED RECOVERY: Sturgis Sues over Debt Collection Practices FIDELITY NATIONAL: Oral Argument in Patterson Suit Set for Dec. 3 FIFTH THIRD: Seldomridge Seeks to Certify FLSA Class FINANCIAL CORP: Court Denies Bid to Stay Encarnacion FDCPA Suit FIRST NATIONAL: Days Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses FIRSTFLEET INC: Carnegie Seeks to Certify 2 COBRA Classes FLIGHT SERVICES: $540K Settlement in Allen Suit Has Final Approval FLOOR AND DECOR OUTLETS: Faces Tucker ADA Class Action in NY FLOWERS FOODS: Coyle Class Action Dismissed FLOWERS FOODS: Still Defends Consolidated Class Suit in Georgia FLOWERS FOODS: Zapata and Rodriguez Suits Dismissed FROST ARNETT: Golubchik Files FDCPA Suit in New Jersey GEM HOTEL: Violates Disabilities Act, Tucker Suit Asserts GOOGLE LLC: Mischaracterizes Free Data Storage, Roley Claims GRAY TELEVISION: John O'Neil Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois GREAT KILLS: NY Court Conditionally Certifies FLSA Suit GREYHOUND LINES: J. Smith Remanded to Calif. State Court HANRO USA: Faces Garey Class Action Under ADA HARDEE'S FOOD: Bid to Remand HepA Exposure Suit to State Ct. Denied HEALTH ACQUISTION: Bazoe Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. HIGHGATE HOTELS: Faces Tucker Class Action for ADA Violation HOMETOWN AMERICA: Craw Suit Moved to Massachusetts District Court INDEPENDENT BANK: Trial in BOH Acquisition Suit Set for Jan. 2020 INDIANA: Ganus Files Prisoner Civil Rights Suit v. DOC Officers INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Martin Suit Removed to Arizona INTEL CORP: Trial in McAfee Shareholder Suit Set to Begin December ISSEY MIYAKE: Diaz Files Class Action for ADA Violation JPMORGAN CHASE: Melissinos Suit Asserts CEA Violation JUUL LABS: Claims in Colgate Suit Over Vape Products Safety Trimmed KIKKERLAND RETAIL: Violates ADA, Garey Suit in Alleges L2T INC: Faces Class Action in New York Asserting ADA Violation LADENBURG THALMANN: Appeal from Nixed Texas Class Suit Pending LAS VEGAS SANDS: Fosbre Consolidated Class Action Concluded LCK DESIGN: Violates ADA, Garey Suit Asserts LIFEPOINT HEALTH: Continues to Defend Wolf Class Suit LILLA P: Garey Brings ADA Class Action LIZETTE ARGUELLO: Garcia Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls LLOYD PEST CONTROL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Miranda Suit Says LSP PRODUCTS: Harris Product Liability Suit Transferred to E.D. Ca. MDL 2326: Boston Scientific Seeks to Dismiss Caldwell Case MDL 2591: Bid for Judgment on Pleadings in MIR 162 Corn Case Denied MDL 2741: Fuller Suit vs Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated MDL 2741: Lamb Suit vs. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated MECTA CORPORATION: Riera Appeals C.D. Calif. Ruling to 9th Cir. MIDLAND CREDIT: Vlastelica Sues over Debt Collection Practices MOMENTA PHARMACEUTICALS: Certification of Two Classes Sought MONSANTO COMPANY: Anderson Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Bindon Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Calkins et al Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Hogan Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Jarrett Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Kruppas Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup NABORS INDUSTRIES: Consolidated Class Action in Texas Ongoing NECESSARY CLOTHING: Sued by Garey Over Disabilities Act Breach NEW YORK ADORNED: Garey Sues Piercing Shop for ADA Breach NEWALTA ENVIRONMENTAL: Bid to Strike Third-Party Complaint in Berry OAK NYC APPAREL: Faces ADA Class Action in New York OKLAHOMA: Court Dismisses Fishinghawk Suit Without Prejudice OLIVE & BETTE'S: Garey Files Class Action Under ADA OPTIMUM HEALTHCARE: $4.9MM Arrington Suit Deal Has Final Approval PBF ENERGY: Removed Kendig Case to Central District of California PERCEPTA LLC: Renewed Bid to Certify Collective Action Denied PETER MANNING: Garey Files Class Suit Asserting ADA Breach PLS CHECK: Fails to Supply Sufficient Uniforms to Staff, Suit Says PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Court Certifies Class in Pozzuolo Suit PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Pariot Suit Asserts FDCPA Violation PORTLAND GENERAL: Appeal in Trojan Class Action Still Pending PRIME COMMUNICATIONS: Appeals Order in Lorenzo Suit to 4th Cir. PROJECT BUILDERS: Medina Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA QUALITY CUSTOM: D. Hession's Suit Remanded to Colo. State Court QUANTA SERVICES: Continues to Defend Benton Class Action RABBEX LLC: Medero Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages under FLSA RED ROBIN: Mina Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages REISS USA: Violates ADA, Garey Suit Alleges RITE CHECK: Violates Disabilities Act, Tucker Suit Says ROCKWATER ENERGY: Tuggle Seeks to Certify Wellsite Personnel Class RUSHMORE SERVICE: Court Denies Arbitration Bid in Torres FDCPA Suit RUTHERFORD COUNTY, TN: K.W. et al Seek to Certify Four Classes SAN GALLAN INC: Hernandez Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA SEMPRA ENERGY: 388 Suits Filed over Aliso Canyon Leak at Nov. 2 SHUTTERFLY INC: Continues to Defend Monroy Class Suit SHUTTERFLY INC: Continues to Defend Taylor Class Suit SHUTTERFLY INC: Continues to Defend Vigeant Class Action Suit SKYLINE BUILDING: Abante Rooter Sues for Invasion of Privacy SOUTH SIDE SERVICES: Ortiz Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages SOUTHERN POWER: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Remaining Claims SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Failed to Pay Wages & Overtime, Garay Says SPEEDYPC SOFTWARE: Certification Orders in Beaton Suit Affirmed ST. FRANK LTD: Garey Files ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y. STATE FARM MUTUAL: Stinson Suit Removed to W.D. Kentucky STATE FARM: PIP Statute Unconstitutional, Lowry Says STERIGENICS U.S.: Removes Suit over Ethylene Oxide to N.D. Ill. STRAT LAND: Class Certification in Whisenant Suit Reversed SUNRISE SENIOR: Heredia Moved to C.D. Calif. TATMAR REST: Marillo Sees Unpaid Wages & Overtime under FLSA THE WILLIAM: Tucker Sues Hotel for ADA Violation TODISCO TOWING: Sued over Alleged Involuntary Towing Services TRANS WORLD: Rovinelli Files Class Suit in Massachusetts TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Violates FDCPA, Khaytin Suit Says TRIUMP GROUP: Leu Seeks Overtime Compensation under FLSA UNITED STATES: Federal Circuit Appeal Filed in Baker Class Suit VENUS BY MARIA: Garey Sues Over Disabilities Act Violation VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Jacobs Bid to Transfer Subpoena Granted VICTORY PREPARATORY: Faces Civil Rights Class Action in Colorado VIRGINIA: Kirschmann Files Civil Rights Suit v. State Under ADA WELTMAN & WEINBERG: Court Certifies Class in Gibbons FDCPA Suit WEST MEMPHIS FENCE: Palma Seeks Overtime Compensation under FLSA WISCONSIN: Permanent Injunction Entered in LHS Strip Search Suit WYNN RESORTS: Appointment of Lead Plaintiff in Ferris Case Pending ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Still Defends Evans Class Action ********* 20 EAST: Tucker Files Suit in NY for ADA Violation -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 20 East 76th Street Co., LLC. The case is styled as Henry Tucker on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 20 East 76th Street Co., LLC doing business as: Surrey Hotel, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10618 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 14, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Surrey is a luxury hotel in Manhattan's Upper East Side, offering business and leisure travelers spacious rooms and suites.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq. Cohen & Mizrahi LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (917) 299-6612 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal 60-10 BAKERY: Underpays Catering Staff, Capir Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- CELSO TECUN CAPIR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 60-10 BAKERY INC. d/b/a TOST CAFE, and SUMNDER SINGH, Defendants, Case No. CV18-5746 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 15, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods. Mr. Capir was employed by the Defendants as catering staff from January 2015 to May 2018. 60-10 Bakery Inc. d/b/a Tost Cafe is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York. The Company is engaged in catering food. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 69-12 Austin Street Forest Hills, NY 11375 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 ACCESS WITH SUCCESS: Faces Theodore Suit in D. Massachusetts ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Uber Technologies, Inc. The case is captioned as Dino N. Theodore, and Access With Success, Inc., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-12147-DPW (D. Mass., Oct. 15, 2018). The class action lawsuit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is assigned to Judge Douglas P. Woodlock. Uber Technologies, Inc. develops, markets, and operates a ridesharing mobile application which allows consumers to submit a trip request, which is routed to crowd-sourced partner drivers. The company was formerly known as UberCab Inc. and changed its name to Uber Technologies, Inc. in October 2010. Uber Technologies, Inc. was founded in 2008 and is based in San Francisco, California, with an engineering center in Bengaluru, India and a regional office in Singapore. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas S. Guerrera, Esq. SHAHEEN GUERRERA & O'LEARY, LLC 820A Turnpike Street North Andover, MA 01845 Telephone: (978) 689-0800 Facsimile: (978) 794-0890 E-mail: nguerrera@sgolawoffice.com ACURIAN INC: Vallianos Sues over Autodialed Text Messages --------------------------------------------------------- CASSANDRA VALLIANOS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ACURIAN, INC., a Delaware corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 0:18-cv-62560-DPG (S.D. Fla., Oct. 25, 2018), seeks to stop Acurian from violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending autodialed text messages to consumers without their consent and to consumers registered on the Do Not Call registry, and to otherwise obtain injunctive and monetary relief for all persons injured by Acurian's conduct. Acurian is a patient recruiter and enrollment company for pharmaceutical companies looking to enroll consumers in medical studies and trials. This is a lucrative and competitive business as pharmaceutical companies are anxious to sign up would-be consumers to test their latest products so they can introduce them into the marketplace. These companies hire Acurian since they specialize in recruiting these consumers. Acurian boasts that it will provide its clients such as pharmaceutical companies with access to patients that these companies would not normally have access to. On its website, Acurian states that it acquires patients through technology and boasts that they have a database of 100 million people. At least part of the technology that Acurian refers to is autodialed text message marketing, which Acurian uses to solicit consumers about upcoming medical studies for its pharmaceutical company clients. According to the complaint, in its efforts to reach as many potential patients as possible and increase its compensation, Acurian fails to acquire the consent that is required in order to send autodialed text messages. In Plaintiff's case, Acurian sent unsolicited, autodialed text messages to her cellular phone without her consent. These text messages are sent by Acurian to solicit a commercial transaction to which Acurian is a beneficiary. In response to these text messages, Plaintiff files this lawsuit seeking injunctive relief, requiring Defendant to cease from sending text messages to consumers' cellular telephone numbers using an automatic telephone dialing system, as well as to consumers registered on the national Do Not Call registry, and to recover an award of statutory damages to the members of the Classes and costs, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff and the putative Classes: Avi R. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 400 NW 26 th Street Miami, FL 33127 Telephone: (305) 469-5881 E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com - and - Stefan Coleman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A. 201 S. Biscayne Blvd, 28 th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (877) 333-9427 Facsimile: (888) 498-8946 E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com AEFFE USA: Olsen Files Suit Over ADA Breach ------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against AEFFE USA, Inc. et a. The case is styled as Thomas J. Olsen individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AEFFE USA, Inc., YNAP Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-10639 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 14, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Aeffe USA Inc was founded in 1987. The company's line of business includes the wholesale distribution of women's, children's, and infants' clothing and accessories. YNAP Corporation designs and sells fashion products under the Karl Lagerfeld brand name worldwide. The company offers ready-to-wear for men and women, accessories, bags, watches, and eyewear; urban menswear and fragrances; and kids wear.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq. Lipsky Lowe LLP 630 Third Avenue Fifth Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 392-4772 Fax: (212) 444-1030 Email: doug@lipskylowe.com AETNA INC: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in Isett FLSA Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Sharon Isett filed an appeal from the District Court's judgment issued on September 30, 2018, in the lawsuit styled Isett v. Aetna, Inc., Case No. 14-cv-1698, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut (New Haven). The Plaintiff alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work more than 40 hours per week. Aetna Inc. is a health and supplemental benefits company, providing health insurance benefits under health maintenance organization, Private Fee-For-Service, and preferred provider organization plans. The appellate case is captioned as Isett v. Aetna, Inc., Case No. 18-3271, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant Sharon Isett, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, is represented by: Rachhana Srey, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4600 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 256-3200 E-mail: srey@nka.com Defendant-Appellee Aetna Life Insurance Company is represented by: Wendy C. Butler, Esq. JONES DAY 250 Vesey Street New York, NY 10281 Telephone: (212) 326-7822 E-mail: wbutler@jonesday.com AGA TRUCK: Haikevich Seeks Minimum Wages & OT under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------- ANDREI L. HAIKEVICH, ALDAR VANDANOV, ANVAR SATYBALDIEV, ROMAN NENKIN, AND SHUKHRAT M. IZBAKIYEV, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. AGA TRUCK PARTS, INC. (D/B/A/ AGA TRUCK PARTS), and ALEX SKORY (A.K.A. ALEX SKORKY), Case 1:18-cv-06008 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 26, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. According to the complaint, the Defendants own, operate, or control a truck parts manufacturing company, located at 210 41 Street, Ste 202 2802, Brooklyn, NY, 11232. The Plaintiffs are former employees of the Defendants. The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation for the hours that they worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. The Defendants' conduct extended beyond Plaintiffs to all other similarly situated employees, the lawsuits says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES , P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 ALARM.COM HOLDINGS: California Case Settlement Awaits Initial OK ---------------------------------------------------------------- Alarm.com Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on October 26, 2018, 2018, that the parties in the putative class action suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, have reached a settlement agreement and awaits court approval. On August 31, 2018, the Company reported in a filing on Form 8-K that it had reached a tentative settlement of a putative class action lawsuit filed against Alarm.com Holdings, Inc. and Alarm.com Incorporated (together, "Alarm.com" or the "Company") in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the "Court") on December 30, 2015, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the ???TCPA???). The tentative settlement was subject to the negotiation and execution of a definitive settlement agreement and Court approval. On October 25, 2018, the Company entered into the definitive settlement agreement (the "Settlement Agreement") relating to this matter and submitted it to the Court for approval. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, among other things, (1) the Company has agreed to pay total cash consideration of $28.0 million into a settlement fund, (2) the Company has agreed to implement certain business practice changes to increase awareness of TCPA compliance, (3) each party to the Settlement Agreement agreed to a mutual release of claims relating to any claim or potential claim relating to the marketing activities described in the complaint, and (4) each party covenanted not to sue the other with regard to the released claims. Further, the Company has agreed to no longer allow the service provider identified in the litigation as purportedly violating the TCPA to continue activating new accounts for Alarm.com products and services after preliminary Court approval of the Settlement Agreement, which the Company does not anticipate will have a material impact on the Company's financial statements. An initial payment by the Company of $5.0 million is required to be made to the settlement administrator within ten business days of preliminary approval by the Court of the Settlement Agreement. The remaining payment by the Company shall take place ten business days after the effective date of the Settlement Agreement, which is five business days following the later of the following events: (1) the date upon which the time expires for filing a notice of appeal of the Court's Final Approval Order and Judgment; or (2) if there is an appeal or appeals of the Final Approval Order and Judgment, and the appellate court enters an order either dismissing the appeal(s) or affirming the Final Approval Order and Judgment without material modification, the date upon which the time expires for seeking review of that order. The release of claims includes all alleged damages incurred related to the lawsuit. Any attorneys' fees awarded by the Court and all costs of notice and claims administration will be paid from the settlement fund. In entering into the Settlement Agreement, the Company is making no admission of liability. Alarm.com Holdings said, "The Settlement Agreement is subject to approval by the Court. If the Court preliminarily approves the settlement, the Settlement Agreement provides for a period of time during which class members will be notified of the settlement and given an opportunity to file a claim form to receive a settlement payment, opt out of the class, object to the settlement or do nothing. The Company expects that the Court will schedule a fairness hearing to occur after the notice period, at which time the parties will request final approval of the settlement and at which any objectors to the settlement will be heard. If the Court gives final approval to the settlement, the release will be effective as to all class members who do not validly out opt of the class, regardless of whether they filed a claim form and received a payment." Alarm.com Holdings, Inc. provides cloud-based software platform solutions for smart residential and commercial properties in the United States and internationally. The company provides interactive security solutions to control and monitor their security systems, as well as connected security devices, including door locks, motion sensors, thermostats, garage doors, and video cameras; and high definition video monitoring solutions, such as live streaming, smart clip capture, secure cloud storage, video alerts, continuous HD recording, and commercial video surveillance solutions. Alarm.com Holdings, Inc. was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in Tysons, Virginia. AMERICAN GENERAL: Bid to Dismiss 1st Amended Buck Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, DUANE BUCK and ANN BUCK, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Civil No. 17-13278 (NLH/KMW) (D. N.J.), Judge Noel L. Hillman of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (i) granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint; and (ii) denied without prejudice the Defendant's Motion to Strike Class Allegations. In 1984, Duane and Buck purchased a universal life insurance policy on the life of Duane Buck with his wife, Ann, as an additional insured. The Policy was issued by The Old Line Life Insurance Co. of America, a company later acquired by the Defendant. Initially, the Policy provided a $70,000 death benefit for Duane Buck, a $25,000 rider for Ann Buck, and three $5,000 riders, one for each of the couple's children. The Policy guaranteed an interest rate of 4.5%, compounded yearly, for all premiums paid in excess of cost. The Policy also granted the Plaintiffs the right to effectuate a partial or total surrender of the Policy at certain points with certain predetermined fees. AGLIC also provided "Annual Reports" which show the policy's current death benefit, current cash value, total amount of premiums paid, total accumulated growth, and total charges assessed. As the name suggests, the Policy promised that these Annual Reports would be sent ??? at least ??? on a yearly basis. At some point thereafter, the Plaintiffs increased Duane Buck's death benefit to $100,000 and Ann Buck's death benefit to $50,000. In 2008, the Plaintiffs requested that AGLIC reduce the death benefit for both Duane and Ann Buck to $25,000 and that it eliminate the $15,000 in riders the couple had maintained for their children. AGLIC complied. In connection with the 2008 decrease in death benefit, AGLIC provided the Bucks with a "Supplemental Illustration" dated Sept. 29, 2008. The Illustration provides policyholders with projections to help them decide how desired changes to their policy may affect the ability of their investment to grow while maintaining preferred tax status. The Plaintiffs allege the Illustrations provided by AGLIC determined the amount of yearly or monthly premiums they paid. The Bucks paid the premium as described in the Illustration. On Jan. 7, 2016, AGLIC sent the Plaintiffs a letter which claimed the Policy had been funded to its limit and was at risk of losing its preferred tax status. The Plaintiffs allege that the reason the Policy was at risk of losing its preferred tax status was because the Defendant used faulty compliance procedures and software which failed to adequately predict the amount of premiums required to keep the Policy tax compliant throughout its life. The Defendant, in this letter, claimed that it was a combination of the decrease in death benefits and premium amount which led to this compliance issue. AGLIC presented the Bucks with three options that would allow the Policy to maintain its tax status: (1) increasing the death benefit (which would have required additional underwriting), (2) surrendering the Policy, or (3) maintaining the Policy, allowing annual refunds, and ceasing premium payments until the cash value of the Policy was exhausted. AGLIC, in the letter, reserved the right to completely surrender the Policy if the Plaintiffs did not choose one of the three listed options. The Plaintiffs chose none of these options. Each option presented the Plaintiffs with either a loss of the Policy, increased premiums, or loss of the benefit of the 4.5% interest rate being applied to their future premium payments (as they would be prohibited from making any further premium payments until a later date). AGLIC continued to send letters over the following year, reiterating the options available and that it reserved the right to unilaterally surrender the policy if no option was chosen. On Jan. 13, 2017, AGLIC sent a letter stating (1) the Policy remained non-compliant, (2) a check would be sent in the amount of $3,260 representing the amount the Policy was overfunded, and (3) the cash value of the Policy would be used to pay premiums until it had been exhausted, at which time Plaintiffs could resume paying premiums. Finally, on Dec. 11, 2017 AGLIC sent a letter stating the Plaintiffs may pay enough into the policy each year as necessary to maintain coverage without building up any excess policy value. The Plaintiffs allege this prohibits them from gaining the benefit of the 4.5% interest rate and building any cash value within the Policy. In effect, the Plaintiffs allege, the Policy has been transformed into a year-to-year term policy. On Dec. 19, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed a complaint in the Court, which included class action allegations. The Plaintiffs present two claims for relief: breach of contract and rescission. The Defendant filed its Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike Class Allegations on March 5, 2018. The Defendant moves to dismiss the breach of contract and rescission claims pleaded in the amended complaint. It generally argues that the breaches complained of are not breaches of any contractual terms. The Defendant argues on two grounds that the Court should strike all nationwide class allegations. The Defendant does not dispute that Plaintiffs have satisfied the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) in their complaint, but instead focus on: (1) whether the Plaintiffs have satisfied the predominance requirement of 23(b)(3) and (2) whether the putative class action presents manageability issues which may make collective adjudication unwise and impracticable. Judge Hillman granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint. He finds that while the Court does not decide at this stage whether the Annual Reports and Illustrations does, in fact, constitute a breach, drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the Plaintiffs, he finds that Plaintiffs may move forward with a theory of breach of contract on the basis of the Illustration. The Judge also finds that the Policy raises the reasonable possibility that a partial surrender could have occurred without a corresponding reduction in death benefit. At this early stage, he must draw this reasonable inference in favor of the Plaintiffs. Therefore, the Plaintiffs may not continue to pursue a breach of contract claim under the "refund" theory, but may do so under the "partial surrender" theory. The Defendant argues it did not breach the Policy, as a matter of law, because it refused to accept premium payments from the Plaintiffs. At this stage, the Judge does not decide this issue, but he cannot dismiss this theory of breach as a matter of law. While the Defendant is correct that the Plaintiffs' case law does not address the special case of the universal life insurance policy, it has not brought forth any case law, assuming the facts in the Plaintiffs' case as true, that require dismissal. The Judge allowed the Plaintiffs to proceed under this theory of breach. Finally, the Defendant's argument for dismissing the Plaintiffs' rescission claim depends exclusively on its argument for dismissing the Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim. In other words, the rescission claim can be dismissed only if no breach of contract claim survives Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Because the Judge did not dismiss the breach of contract claim, he did not dismiss the rescission claim. Turning to the Motion to Strike Class Allegations, the Judge denied without prejudice the Defendant's Motion to Strike Class Allegations. The Defendant has presented arguments that may well prove persuasive. The Judge does not yet decide whether those arguments are meritorious. Thus, while the Defendant's Motion to Strike Class Allegations is denied, it is denied without prejudice. The Defendant is free to raise these same grounds in later filings, whether it be another motion to strike or in response to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs request in their brief in opposition that they be given the opportunity to amend their complaint if either of the Defendant's motions were granted in whole or in part. Although leave to amend should be freely given, it need not be given in cases where amendment would be futile. Here, the Court has only foreclosed the Plaintiffs from pursuing a breach of contract claim under the theory that a unilateral refund by AGLIC may have amounted to breach. Considering this ruling, amendment would be futile, as the clear text of the Policy shows this would not be a breach. Therefore, the judge denied the Plaintiffs' request for leave to amend. An appropriate Order will be entered. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 31, 2018 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/Bq4qsN from Leagle.com. DUANE BUCK, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated & ANN BUCK, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by SCOTT B. GORMAN -- sgorman@gormanlegal.com -- LIBERTY VIEW GORMAN & G0RMAN, ESQS., CRAIG S. HILLIARD -- chilliard@stark-stark.com -- STARK & STARK, PC, STEFANIE LYNN COLELLA-WALSH -- scolella-walsh@stark-stark.com -- STARK & STARK & MARTIN P. SCHRAMA -- mschrama@stark-stark.com -- STARK & STARK, PC. AMERICAN GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, represented by ANDREW P. FISHKIN -- afishkin@fishkinlucks.com -- FISHKIN LUCKS LLP & ZACHARY WINTHROP SILVERMAN -- zsilverman@fishkinlucks.com -- FISHKIN LUCKS LLP. ASPEN INSURANCE: Supplemental Brief on Representative Claim Ordered ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ALBERT D. SEENO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ASPEN INSURANCE UK LIMITED, Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-03765-SI (N.D. Cal.), Judge Susan Illston of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California directed the parties to file supplemental briefs regarding whether the Plaintiffs may pursue a representative section 17200 claim in federal court without also seeking class certification. The parties have submitted a letter brief regarding a discovery dispute. The Plaintiffs seek an order compelling the Defendant to respond to interrogatories and document requests that seek information about other Aspen policyholders whose policies contain self-insured retention endorsements similar to the endorsements contained in the Plaintiffs' policies. They assert that they are entitled to this discovery because they are bringing a "representative" claim under California Business & Professions Code section 17200. The Defendant opposes the discovery on numerous grounds, including its argument that "representative" actions under section 17200 were eliminated by Proposition 64 in 2004. It cites Arias v. Superior Court in which the California Supreme Court construed the statement in section 17203, as amended by Proposition 64, that a private party may pursue a representative action under the unfair competition law only if the party complies with Section 382 of the Code of Civil Procedure to mean that such an action must meet the requirements for a class action. In connection with earlier motion practice in the case, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs indicated that they did not intend to seek class certification, and instead wished only to pursue their representative section 17200 claim. However, Arias and Circle Click suggest that the Plaintiffs may not pursue a representative section 17200 claim without also seeking class certification under Rule 23. Therefore, he directed the parties to file supplemental briefs regarding whether the Plaintiffs may pursue a representative section 17200 claim in federal court without also seeking class certification. If the Plaintiffs are not able to pursue a representative section 17200 claim without also seeking class certification, he directed plaintiffs to state whether they intend to amend the complaint to allege class allegations under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The parties will file the supplemental briefs no later than Nov. 13, 2018. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 2, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/JHLZ4k from Leagle.com. Albert D. Seeno Construction Company, Albert D. Seeno Construction Co., Inc., Discovery Builders, Inc., West Coast Home Builders, Inc., Black Diamond Land Investors, LLC, Seecon Financial and Construction Co., Inc., North Village Development, Inc. & Sanctuary North Village, LLC, Plaintiffs, represented by Robert Lee Sallander, Jr. -- rsallander@gpsllp.com -- Greenan Peffer Sallander & Lally LLP & Robert Glenn Seeds -- rseeds@gpsllp.com -- Greenan, Peffer, Sallander & Lally, LLP Attorneys At Law. Aspen Insurance UK Limited, Defendant, represented by Aaron Jeremy Susman -- aaron.sussman@clydeco.us -- CLYDE & CO US LLP, Maria Louise Cousineau -- mcousineau@cozen.com -- Cozen O'Connor & James P. Koelzer -- james.koelzer@clydeco.us -- CLYDE & CO US LLP. Aspen Insurance UK Limited, Counter-claimant, represented by Aaron Jeremy Susman, CLYDE & CO US LLP, Maria Louise Cousineau, Cozen O'Connor & James P. Koelzer, CLYDE & CO US LLP. Albert D. Seeno Construction Co., Inc., Albert D. Seeno Construction Company, Black Diamond Land Investors, LLC, Discovery Builders, Inc., North Village Development, Inc., Sanctuary North Village, LLC, Seecon Financial and Construction Co., Inc. & West Coast Home Builders, Inc., Counter-defendants, represented by Robert Lee Sallander, Jr., Greenan Peffer Sallander & Lally LLP & Robert Glenn Seeds, Greenan, Peffer, Sallander & Lally, LLP Attorneys At Law. ASSET RECOVERY: Povolotsky Sues Over Debt Collection Practices -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Dmitry Povolotsky on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v. Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06479 (E.D. N.Y., Nov. 14, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC is a full service asset recovery management company. ARS is a partner to many of the largest credit issuers in the country.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Maxim Maximov, Esq. Maxim Maximov, LLP 1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Phone: (718) 395-3459 Fax: (718) 408-9570 Email: m@maximovlaw.com ASSET RECOVERY: Rossi Suit in NY Asserts FDCPA Breach ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Joe Rossi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06454 (E.D. N.Y., Nov. 13, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC is a full service asset recovery management company. ARS is a partner to many of the largest credit issuers in the country.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq. Marcus & Zelman LLC 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Phone: (732) 695-3282 Fax: (732) 298-6256 Email: ari@marcuszelman.com - and - Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. Marcus Zelman LLC 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Phone: (732) 695-3282 Fax: (732) 298-6256 Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com AUPAIRCARE INC: 10th Cir. Flips Arbitration Bid Denial in Beltran ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Johana Paola Beltran; Lusapho Hlatshaneni; Beaudette Deetlefs; Alexandra Ivette Gonzalez; Juliane Harning; Nicole Mapledoram; Laura Mejia Jiminez; Sarah Caroline Azuela RASCON, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. AUPAIRCARE, INC., Defendant-Appellant, and INTEREXCHANGE, INC.; USAUPAIR, INC.; GREATAUPAIR, LLC; EXPERT GROUP INTERNATIONAL INC., d/b/a Expert Au Pair; EURAUPAIR INTERCULTURAL CHILD CARE PROGRAMS; CULTURAL HOMESTAY INTERNATIONAL; CULTURAL CARE, INC., d/b/a Cultural Care Au Pair; AU PAIR INTERNATIONAL, INC.; APF GLOBAL EXCHANGE, NFP, d/b/a Aupair Foundation; AMERICAN INSTITUTE FOR FOREIGN STUDY, d/b/a Au Pair in America; AMERICAN CULTURAL EXCHANGE, LLC, d/b/a GoAuPair; AGENT AU PAIR; A.P.E.X. AMERICAN PROFESSIONAL EXCHANGE, LLC, d/b/a ProAuPair; 20/20 CARE EXCHANGE, INC., d/b/a The International Au Pair Exchange; ASSOCIATES IN CULTURAL EXCHANGE, d/b/a GoAu Pair; GOAUPAIR OPERATIONS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 17-1359 (10th Cir.), Judge Carolyn B. McHugh of the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (i) reversed the district court's ruling denied APC's motion to compel arbitration; and (ii) remanded for proceedings consistent with her decision. Beltran, a former au pair sponsored by InterExchange, Inc., filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on Nov. 13, 2014, against her host family, her sponsor InterExchange, APC, and other organizations approved to sponsor au pairs in the United States. Ms. Beltran amended her complaint on March 13, 2015, to add four former au pairs as Plaintiffs. After receiving authorization, Ms. Beltran filed a second amended complaint that added an additional four Plaintiffs, including Ms. Harning and Ms. Jimenez, in a class action against the sponsoring agencies. Of the named plaintiffs, APC sponsored only Ms. Harning and Ms. Jimenez. The second amended complaint alleged the sponsors had violated antitrust laws, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), federal and state minimum wage laws, and various other state laws. After Ms. Beltran filed her second amended complaint, which added the former APC au pairs, APC filed a motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the lawsuit or alternatively to stay the lawsuit. Ms. Harning and Ms. Jimenez opposed APC's motion. The district court denied APC's motion, finding the arbitration provision unconscionable. It concluded the au pair agreements were contracts of adhesion and procedurally unconscionable because the au pairs were relatively young at the time they signed the contracts, were foreigners, spoke English as a second language, and had no experience with contracts or contract law. The district court also concluded the arbitration provision was substantively unconscionable. Finding the arbitration provision both procedurally and substantively unconscionable, the district court refused to sever any offending clauses because the provision was "permeated" by unconscionability. APC timely appealed from the district court's order. Judge McHugh concludes on de novo review that the Au Pair Agreements are procedurally unconscionable, but to a moderate degree. The agreements are contracts of adhesion, presented to the au pairs on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. Ms. Harning's and Ms. Jimenez's youth, status as foreigners, and inexperience with contracts do not increase the procedural unconscionability to any significant degree, and because the provision was not concealed in the agreement, no element of surprise can be inferred. Where Ms. Harning and Ms. Jimenez reviewed translations of the contract in their native languages, the Judge is also convinced no procedural unconscionability attaches to their limited proficiency in English. Finally, participation in the au pair program is not necessary employment and reasonable alternatives are viable, which weigh against procedural unconscionability. Considering all of the circumstances as a whole, we find the au pair agreement suffers from "moderate" procedural unconscionability. Under de novo review and considering each Au Pair Agreement on the whole, the Judge finds that the agreements have significant substantive unconscionability. The arbitration provider selection clause clearly lacks mutuality -- the clause allows APC to select indirectly a biased arbitrator. But neither the fee shifting clause nor the forum selection clause is unconscionable or contributes to substantive unconscionability. Because the au pair agreements have moderate procedural unconscionability and significant substantive unconscionability due to the arbitration provider selection clause, the au pair agreement is unconscionable and unenforceable as written. The Judge now determines whether the arbitration provider selection clause, the only substantively unconscionable clause, is severable from the agreement. She finds that because the arbitration provision has only one substantively unconscionable clause, the arbitration provider selection clause, the district court abused its discretion by not severing the offending clause. For the foregoing reasons, Judge McHugh reversed the district court's denial of APC's motion to compel arbitration. She remanded to the district court to sever the arbitration provider selection clause and to compel the parties to arbitrate. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 30, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/N4o81f from Leagle.com. Thomas B. Quinn -- tquinn@grsm.com -- (Peggy E. Kozal -- pkozal@grsm.com -- Nathan A. Huey -- nhuey@grsm.com -- and Jennifer Arnett-Roehrich -- jarnett-roehrich@grsm.com -- with him on the briefs), Gordon & Rees LLP, Denver, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellant. David H. Seligman -- info@towardsjustice.org -- Towards Justice, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiffs-Appellees. AVATAR VENTURES: Fischler Asserts ADA Breach -------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Avatar Ventures, L.L.C. The case is styled as Brian Fischler individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Avatar Ventures, L.L.C. doing business as: Fantrax, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06475 (E.D. N.Y., Nov. 14, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Avatar Ventures LLC, a development stage company, focuses on developing aftermarket electronic accessories for consumer motor vehicles in China. The company is developing a cellular phone car adapter that enables cellular text messages and wireless emails to be displayed on a small liquid crystal display screen attached to the car's dashboard area.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq. Lipsky Lowe LLP 630 Third Avenue Fifth Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 392-4772 Fax: (212) 444-1030 Email: doug@lipskylowe.com AXON ENTERPRISE: Richey Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------------- Axon Enterprise, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the class action lawsuit filed by Douglas Richey has been voluntarily dismissed. On June 25, 2018, consumer weapon purchaser Douglas Richey ("Richey") filed a class action lawsuit against the company in the Northern District of California (Case No. 3:18-cv-03751-WHA) purporting to assert claims on behalf of all persons in the United States who purchased or acquired a TASER Pulse, TASER X2 and TASER X26P model CEW in the four-year period preceding the complaint. Richey claimed his Pulse CEW discharged while in its case in his jacket pocket due to a faulty safety switch. He was not injured. Richey voluntarily dismissed the case on August 9, 2018. Axon Enterprise, Inc. develops, manufactures, and sells conducted electrical weapons (CEWs) worldwide. The company operates through two segments, TASER Weapons, and Software and Sensors. Axon Enterprise, Inc. was founded in 1993 and is headquartered in Scottsdale, Arizona. BATH & TENNIS: Violates Disabilities Act, Tucker Says ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bath & Tennis Hotel Corp. The case is styled as Henry Tucker on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bath & Tennis Hotel Corp. doing business as: The Ocean Resort, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10621 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 14, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Bath & Tennis Hotel Corp is a full service resort located on the ocean in Westhampton Beach, NY. It is open for the spring, summer and fall seasons, May through September. It is a hotel/co-op with 101 hotel rooms, a 52 slip, full service marina as well as cabins and cabanas, available for rent seasonally, monthly, weekly and daily.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq. Cohen & Mizrahi LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (917) 299-6612 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal BRANCH BANKING: Court Narrows Claims in Lee TCPA Suit ----------------------------------------------------- In the case, Ralph Lee, and others, Plaintiffs, v. Branch Banking & Trust Company, Defendant, Civil Action No. 18-21876-Civ-Scola (S.D. Fla.), Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted in part and denied in part the BB&T's motion to dismiss. The Plaintiffs assert one claim under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act on behalf of themselves and a nationwide class for damages and injunctive relief arising from allegedly improper telephone marketing calls made by the Defendant. BB&T is a large, national bank, incorporated in North Carolina with 2,100 branches throughout the United States. Around 2015, BB&T contracted with certain call centers to telephonically recruit new and former customers to the bank. The four named Plaintiffs each allege that they registered their phone number with the National Do Not Call Registry, but nonetheless received multiple calls from BB&T to solicit their business without their consent. Specifically, Lee, a citizen of Maryland and former customer of BB&T, alleges he received over 50 calls from the campaign. Plaintiff Jeorge Irizarry is a citizen of Florida who claims that BB&T placed three calls per week to his phone in December 2015. Similarly, Plaintiff Sharon Montmimy, who is a citizen of Massachusetts, was never a customer of BB&T and claims she received over 100 calls from the bank in 2016. And finally, Ben Newman, a citizen of California, alleges that BB&T called his phone over 50-times in the fall of 2015. On those core allegations, the Plaintiffs assert one claim for violations of the TCPA, seeking injunctive relief and damages on behalf of themselves and a nationwide class of others similarly situated. BB&T responds and moves to dismiss the Complaint, arguing the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over BB&T and the Complaint fails to state a claim. Judge Scola granted in part and denied in part the Motion. The claims of Plaintiffs Lee, Montmimy and Newman are dismissed without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction over BB&T. The requests to dismiss Irizarry's claim and the claims of non-Florida resident members of the putative class are denied. BB&T's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) is denied. BB&T will respond to the Amended Complaint within 14 days from the date of the order. He finds that the Amended Complaint alleges that Irizarry is a citizen of Florida, and received phone calls from the Defendant or its agents in December 2015. In its opposition brief, the Plaintiffs assert that Irizarry received the telephone calls in Florida, meaning the injury occurred in Florida. Drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of Irizarry, the Judge finds that he makes a prima facie showing of specific jurisdiction under Florida's Long-Arm statute. The Judge also finds that exercising specific jurisdiction over BB&T for Irizarry's claim comports with due process. First, that claim arises out of BB&T's "contacts with the forum" -- namely, its phone calls to Irizarry in Florida. Second, under the effects test enunciated in Calder, BB&T purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities within Florida. Finally, he finds that exercising specific jurisdiction over BB&T for Irizarry's claim complies with due process. The Judge granted in part the motion to stay discovery pending determination of the Motion or alternatively to enlarge the deadlines to respond to discovery requests. The Judge oredered the parties to respond to all pending discovery requests within 30 days from the date of the Order, or as otherwise agreed upon by the parties. The motion to stay all remaining scheduling order deadlines is denied. The Judge, however, ordered the parties to meet and confer and submit a proposed amended scheduling order with seven days of the date of the Order. The Court will consider a reasonable continuance of the April 1, 2018, trial setting, should either party request one. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 31, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/TKcN0j from Leagle.com. Ralph Lee, Jeorge Irizarry, Ben Newman & Sharon Montmimy, Plaintiffs, represented by Raymond Renato Dieppa, Florida Legal, LLC. Branch Banking & Trust Company, Defendant, represented by David Stockton Hendrix -- david.hendrix@gray-robinson.com -- Gray Robinson, PA. BRISTOL MYERS: Still Faces CheckMate-026 Trial-Related Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Bristol-Myers Squibb Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company continues to defend a putative class action suit related to the CheckMate-026 clinical trial in lung cancer. Since February 2018, two separate putative class action complaints were filed in the U.S. District for the Northern District of California and in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company, the Company's Chief Executive Officer, Giovanni Caforio, the Company's Chief Financial Officer, Charles A. Bancroft and certain former and current executives of the Company. The case in California has been voluntarily dismissed. The remaining complaint alleges violations of securities laws for the Company's disclosures related to the CheckMate-026 clinical trial in lung cancer. The Company intends to defend itself vigorously in this litigation. cancer. The Company intends to defend itself vigorously in this litigation. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company discovers, develops, licenses, manufactures, markets, and distributes biopharmaceutical products worldwide. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company was founded in 1887 and is headquartered in New York, New York. BROOKLINEN INC: Fischler Files ADA Suit in New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brooklinen, Inc. The case is styled as Brian Fischler individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Brooklinen, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06462 (E.D. N.Y., Nov. 13, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Brooklinen Inc. manufactures and sells bedding products. It offers classic and luxury sheets, blankets, comforters, pillows, candles, and fabric care products. The company also offers its products online.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq. Lipsky Lowe LLP 630 Third Avenue New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 392-4772 Fax: (212) 444-1030 Email: chris@lipskylowe.com CAMPING WORLD: Strougo Sues over Share Price Drop, Gander Deal -------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT STROUGO, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CAMPING WORLD HOLDINGS, INC., MARCUS A. LEMONIS, THOMAS F. WOLFE, BRENT L. MOODY, STEPHEN ADAMS, CRESTVIEW PARTNERS II GP, L.P. and CRESTVIEW ADVISORS, L.L.C., Case No. 1:18-cv-07158 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 25, 2018), seeks to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act. The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of all purchasers of Camping World Class A common stock between March 8, 2017 and August 7, 2018, both dates inclusive. Camping World has long been majority owned and controlled by its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Marcus Lemonis, and private equity firm Crestview Partners II GP, L.P. and its affiliates. Historically, the Company specialized in selling recreational vehicles ("RVs") and related services such as travel assist programs, emergency roadside assistance, property and casualty insurance programs, extended vehicle service contracts, and vehicle financing and refinancing. In October 2016, defendants took Camping World public in a $261 million initial public offering. In the months that followed the IPO, defendants emphasized the Company's earnings growth and profit potential as Camping World engaged in a number of strategic acquisitions. Most significantly, in May 2017, Camping World announced that it would be expanding its operations to include retail stores for outdoor sporting supplies and accessories by acquiring certain assets of Gander Mountain Co. from bankruptcy. According to the complaint, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company failed to successfully integrate the assets acquired from Gander due to operational failures; (ii) the acquisition of Gander assets negatively impacted the Company's profit margin, which consequently resulted in the Company's inability to meet previously provided financial guidance; (iii) the Company maintained material weaknesses in its internal controls over financial reporting, which resulted in numerous errors and misstatements in every quarterly reporting period since the IPO; and (iv) as a result, the Company???s public statements were materially false and misleading. Beginning in February 2018, the Company issued a series of disclosures which revealed, inter alia: (i) that it needed to withdraw and restate its prior financial statements for 2016 and the first three quarters of 2017; (ii) that the integration and rollout of the Gander stores had suffered severe operational setbacks; (iii) that, rather than increasing profitability as represented, the Gander stores were negatively impacting margins; and (iv) that the Company had fallen far behind previously provided 2018 earnings figures. Camping World abruptly changed its auditor of 13 years soon after the Company admitted its prior financial statements were materially misstated and its internal controls suffered from material weaknesses. Upon the full disclosure of the above facts, the Company's Class A common stock fell from over $28 per share from the Class Period high of $47.09 on January 24, 2018, to close at $18.88 on August 7, 2018, the last day of the Class Period. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com CELGENE CORP: Judgment on Pleadings Bid in Antitrust Suit Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE THALOMID AND REVLIMID ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Civil Action No. 14-6997 (D.N.J.), Judge Madeline Cox Arleo of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey denied Celgene Corp.'s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Three years ago, the Plaintiffs filed two putative class action complaints against Celgene, purportedly on behalf of nationwide classes of individuals and entities based on alleged violations of the laws of all U.S. states and territories except Ohio and Indiana. In August 2017, the Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint, purporting to represent two "Damages" classes: an "Antitrust/Consumer Protection Damages Class" of persons and entities in 32 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, and an "Unjust Enrichment Damages Class" of persons and entities in every state and territory in the United States except for Ohio and Indiana. In their pleadings, the five entity Plaintiffs allege that they reimbursed some or all of the purchase price for Revlimid and Thalomid in 13 states and that Plaintiff Mitchell brings claims under District of Columbia law. On Oct. 2, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification and appointment of the class counsel, seeking certification of an "Antitrust/Consumer Protection Damages Class" and an "Unjust Enrichment Damages Class" under the 14 Class Jurisdictions -- the 13 states along with the District of Columbia -- and an "Injunction Class" under Rule 23(b)(2). The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification makes no arguments regarding the laws of the non-class jurisdictions, nor do the Plaintiffs assert that they have standing to bring such claims. Fact discovery in the case, which has been pending since 2014, is now closed, and there are no pending motions to intervene. The Defendant thus seek judgment on the pleading pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c)1 because none of the named Plaintiffs alleges injury under the antitrust, consumer protection, or unjust enrichment laws of the Non-Class jurisdictions and, thus, Plaintiffs have not carried their burden of establishing the elements of standing in the Non-Class jurisdictions. The Plaintiffs argue that the instant motion would curtail the rights of potential additional Plaintiffs from seeking to become class representatives in the action and, if motions to intervene are filed during the pendency of their motion for class certification that would justify certification of the class claims under additional states' laws, it would be more efficient to add those claims to the pending certification motions than it would be to start a new and duplicative lawsuit. They further argue that the "cut-off" point to alter a class action certification order is at final judgment and that granting Celgene's motion prior to the decision on class certification would unduly prejudice their ability to alter or amend their class definition, as may be appropriate as the case progresses. Judge Arleo finds that given the denial of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification without prejudice, shet will not at this time grant Celgene's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. To the extent the Plaintiffs seek to amend their claims or any additional Plaintiffs from jurisdictions outside the 13 represented states that District of Columbia, the Defendant is free to challenge the timeliness of such motions. For these reasons, Judge Arleo denied Celgene's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 31, 2018 Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/Ilark7 from Leagle.com. INTERNATIONAL UNION OF BRICKLAYERS AND ALLIED CRAFT WORKERS LOCAL 1 HEALTH FUND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by DANIEL B. REHNS -- drehns@hrsclaw.com -- Hach Rose Schirripa & Cheverie, LLP, FRANK ROCCO SCHIRRIPA -- fschirripa@hrsclaw.com -- Hach Rose Schirripa & Cheverie LLP, JEFFREY B. GITTLEMAN -- jgittleman@barrack.com -- BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE, JOHN ANTHONY BLYTH -- jblyth@hrsclaw.com -- HACH ROSE SCHIRRIPA & CHEVERIE, WHITNEY ERIN STREET -- wstreet@blockesq.com -- BLOCK & LEVITON LLP & KATIE ROSE BERAN -- kberan@hausfeld.com -- HAUSFELD LLP. International Union of Operating Engineers Stationary Engineers Local 39 Health and Welfare Trust Fund, THE DETECTIVES' ENDOWMENT ASSOCIATION, INC. & David Mitchell, Plaintiffs, represented by KATIE ROSE BERAN, HAUSFELD LLP & FRANK ROCCO SCHIRRIPA, Hach Rose Schirripa & Cheverie LLP. CITY OF PROVIDENCE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff Consolidated, represented by JAMES STUART NOTIS, GARDY & NOTIS, JEFFREY B. GITTLEMAN, BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE, JENNIFER SARNELLI, GARDY & NOTIS, LLP & FRANK ROCCO SCHIRRIPA, Hach Rose Schirripa & Cheverie LLP. NEW ENGLAND CARPENTERS HEALTH BENEFITS FUND, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff Consolidated, represented by FRANK ROCCO SCHIRRIPA, Hach Rose Schirripa & Cheverie LLP. CELGENE CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by GAVIN J. ROONEY -- grooney@lowenstein.com -- LOWENSTEIN SANDLER, PC, FRANK CHARLES CALVOSA -- frankcalvosa@quinnemanuel.com -- QUINN EMANUEL UQUHART & SULLIVAL LLP & JOSEPH ALDO FISCHETTI -- jfischetti@lowenstein.com -- LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP. CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: J. Gillespie Suit Stayed Until May 2019 ----------------------------------------------------------- Judge Troy L. Nunley of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division, stayed the case, JESSICA GILLESPIE, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. VERIZON, an unknown corporate entity; CELLCO PARTNERSHIP, an unknown corporate entity; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-02429-TLN-DB (E.D. Cal.), until May 30, 2019. The Plaintiff and Cellco stipulate that the action should be stayed because an earlier-filed, substantially similar action is pending in California state court. The parties have agreed to participate in the mediation of that pending state court action to attempt to resolve both disputes. They jointly request that the Court issues an order staying these proceedings and vacating all deadlines, as stipulated, while they pursue mediation. The class action Complaint in the case was filed on Sept. 4, 2018. It alleged a single cause of action for violation of California Labor Code Section 226 based on allegations that Cellco failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements to certain of its non-exempt employees. The Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on Oct. 24, 2018, adding a claim for penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act. On June 2, 2017, a separate state-wide class action was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, titled Farid Harchegani and Mohamed Elhosainy, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Cellco Partnership, Inc. dba Verizon Wireless, a Delaware Partnership; AirTouch Cellular, Inc. dba Verizon Wireless, a California Corporation; and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Case No. 37-2017-000199977-CU-OE-CTL. The Harchegani Action alleges that Cellco and Airtouch Cellular, Inc., doing business as Verizon Wireless, failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements and that the Harchegani Action putative class members are owed overtime and other wages, as well as wage statement penalties, under the California Labor Code. The named plaintiffs in the Harchegani Action purport to bring claims on behalf of all current and former retail sales representatives who worked for the Defendants in California during the Class Period and received non-discretionary bonuses. On Feb. 16, 2018, the plaintiffs in the Harchegani Action filed a Second Amended Complaint eliminating their claims for unpaid wages and adding a claim under the PAGA. The Harchegani Action's operative complaint therefore only alleges claims for inaccurate wage statements and PAGA penalties, like the FAC in the intant case. The Harchegani Action has been coordinated with 10 other actions that are part of the AirTouch Cellular Wage and Hour Cases Coordination Proceeding, Judicial Council Coordinated Proceeding No. 4693. Out of the 11 actions in the Coordinated Proceeding, six remain pending, including the Harchegani Action. The other five have been dismissed or settled on an individual basis. In all 11 of the coordinated actions, the plaintiffs brought claims on behalf of California Verizon Wireless non-exempt employees, as well as Verizon Wireless employees alleged to be non-exempt. The proposed class definition in the FAC overlaps with the proposed class in the Harchegani Action. The FAC seeks to certify a class of all current and former California employees of the Defendants who received any wage statements from the Defendants at any time from Sept. 4, 2017, through the present. The FAC also seeks to certify two sub-classes including all current and former non-exempt California employees of the Defendants who were paid any 'FLSA True Up' wages from the Defendants, and all current and former non-exempt California employees of the Defendants who were paid any 'Sunday Worked Premium' wages from Defendant at any time from Sept. 4, 2017 through the present. The Parties agree that, given the overlapping class definitions and claims in the intant action and the Harchegani Action, they will involve substantially similar or overlapping issues, evidence, and witnesses. They discussed alternative dispute resolution of the intant action and agreed to coordinate their efforts to include the Plaintiff and her counsel in the mediation that has already been agreed to by the parties in the Harchegani Action, so that settlement of the claims in this action can be discussed in conjunction with a potential settlement of the Harchegani Action. The Parties have agreed to set a mediation, and anticipate that the mediation will take place no later than April 31, 2019. They agreed that good cause exists to stay all proceedings in the action to avoid potentially unnecessary litigation efforts and expenses, given the similarity between this action and the Harchegani Action, and the agreement to mediate both actions. Accordingly, the Parties stipulated and requested that the Court stay the action until May 30, 2019, to give the Parties time to participate in a mediation. They stipulated that the stay of the action will lift on May 30, 2019, unless that date is extended by the Court. They further agreed that the agreement to stay the action until May 30, 2019, is without prejudice to Cellco's right to seek a further stay of this action on other grounds, including on the grounds that a stay is appropriate because of the overlap between the action and the Harchegani Action. Pursuant to the Parties' Stipulation, Judge Nunley so ordered. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 2, 2018 Stipulated Order is available at https://is.gd/SB72H1 from Leagle.com. Jessica Gillespie, Plaintiff, represented by Dennis Hyun , Hyun Legal, APC, Larry W. Lee -- lwlee@diversitylaw.com -- Diversity Law Group, William Lucas Marder -- bill@polarislawgroup.com -- Polaris Law Group, LLP & Kwanporn Tulyathan -- ktulyathan@diversitylaw.com -- Diversity Law Group. Cellco Partnership, Defendant, represented by Allison Elizabeth Crow -- acrow@jonesday.com -- Jones Day & Steven M. Zadravecz -- szadravecz@jonesday.com -- Jones Day. CENTURY PARK: Penarouque Seeks to Certify FLSA Class ---------------------------------------------------- Barbara Penarouque, On behalf of herself and others similarly situated Plaintiffs, vs. Century Park Associates, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-CV-00122 (E.D.), the Plaintiff moves the Court for an order to: 1. conditionally certifying case as a collective action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), on behalf of: "all non-exempt Business Office Managers (BOMs) working for Defendant within three years prior to the filing of this case who were not paid overtime wages as required by the FLSA"; 2. directing Defendant to immediately provide a list of names, last known address and last known phone numbers for all putative class members; 3. directing notice be sent to all putative class members; 4. directing that notice be prominently posted at Defendant's facilities where putative class members work, attached to the employees' next scheduled paycheck and mailed to the employees so that they can assert their claims on a timely basis as part of this case; and 5. directing that opt-in plaintiffs' consents be deemed filed on the date they are postmarked.[CC] Counsel for Plaintiffs: Derrick A. Reed, Esq. Marrick Armstrong, Esq. SMITH REED & ARMSTRONG, PLLC 1920 Country Place Pkwy, Suite 350 Pearland, TX 77584 Telephone: (281) 519-7606 Facsimile: (281) 506-8693 E-mail: derrick@srapllc.com marrick@srapllc.com - and - James M. Johnson, Esq. JAMES M. JOHNSON, ATTORNEY AT LAW 620 Lindsay Street, Suite 210 Chattanooga, TN 37403 E-mail: jj@jamesmjohnsonatty.com Telephone: (423) 648-4093 Facsimile: (423) 648-4094 CHAMPION PETFOODS: Loeb Seeks to Certify Class ---------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELLIE LOEB, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CHAMPION PETFOODS USA, INC., and CHAMPION PETFOODS, LP, the Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-494 (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying a class of: "all persons and entities who purchased a Champion dry dog food product for end use and not for resale within the State of Wisconsin during the period from March 28, 2015 up to and including March 28, 2018"; 2. appointing Plaintiff as Class Representative; 3. appointing Ben Barnow, Barnow and Associates, P.C., as Class Counsel; and 4. entering any other such relief that the Court deems just and appropriate.[CC] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Ben Barnow, Esq. Erich P. Schork, Esq. BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. One North LaSalle Street, Suite 4600 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 621-2000 Facsimile: (312) 641-5504 E-mail: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com e.schork@barnowlaw.com - and - Robert A. Clifford, Esq. Shannon M. McNulty, Esq. CLIFFORD LAW OFFICES 120 N. LaSalle St., Suite 3100 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 899-9090 Facsimile: (312) 251-1160 E-mail: rac@cliffordlaw.com smm@cliffordlaw.com - and - Shpetim Ademi, Esq. John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 E. Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 5311 Telephone: 414 482-8000 Facsimile: 414 482-8001 sademi@ademilaw.com jblythin@ademilaw.com E-mail: meldridge@ademilaw.com CHANGE GROUP: Tucker Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Change Group New York, Inc. The case is styled as Henry Tucker on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Change Group New York, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10611 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 14, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Change Group New York Inc was founded in 1997. The company's line of business includes performing functions related to depository banking.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq. Cohen & Mizrahi LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (917) 299-6612 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal CHARLES FIERGOLA: Kitchner Suit Moved to W.D. Wisconsin ------------------------------------------------------- Megan G. Kitchner on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Charles Fiergola, Joseph R Johnson, Lucas P. Bennewitz, Tyler M. Helsel, and Jan or John Does, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00133, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin (Madison) on Oct. 12, 2018. The Western District of Wisconsin Court Clerk assigned Case No.: 3:18-cv-00841 to the proceeding. Plaintiff filed her complaint on January 25, 2018. She alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1681 et seq., and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692 et seq., against four named Wisconsin lawyers and a set of John Doe lawyers.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Thomas J Lyons, Sr., Esq. LYONS LAW FIRM PA 367 Commerce Ct. Vadnais Heights, MN 55127-8506 Telephone: (651) 770-9707 Facsimile: (651) 770-5830 E-mail: tlyons@lyonslawfirm.com - and - Joshua D. Christianson, Esq. Christianson & Freund, LLC 920 South Farwell St PO Box 222 Eau Claire, WI 54702-0222 Telephone: (715) 832-1800 Facsimile: (888) 979-8101 E-mail: lawfirm@cf.legal - and - Thomas John Lyons, Jr., Esq. CONSUMER JUSTICE CENTER, P.A. 367 Commerce Court Vadnais Heights, MN 55127 Telephone: (651) 770-9707 E-mail: tommy@consumerjusticecenter.com Attorneys for Defendants: Kevin M. Fetherston, Esq. VON BRIESEN & ROPER SC 411 E Wisconsin Ave-Ste 1000 Milwaukee, WI 53202-4427 Telephone: (414) 221-6601 E-mail: kfetherston@vonbriesen.com - and - Terry E. Johnson, Esq. PETERSON, JOHNSON & MURRAY, S.C. 733 North Van Buren Street, 5th Floor Milwaukee, WI 53202 Telephone: (414) 287-6605 E-mail: tjohnson@vonbriesen.com CHICO PRODUCE: Hearing on Class Certification Bid Continued Dec. 13 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit caption JAMES CUNHA, the Plaintiff, vs. CHICO PRODUCE, INC., the Defendant, Case 3:17-cv-00597-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon S. Tigar entered an order on Oct. 29, 2018: 1. terminating as moot Plaintiffs' original motion for class certification; and 2. continuing hearing on amended motion, to December 13, 2018 at 2:00 p.m., where parties' existing briefing schedule for the motion remains in effect. The Court said, "On September 5, 2018, the Court denied Defendant's motion for sanctions and to disqualify Plaintiff's counsel. The Court set a hearing on Plaintiff's previously filed motion for class certification, for November 15, 2018. The motion was already fully briefed. On October 16, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an amended motion for class certification. The Plaintiff noticed the amended motion for a hearing on November 15, 2018, in violation of Civil Local Rule 7-2(a). The Court's prior order did not grant Plaintiff leave to file an amended motion or modify the requirements of Local Rule 7-2(a)".[CC] CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Awaits Court OK on Bid to Dismiss Kelley Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 26, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company still awaits the court's ruling on its motion to dismiss the class action suit filed by Elizabeth Kelley. On July 20, 2017, Elizabeth Kelley filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of shares of the company's common stock between February 5, 2016 and July 19, 2017, with claims and factual allegations similar to the Susie Ong complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, based primarily on media reports regarding illnesses associated with a Chipotle restaurant in Sterling, Virginia. The company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on February 12, 2018, and a ruling on the motion remains pending. Chipotle Mexican said, "We intend to continue to vigorously defend the Kelley case, but it is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate the outcome of or any potential liability from the suit." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates Chipotle Mexican Grill restaurants. The company was founded in 1993 and is headquartered in Newport Beach, California. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Bid to File 3rd Amended "Ong" Complaint Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 26, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the plaintiffs' motion for relief from the judgment and seeking leave to file a third amended complaint, still remains pending. On January 8, 2016, Susie Ong filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of shares of the company's common stock between February 4, 2015 and January 5, 2016. The complaint purports to state claims against the company, each of the co-chief executive officers serving during the claimed class period and the chief financial officer under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and related rules, based on the company's alleged failure during the claimed class period to disclose material information about the company's quality controls and safeguards in relation to consumer and employee health. The complaint asserts that those failures and related public statements were false and misleading and that, as a result, the market price of the company's stock was artificially inflated during the claimed class period. The complaint seeks damages on behalf of the purported class in an unspecified amount, interest, and an award of reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs. On March 8, 2017, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss the complaint, with leave to amend. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April 7, 2017. On March 22, 2018, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss, with prejudice. On April 20, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a motion for relief from the judgment and seeking leave to file a third amended complaint, and a ruling on the motion remains pending. Chipotle Mexican said, "We intend to continue to vigorously defend the Ong case, but it is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate the outcome of or any potential liability from the case." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates Chipotle Mexican Grill restaurants. The company was founded in 1993 and is headquartered in Newport Beach, California. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Claims in Gordon and Lawson/Conard Suit Narrowed ------------------------------------------------------------------ Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 26, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the court in Gordon and Lawson/Conard consolidated suit issued an order granting in part, and denying in part, the company's motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint, including a dismissal of the negligence and unjust enrichment claims in their entirety. On June 9, 2017, Todd Gordon filed a purported class action complaint in the U. S. District Court for the District of Colorado alleging that the company negligently failed to provide adequate security to protect the payment card information of the plaintiff and other similarly situated customers alleged to be part of the putative class, causing some customers to suffer alleged injuries and others to be at risk of possible future injuries. The complaint also claims that the company was negligent per se based on alleged violations of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act and similar state laws, and also alleges breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act. Additionally, on August 21, 2017, Greg Lawson and Judy Conard filed a purported class action complaint in the U. S. District Court for the District of Colorado making allegations substantially similar to those in the Gordon complaint, and stating substantially similar claims as well as claims under the Colorado Consumer Protection Act. The Gordon and Lawson/Conard cases have been consolidated and will proceed as a single action. On September 26, 2018, the court issued an order granting in part, and denying in part, the company's motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint, including a dismissal of the negligence and unjust enrichment claims in their entirety. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates Chipotle Mexican Grill restaurants. The company was founded in 1993 and is headquartered in Newport Beach, California. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Court Narrows Claims in Credit Unions' Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 26, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the court has issued an order granting in part and denying in part the company's motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint by the Bellwether Community Credit Union and Alcoa Community Credit Union, dismissing all claims other than those brought under state unfair competition laws in California and New Hampshire and plaintiffs' request for declaratory relief. On May 4, 2017, Bellwether Community Credit Union filed a purported class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado alleging that the company negligently failed to provide adequate security to protect the payment card information of customers of the plaintiffs and those of other similarly situated credit unions, banks and other financial institutions alleged to be part of the putative class, causing those institutions to suffer financial losses. The complaint also claims that the company was negligent per se based on alleged violations of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act and similar state laws. The plaintiff seeks monetary damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. On May 26, 2017, Alcoa Community Credit Union filed a purported class action complaint in the U. S. District Court for the District of Colorado making substantially the same allegations as the Bellwether complaint and seeking substantially the same relief. The Bellwether and Alcoa cases have been consolidated and will proceed as a single action. On October 24, 2018, the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the company's motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint, dismissing all claims other than those brought under state unfair competition laws in California and New Hampshire and plaintiffs' request for declaratory relief. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates Chipotle Mexican Grill restaurants. The company was founded in 1993 and is headquartered in Newport Beach, California. CNA NATIONAL: Fourth Circuit Appeals Filed in Justice Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Lori D. Justice filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Lori Justice v. CNA National Warranty Corp., Case No. 2:17-cv-01997, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia at Charleston. The lawsuit arises from insurance-related issues. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 17, 2018, the District Court awarded $32,775 in attorney's fees in the case. The appellate case is captioned as Lori Justice v. CNA National Warranty Corp., Case No. 18-2299, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Opening Brief and Appendix are due on December 10, 2018; and -- Response Brief is due on January 9, 2019.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant LORI D. JUSTICE, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, is represented by: Raymond S. Franks, II, Esq. Jonathan R. Marshall, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP 209 Capitol Street Charleston, WV 25301-0000 Telephone: (304) 345-6555 E-mail: rfranks@baileyglasser.com jmarshall@baileyglasser.com - and - J. Christopher White, Esq. Steven S. Wolfe, Esq. WOLFE WHITE & ASSOCIATES P. O. Box 536 Logan, WV 25601 Telephone: (304) 752-7715 E-mail: Jcwhite@Wolfelawwv.com swolfe@wolfelawwv.com Defendant-Appellee CNA NATIONAL WARRANTY CORPORATION, an Arizona foreign corporation, is represented by: Brent Austin, Esq. Jacob M. Hamann, Esq. EIMER STAHL LLP 224 South Michigan Avenue Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 660-7684 E-mail: baustin@eimerstahl.com jhamann@eimerstahl.com - and - Karen E. Klein, Esq. MOORE & BISER, PLLC 317 5th Avenue South Charleston, WV 25303 Telephone: (304) 343-8928 E-mail: kklein@moorebiserlaw.com - and - William Michael Moore, Esq. MOORE & BISER, PLLC 405 Capitol Street Charleston, WV 25301-0000 Telephone: (304) 414-2300 E-mail: mmoore@moorebiser.com COLORADO: Rabinkov Files Civil Rights Class Suit v. DOC ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Colorado Department of Corrections. The case is styled as Leonid Rabinkov, Cathy Begano, Andrew Atkins, Marc Trevithick on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Colorado Department of Corrections, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02926-GPG (D. Colo., Nov. 14, 2018). The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights. The Colorado Department of Corrections is the principal department of the Colorado state government that operates the state prisons. It has its headquarters in the Springs Office Park in unincorporated El Paso County, Colorado, near Colorado Springs. The Colorado Department of Corrections runs 20 state-run prisons and also has been affiliated with 7 for-profit prisons in Colorado, of which the state currently contracts with 3 for-profit prisons.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Amy Farr Robertson, Esq. Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center-Denver 104 Broadway, Suite 400 Denver, CO 80203 Phone: (303) 757-7901 Fax: (303) 595-9705 Email: arobertson@creeclaw.org CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Spek Files FDCPA Suit in Penn. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. The case is styled as Heather Spek individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v. Convergent Outsourcing, Inc, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-04931-JD (E.D. Penn., Nov. 14, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. offers business process outsourcing, revenue cycle, and receivables management services. It also provides receivables collection services to credit grantors in retail, telecommunications, and utilities industries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas J. Linker, Esq. ZEMEL LAW LLC 1373 Broad St., Suite 203-C Clifton, NJ 07013 Phone: (862) 227-3106 Email: nl@zemellawllc.com CREDIT MANAGEMENT: Court Preliminarily Approves Class Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELLY M. BASSETT, individually and as heir and Personal Representative of the estate of James M. Bassett, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CREDIT MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. and JASON MORLEDGE, the Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-00069-JFB-MDN (D. Neb.), the parties move the Court for an order: 1. preliminarily approving settlement of this class action and conditions on the settlement as fair and reasonable and satisfactory to the Court; 2. approving form and method for providing class-wide notice, and scheduling a hearing at which the following will be considered: -- request for final approval of the proposed settlement; -- request for attorneys' fees and costs and incentive award to Plaintiff; -- unopposed motion to vacate Order granting in part and denying in part summary judgment, consideration of any objections filed, and entry of Final Order.[CC] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Pamela A. Car, Esq. William L. Reinbrecht, Esq. CAR & REINBRECHT, P.C., LLO 2120 S 72nd St., No. 1125 Omaha, NE 68124 Telephone: (402) 391-8484 Facsimile: (402) 391-1103 E-mail: pacar@cox.net billr205@gmail.com - and - O. Randolph Bragg, Esq. HORWITZ, HORWITZ & ASSOCIATES 25 East Washington Street, Suite 900 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 372-8822 Facsimile (312) 372-1673 E-mail: rand@horwitzlaw.com Attorneys for Defendants: Christopher R. Morris, Esq. Jessica L. Klander, Esq. BASSFORD REMELE 100 South 5th Street, Suite 1500 Minneapolis, MN 55402-1254 Telephone: (612) 333-3000 Facsimile: (612) 333-8829 E-mail: cmorris@bassford.com jklander@bassford.com DAYTON ANDREWS: Ditmar Sues Over Illegal SMS Ads ------------------------------------------------ Grant Ditmar, individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Dayton Andrews, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-02560, (M.D. Fla., October 17, 2018), seeks statutory damages and injunctive relief for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Defendant is a car dealership specializing in the sales and servicing of Dodge, RAM, Jeep and Chrysler automobiles. Ditmar claims to have received multiple monthly text messages to his cellular phone from Dayton Andrews consisting of various promotions and services via marketing/promotional text messages by use of an automatic telephone dialing system. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC 110 SE 6th Street Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 907-1136 Facsimile: (855) 529-9540 Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com DENKA PERFORMANCE: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Taylor Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ROBERT TAYLOR, JR., ET AL, v. DENKA PERFORMANCE ELASTOMER LLC, ET AL, Section "F", Civil Action No. 17-7668 (E.D. La.), Judge Martin L.C. Feldman of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Third Amended and Restated Complaint under Rule 12(b)(6). The environmental tort litigation arises from the production of neoprene at the Pontchartrain Works Facility ("PWF") in St. John the Baptist Parish. Neoprene production allegedly exposes those living in the vicinity of the PWF to concentrated levels of chloroprene well above the upper limit of acceptable risk, and may result in a risk of cancer more than 800 times the national average. Thirteen people living St. John the Baptist Parish filed the lawsuit originally seeking injunctive relief in the form of abatement of chloroprene releases from their industrial neighbor, the PWF. The PWF is the only facility in the United States still manufacturing neoprene, which is made from chloroprene, and which the Environmental Protection Agency has classified as a "likely human carcinogen." E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co. invented neoprene in 1931. In 1969, DuPont built a neoprene manufacturing unit at its Pontchartrain Works facility in LaPlace, Louisiana. During the manufacturing process, chloroprene is emitted into the air and discharged into the water. By 2008, the PWF was the only facility manufacturing neoprene in the United States. Effective Nov. 1, 2015, DuPont sold the PWF to Denka Performance Elastomer LLC, but DuPont retained ownership of the land underlying the facility. It is alleged that Denka had knowledge of harmful concentrations of chloroprene emitted from the PWF, but concealed its knowledge and associated data from the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA"), the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality ("LDEQ"), and local St. John the Baptist Parish officials. In December 2015, the EPA again classified chloroprene as a likely human carcinogen when it released a screening-level National Air Toxics Assessment ("NATA"), which analyzes exposure levels to toxins, estimates the expected number of incidences of cancer per one million people based on exposure to air toxins from industry, and also announces an upper limit of "acceptable risk" threshold. The NATA acceptable risk exposure threshold for chloroprene was established as 0.2 ??g/m3; that is, chloroprene emissions must stay below 0.2 micrograms per cubic meter3 in order to comply with the limit of acceptable risk threshold (which is a risk of 100 in 1 million people). Despite knowledge of this upper limit of the acceptable risk threshold, it is alleged that DPE continues to emit chloroprene at hundreds of times the 0.2 ??g/m3 threshold. Since May 25, 2016, the EPA has collected 24-hour air samples every three days from six locations around the Pontchartrain Works facility; air samples at all six locations frequently exceed 700 times the 0.2 ??g/m3 threshold. DPE's own sampling numbers at five locations surrounding the facility indicate that average chloroprene emissions range from 20.4 to 33.25 times the 0.2 ??g/m3 threshold. The EPA's National Enforcement Investigation Center ("NEIC") conducted a Clean Air Act ("CAA") inspection of the Pontchartrain Works facility in June 2016. The NEIC inspection report revealed various areas of non-compliance by both DuPont and DPE in their operation of the facility. On Jan. 6, 2017, DPE entered into an Administrative Order on Consent ("AOC") with LDEQ with a target to reduce its chloroprene emissions by 85%. Even if this reduction is achieved, the Plaintiffs allege that DPE's emission levels will nevertheless exceed the 0.2 ??g/m3 threshold. Robert Taylor, Jr., individually and on behalf of his minor daughter, N.T., Kershell Bailey, Shondrell P. Campbell, Gloria Dumas, Janell Emery, George Handy, Annette Houston, Rogers Jackson, Michael Perkins, Allen Schnyder, Jr., Larry Sorapuru, Sr.,6 Kellie Tabb, and Robert Taylor, III are all individuals living near the PWF in Reserve, Edgard, and LaPlace, Louisiana. On June 29, 2017, these individuals, individually and as representatives of a putative class of similarly situated Plaintiffs, sued DPE and DuPont in the Louisiana 40th Judicial District Court in St. John the Baptist Parish. The Plaintiffs allege that DuPont has emitted chloroprene for many years at levels resulting in concentrations many times the upper limit of acceptable risk, and DPE continues to do so. They advance Louisiana state law causes of action for nuisance, trespass, negligence, and strict liability; they seek injunctive relief in the form of abatement of chloroprene releases such that the concentration of chloroprene does not exceed the 0.2 ??g/m3 threshold; damages for deprivation of enjoyment of occupancy of property; punitive damages; and additional damages including medical monitoring to the extent personal injury claims become mature. The Defendants jointly removed the lawsuit, invoking the Court's diversity jurisdiction. The Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion to remand. The Plaintiffs filed an untimely request to extend the deadline to seek class certification, which the Defendants opposed. The Court denied the Plaintiffs' request to extend the deadline to seek class certification, and later denied the Plaintiffs' motion to reconsider its ruling. Thereafter, the Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended and Restated Class Action Complaint and DPE and DuPont filed Rule 12 motions to dismiss. On July 26, 2018, the Court granted DuPont's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, but allowed the Plaintiffs to amend their complaint to correct deficiencies in their nuisance allegations as they apply to DPE. The Plaintiffs then filed a Third Amended and Restated Complaint solely against DPE, seeking injunctive relief only for the nuisance claim. DPE now moves to dismiss the third amended complaint under 12(b)(6). Before the Court is the Defendant's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) on the grounds that the Plaintiffs still fail to plead a plausible claim for relief. They contend that the Plaintiffs fail to allege factual and legal elements to state a claim for injunctive relief and that the Plaintiffs' nuisance claim fails to plead factual allegations based on their alleged exposure to chloroprene. The Plaintiffs counter that their third amended complaint alleges specific facts regarding how Denka's chloroprene emissions constitute a nuisance for each Plaintiff. They further submit that the Defendants ignore the permissive 12(b)(6) standard by arguing numerous fact issues regarding causation of the Plaintiffs' alleged harms and that this procedural stage is not proper for such arguments. Judge Feldman agrees with the Plaintiffs. He finds that unlike the Plaintiffs' second amended complaint, this time, the Plaintiffs offer not only detailed "background facts" providing an overview of the PWF and the EPA's designation of chloroprene as a likely human carcinogen, but also a factual predicate detailing how the chloroprene exposure constitutes a nuisance allegedly perpetrated as to each Plaintiff. Each Plaintiff specifically alleges that time spent outdoors or exposure to outside air on their properties manifests itself in the form of, among other alleged injuries, chronic headaches, fatigue, chest pain, stomach problems, kidney disease, skin irritation, occasional chest pain, and dizziness. In paragraph 47, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs allege that several of them have taken urinalysis tests that have confirmed the presence of chloroprene metabolites in their bodies. Accepting the Plaintiffs' allegations as true, these alleged injuries and fear of chloroprene exposure rise above the speculative level. Each Plaintiff further submits that these physical manifestations of their alleged chloroprene exposure abate when inside their homes or away from their properties. The Defendant disputes the causation of these injuries and suggests that any number of sources could be responsible for the symptoms. Maybe so, the Judge holds. But at this procedural stage, it is not the appropriate setting for dismissal. The Judge concludes that the latest complaint contains sufficient factual allegations to state a nuisance claim and avoid dismissal. Accordingly, he denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 31, 2018 Order and Reasons is available at https://is.gd/2ASvZy from Leagle.com. Robert Taylor, Jr., individually and as representative of all those similarly situated, Kershell Bailey, individually and as representative of all those similarly situated, Shondrell P. Campbell, individually and as representative of all those similarly situated, Gloria Dumas, individually and as representative of all those similarly situated, Annette Houston, individually and as representative of all those similarly situated, Rogers Jackson, individually and as representative of all those similarly situated, Michael Perkins, individually and as representative of all those similarly situated, Allen Schnyder, Jr., individually and as representative of all those similarly situated, Larry Sorapuru, Sr., individually and as representative of all those similarly situated, Robert Taylor, III, individually and o/b/o his Minor Daughter, N.T. and as representative of all those similarly situated, Janell Emery, Originally named Janelle Emory & Kellie Tabb, Orginally named Kelli Tabb, Plaintiffs, represented by Hugh Palmer Lambert -- hlambert@thelambertfirm.com -- Lambert Firm, APLC, Cayce Christian Peterson -- cpeterson@thelambertfirm.com -- Lambert Firm, APLC, Darryl Jude Tschirn, Law Office of Darryl J. Tschirn, Eberhard D. Garrison -- egarrison@jonesswanson.com -- Jones, Swanson, Huddell & Garrison, LLC, Gladstone N. Jones, III -- gjones@jonesswanson.com -- Jones, Swanson, Huddell & Garrison, LLC, Harvey Sylvanous Bartlett, III- tbartlett@jonesswanson.com -- Jones, Swanson, Huddell & Garrison, LLC, John J. Cummings, III, Cummings & Cummings, PLC, Joseph M. Bruno -- jbruno@brunobrunolaw.com -- Bruno & Bruno, Kevin Earl Huddell, Jones, Swanson, Huddell & Garrison, LLC, Lindsay E. Reeves, Jones, Swanson, Huddell & Garrison, LLC, Lynn E. Swanson, Jones, Swanson, Huddell & Garrison, LLC, Morgan M. Embleton -- membleton@thelambertfirm.com -- The Lambert Firm & Randal Leroy Gaines, Randal L. Gaines Law Office. George Handy, individually and as representative of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Hugh Palmer Lambert, Lambert Firm, APLC, Cayce Christian Peterson, Lambert Firm, APLC, Eberhard D. Garrison, Jones, Swanson, Huddell & Garrison, LLC, Gladstone N. Jones, III, Jones, Swanson, Huddell & Garrison, LLC, Harvey Sylvanous Bartlett, III, Jones, Swanson, Huddell & Garrison, LLC, John J. Cummings, III, Cummings & Cummings, PLC, Joseph M. Bruno, Bruno & Bruno, Kevin Earl Huddell, Jones, Swanson, Huddell & Garrison, LLC, Lindsay E. Reeves, Jones, Swanson, Huddell & Garrison, LLC, Lynn E. Swanson, Jones, Swanson, Huddell & Garrison, LLC, Morgan M. Embleton, The Lambert Firm & Randal Leroy Gaines, Randal L.Gaines Law Office. Denka Performance Elastomer LLC, Defendant, represented by James Conner Percy, Jones Walker, Brett S. Venn bvenn@joneswalker.com -- Jones Walker, Justin J. Marocco -- jmarocco@joneswalker.com -- Jones Walker, Michael A. Chernekoff, Jones Walker & Michael R. Rhea, Jones Walker. Lydia Gerard, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Sylvia Elaine Taylor, Law Office of Sylvia Taylor, L.L.C., Cayce Christian Peterson, Lambert Firm, APLC, Darryl Jude Tschirn, Law Office of Darryl J. Tschirn, Hugh Palmer Lambert, Lambert Firm, APLC, John J. Cummings, III, Cummings & Cummings, PLC, Joseph M. Bruno, Bruno & Bruno & Randal Leroy Gaines, Randal L.Gaines Law Office. Denka Performance Elastomer LLC, Consol Defendant, represented by James Conner Percy, Jones Walker, Brett S. Venn, Jones Walker, Justin J. Marocco, Jones Walker, Michael A. Chernekoff, Jones Walker & Michael R. Rhea, Jones Walker. E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, Consol Defendant, represented by Deborah DeRoche Kuchler, Kuchler Polk Weiner, LLC, Kevin T. Van art, Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, pro hac vice, Bradley H. Weidenhammer, Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, pro hac vice, Joshua Doguet, Kuchler Polk Weiner, LLC, Rebecca C. Fitzpatrick, Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, pro hac vice, Sarah E. Iiams, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, L.L.C. & Stanley M. Wash, Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, pro hac vice. DRAFTKINGS INC: Fischler Suit Asserts ADA Violation --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Draftkings Inc. The case is styled as Brian Fischler individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Draftkings Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06474 (E.D. N.Y., Nov. 14, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. DraftKings, Inc. provides online daily and weekly fantasy sports contests for cash prizes in major sports in the United States and Canada. It offers daily leagues for fantasy football, baseball, basketball, hockey, golf, college football, and college basketball; and DraftKings Sportsbook, a legal online and mobile sports betting product in New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq. Lipsky Lowe LLP 630 Third Avenue New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 392-4772 Fax: (212) 444-1030 Email: chris@lipskylowe.com DYCOM INDUSTRIES: Tung Sues over Misleading Financial Reports ------------------------------------------------------------- JENNIFER TUNG, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs., DYCOM INDUSTRIES, INC., STEVEN E. NIELSEN and ANDREW DEFERRARI, the Defendants, Case 9:18-cv-81448-RLR (S.D. Fla., Oct. 25, 2018), is a federal securities class action on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Dycom common stock between November 20, 2017, and August 10, 2018, inclusive. According to the complaint, Defendants had actual knowledge of the misrepresentations and omissions of material facts, or acted with reckless disregard for the truth in that they failed to ascertain and to disclose such facts, even though such facts were available to them. Such Defendants' material misrepresentations and/or omissions were done knowingly or recklessly and for the purpose and effect of concealing Dycom's operating condition and future business prospects from the investing public and supporting the artificially inflated price of its securities. In ignorance of the fact that market prices of Dycom's publicly-traded securities were artificially inflated, and relying directly or indirectly on the false and misleading statements made by Defendants, or upon the integrity of the market in which the common stock trades, and/or on the absence of material adverse information that was known to or recklessly disregarded by Defendants but not disclosed in public statements by Defendants during the Class Period, the Plaintiff and the other members of the Class acquired Dycom's common stock during the Class Period at artificially high prices and were or will be damaged thereby. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' wrongful conduct, Plaintiff and other members of the Class suffered damages in connection with their purchases of the Company's common stock during the Class Period.[BN] Counsel for Plaintiff and Proposed Lead Counsel for the Class: Cullin O'Brien, Esq. CULLIN O'BRIEN LAW, P.A. 6541 NE 21st Way Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33308 Telephone: (561) 676-6370 Facsimile: (561) 320-0285 E-mail: cullin@cullinobrienlaw.com - and - Eduard Korsinsky, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 55 Broadway, 10th Floor New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: ek@zlk.com ENHANCED RECOVERY: Court Partly Strikes Answer to Keller FDCPA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, WILLIE DWIGHT KELLER, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ENHANCED RECOVERY COMPANY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-15 (N.D. Ind.), Magistrate Judge Andrew P. Rodovich of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Lafayette Division, granted in part and denied in part Keller's Motion to Strike Answer and Affirmative Defenses . Keller initiated the matter against the Defendant on March 12, 2018. On April 28, 2018, before Enhanced Recovery had answered the complaint, Keller filed an amended complaint. Keller, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, brought the civil class action for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"). Additionally, Keller has asserted a negligence claim. Enhanced Recovery answered the amended complaint on June 18, 2018. Keller filed the instant motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) requesting the Court to strike specific paragraphs and unnumbered affirmative defenses in Enhanced Recovery's answer. He asserts that the specified paragraphs fail to adequately respond to the allegations asserted in the amended complaint and contain impermissibly qualified responses. Moreover, he asserts that Enhanced Recovery's answer contains affirmative defenses that are insufficient. Enhanced Recovery filed a response in opposition on July 23, 2018, and Keller filed a reply on July 29, 2018. Keller has argued that Enhanced Recovery's answer contains responses that fail to adequately respond to the allegations in the amended complaint. Specifically, he has indicated that paragraphs 8, 42, 43, 44, 50, 53, and 55 of Enhanced Recovery's answer state that the allegation is a legal conclusion, and therefore, the Defendant is not required to respond. Keller has argued that Enhanced Recovery is required to respond to each allegation, even if it calls for a legal conclusion. Thus, Keller contends that Enhanced Recovery has failed to adequately respond, and those responses should be stricken. Moreover, Keller asserts that paragraphs 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 18 also contain impermissible qualified responses. These paragraphs state that the allegation is a legal conclusion, and therefore, the Defendant is not required to respond. To the extent a response is required, the Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph [X] of the Amended Complaint. Keller has argued that due to Enhanced Recovery's use of the language "to the extent" the Court and the Plaintiff are unable to determine what facts it is admitting or denying. The Plaintiff has argued that Enhanced Recovery's reliance on exercising due diligence and good faith representations are not affirmative defenses. He contends that the affirmative defenses would not provide relief notwithstanding a proven FDCPA violation. Next, he requests the Court to strike Enhanced Recovery's affirmative defense that it acted in furtherance of a legitimate business purpose. Finally, Keller contends that Enhanced Recovery's statute of limitation defense is a bare assertion and conclusory. Magistrate Judge Rodovich granted in part and denied in part Keller's Motion. He struck paragraphs 8, 42, 43, 44, 50, 53, and 55 of the answer to amended complaint and the statute of limitation defense. He granted Enhanced Recovery leave to file an amended answer for the purpose of amending paragraphs 8, 42, 43, 44, 50, 53, and 55 and the statute of limitation defense, as required by Rule 8. The amended answer is to be filed by Nov. 7, 2018. Among other things, the Magistrate finds that the District courts within the Seventh Circuit consistently have found that responses that an allegation is a "legal conclusion" or that a document "speaks for itself" are insufficient and contrary to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Enhanced Recovery's responses in paragraphs 8, 42, 43, 44, 50, 53, and 55 do not meet Rule 8(b)'s requirements. The Magistrate granted the motion to strike as to paragraphs 8, 42, 43, 44, 50, 53, and 55. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 31, 2018 Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/nGHINs from Leagle.com. Willie Dwight Keller, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Bryant H. Dunivan, Jr. -- bdunivan@mjolegal.com -- Owen & Dunivan PLLC & Duran L. Keller -- duran@kellerlawllp.com -- Keller Law LLP. Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC, Defendant, represented by Larissa Guerrero Nefulda -- larissa.nefulda@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, pro hac vice, Patrick B. Healy -- Patrick.Healy@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP & Stephen H. Turner -- Stephen.Turner@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, pro hac vice. ENHANCED RECOVERY: Sturgis Sues over Debt Collection Practices -------------------------------------------------------------- SEAN STURGIS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ENHANCED RECOVERY COMPANY, LLC, the Defendant, Case 1:18-cv-24353-JEM (S.D. Fla., Oct. 20, 2018), contends that the collection practices of the Defendant violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. According to the complaint, in or around September 19, 2018, Enhanced mailed a debt collection letter to the Plaintiff regarding an alleged debt owed to "AT&T." The alleged debt was incurred for telecommunications services used for personal, family, or household purposes. As a practical matter, the unsophisticated consumer is not an FDCPA lawyer. She does not know that the purpose of the statement that "we are not obligated to renew this offer" is to make her "realize that there is a renewal possibility but that it is not assured." Instead, where the debt collector states that it is not obligated to renew an offer but does not include an expiration date by which payment must be made, the unsophisticated consumer would understand the safe-harbor language to mean that the offer was subject to revocation. The unsophisticated consumer may even believe that the law requires a debt collector to include the Seventh Circuit's safe-harbor language if it will rescind the offer. Without an expiration date, the unsophisticated consumer would interpret a debt collector's statement that it is "not obligated to renew" as an implied threat to revoke the settlement offer at any time and without notice, the lawsuit says. Enhanced Recovery Company LLC provides business process outsourcing services that include recovery, outsourcing, and market research primarily for Fortune 500 companies in the United States and internationally.[BN] Counsel for Plaintiff: Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. THE LAW O FFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: 954 907-1136 Facsimile: 855 529-9540 E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com FIDELITY NATIONAL: Oral Argument in Patterson Suit Set for Dec. 3 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Fidelity National Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 26, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that in the class action captioned Patterson, et al. v. Fidelity National Title Insurance Company, et al., Case No. GD 03-021176, oral argument on which party should bear the burden of ascertaining the class and calculating damages, and determine whether the damages should be trebled, is scheduled for December 3, 2018. The class action was originally filed on October 27, 2003 and pending in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs allege the named Company underwriters violated Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law ("UTPCPL") by failing to provide premium discounts in accordance with filed rates in refinancing transactions. Contrary to rulings in similar federal court cases that considered the rate rule and agreed with the Company's position, the court held that the rate rule should be interpreted such that an institutional mortgage in the public record is a "proxy" for prior title insurance entitling a consumer to a discount rate when refinancing when there is a mortgage of record within the number of years required by the rate rule. The rate rule requires sufficient evidence of a prior policy, and because not all institutional mortgages were insured, the Company's position is that a recorded first mortgage alone does not constitute sufficient evidence of an earlier policy entitling consumers to a discounted rate. The court certified the class refusing to follow prior Pennsylvania Supreme Court and appellate court decisions holding that the UTPCPL requires proof of reliance, an individual issue which precludes certification. After notice to the class, plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on liability, and defendants moved for summary judgment. On June 27, 2018, the court entered an order granting plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on liability, and denying the Company's motion finding that the Company failed to advise it's agents how to interpret the rate rule so that it would be uniformly applied, thereby having engaged in "deceptive conduct." The Company plans to seek interlocutory review of the summary judgment order. The court approved the parties' stipulation in which they agreed that before interlocutory review is appropriate, the court will first determine which party should bear the burden of ascertaining the class and calculating damages, and determine whether the damages should be trebled. Briefing on these issues is ongoing, with oral argument scheduled for December 3, 2018. Fidelity National said, "There has been no determination as to the size of the class. It is unknown whether plaintiffs will seek statutory or actual damages, whether the judge will exercise discretion to award treble damages or award prejudgment interest, or what plaintiffs' counsel will seek as reasonable attorneys' fees. Accordingly, damages are not reasonably estimable at this time. We will continue to vigorously defend this matter, and we do not believe the result will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition." Fidelity National Financial, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides title insurance, technology, and transaction services to the real estate and mortgage industries in the United States. The company operates in Title, and Corporate and Other segments. Fidelity National Financial, Inc. was founded in 1847 and is headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida. FIFTH THIRD: Seldomridge Seeks to Certify FLSA Class ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER SELDOMRIDGE, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. FIFTH THIRD BANK, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00553-SJD-SKB (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff moves the Court to enter an order pursuant to section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act: 1. conditionally certifying case as a FLSA collective action against Defendant Fifth Third Bank on behalf of Plaintiff and others similarly situated; 2. directing that notice be sent by United States mail and email to all former and current Service to Solutions Employees and similarly situated call center employees employed by Defendant at any time in the period measured from three years prior to the filing of this Complaint to the present; 3. directing the parties to jointly submit within 14 days a proposed Notice informing such present and former employees of the pendency of this collective action and permitting them to opt into the case by signing and submitting a Consent to Join Form; 4. directing Defendant to provide within 14 days a Roster of such present and former employees that includes their full names, their dates of employment, and their last known home addresses and personal email addresses; 5. directing that the Notice, in the form approved by the Court, be sent to such present and former employees within 30 days using the home and email addresses listed in the Roster; and 6. providing that duplicate copies of the Notice may be sent in the event new, updated, or corrected mailing addresses or email addresses are found for one or more of such present or former employees. Attorneys for Plaintiff: Shannon M. Draher, Esq. Hans A. Nilges, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 7266 Portage Street, N.W., Suite D Massillon, Ohio 44646 Telephone: 330-470-4428 Facsimile: 330-754-1430 E-mail: sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com hans@ohlaborlaw.com - and - Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126 Columbus, OH 43220 Telephone: 614 949-1181 Facsimile: 614 386-9964 E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com FINANCIAL CORP: Court Denies Bid to Stay Encarnacion FDCPA Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, OMAR ENCARNACION, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FINANCIAL CORPORATION OF AMERICA, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-566-FtM-38CM (M.D. Fla.), Magistrate Judge Carol Mirando of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division, denied the Defendant's motion to stay the case pending resolution of Lait v. Medical Data Systems, Inc. currently pending before the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The Plaintiff filed a Class Action Complaint against FCA on Oct. 16, 2017, alleging one count of violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"). The Plaintiff alleges he is a consumer, and FCA is a collection agency and debt collector under the FDCPA. The Plaintiff asserts he allegedly incurred a debt to creditor Lehigh Regional Medical Center some time prior to June 26, 2017. He claims Lehigh Regional Medical Center contracted FCA to collect the debt, and FCA sent the Plaintiff a collection letter on June 26, 2017. The Plaintiff alleges the letter failed to clearly and explicitly convey that Lehigh Regional Medical Center is the current creditor to whom the debt is owed as required by the FDCPA. Accordingly, he seeks actual damages, statutory damages, costs and attorneys' fees. The Plaintiff brings his claim on behalf of the class of (a) all individuals with addresses in the State of Florida (b) to whom FCA (c) sent an initial collection letter attempting to collect a consumer debt (d) without properly identifying the name of the creditor to whom the alleged debt was owed (e) which letter was sent on or after a date one year prior to the filing of the action and on or before a date 21 days after the filing of the action. FCA filed its Answer on Nov. 22, 2017. On June 8, 2018, the Court entered a Case Management and Scheduling Order setting the discovery deadline for Dec. 3, 2018, the dispositive motion deadline for Jan. 2, 2019, and the trial for May 6, 2019. On Aug. 20, 2018, FCA filed the present motion to stay the case pending resolution of a similar case pending before the Eleventh Circuit: Lait v. Medical Data Systems, Inc., 11th Cir. Doc. No. 18-12255. The Plaintiff did not file a response within the allotted time. Magistrate Judge Mirando finds that although both Lait and the case involve the issue of properly identifying a creditor under the FDCPA, it is not clear to the Court that the Eleventh Circuit decision in Lait is likely to have a substantial or controlling effect on the claims and issues in the instant case. Given the distinctions, there is no indication the stay would simplify and clarify the issues or otherwise promote judicial economy. Further, the FCA has not demonstrated any hardship or inequity in being required to continue defending this lawsuit. Therefore, the Court finds a stay of the case neither necessary nor prudent. Accordingly, she denied the Motion to Stay. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 31, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/Z2R9S4 from Leagle.com. Omar Encarnacion, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Katie Marguerite Miller -- attorneykstone@gmail.com -- The Law Offices of Katie M. Miller, PA & Yitzchak Zelman -- Yzelman@MarcusZelman.com -- Marcus & Zelman, pro hac vice. Financial Corporation of America, Defendant, represented by Charles James McHale, Jr., Golden Scaz Gagain, PLLC. FIRST NATIONAL: Days Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GREGORY DAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. FIRST NATIONAL CREDIT BUREAU, INC., a foreign for-profit corporation, PINNACLE CREDIT SERVICES, LLC, a foreign limited liability company, RESURGENT HOLDINGS, LLC, a foreign limited liability company, and RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES, L.P., a foreign limited partnership, the Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-02397-CEH-JSS (M.D. Fla.), seeks an order from the Court certifying classes and subclasses: 1. Fair Debt Collection Practices (FDCPA) Statutory Damage Class: "all debtors to whom Defendants sent a form letter, sent in an attempt to collect a consumer debt, in substantially the same form as the Form Debt Collection Letter to the Amended Complaint, to an address in the state of Florida, where such Debt was credit-reported either on a date within one-year prior to the date of the filing of the original Complaint or the date RCS began acting as PCS's and/or RH's master servicer, whichever is later, up through the present date"; 2. Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (FCCPA) Statutory Damage Class: "all debtors to whom Defendants sent a form letter, sent in an attempt to collect a consumer debt, in substantially the same form as the Form Debt Collection Letter to the Amended Complaint, to an address in the state of Florida, where such Debt was credit-reported either on a date within two- years prior to the date of the filing of the original Complaint or the date RCS began acting as PCS's and/or RH's master servicer, whichever is later, up through the present date"; 3. FDCPA Actual Damages Sub-Class: "all persons who are members of the FDCPA Statutory Damages Class who, after of receiving the Form Debt Collection Letter, paid any portion of the Debt (i.e., actual damages)"; and 4. FCCPA Actual Damages Sub-Class: "all persons who are members of the FCCPA Statutory Damages Class who, after receiving the Form Debt Collection Letter, paid any portion of the Debt (i.e., actual damages)."[CC] Attorneys for Plaintiff and Class Members: Ian R. Leavengood, Esq. Gregory H. Lercher, Esq. Sean E. McEleney, Esq. LEAVEN LAW Northeast Professional Center 3900 First Street North, Suite 100 St. Petersburg, FL 33703 Telephone: 727 327-3328 Facsimile: 727 327-3305 E-mail: consumerservice@leavenlaw.com glercher@leavenlaw.com smceleney@leavenlaw.com - and - SWIFT & ISRIGNHAUS, P.A. Aaron M. Swift, Esq. 10460 Roosevelt Boulevard North, Suite 313 St. Petersburg, FL 33716 Telephone: (727) 490-9919 Facsimile: (727) 255-5332 E-mail: aswift@swift-law.com FIRSTFLEET INC: Carnegie Seeks to Certify 2 COBRA Classes --------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER CARNEGIE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. FIRSTFLEET, INC. OF TENNESSEE d/b/a FIRST FLEET, INC., the Defendant, Case 8:18-cv-01070-WFJ-CPT (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff ask the Court for an order: 1. certifying classes; Untimely Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA) Notice Class: "all participants and beneficiaries in the Defendant's Health Plan in the United States who were entitled to be provided notice of their COBRA rights due to a qualifying event pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 1163(a)(1), (2) and(4) and who were not provided a COBRA notice in the timeframe mandated by 29 U.S.C. section 1166, within the applicable statute of limitations"; and Deficient COBRA Notice Class: "all participants and beneficiaries in the Defendant's Health Plan in the United States who were sent a COBRA notice by Defendant in the form attached as Exhibit A, during the applicable statute of limitations period, as a result of a qualifying event as determined by Defendant, who did not elect continuation coverage"; 2. appointing Christopher Carnegie as Class Representative; 3. appointing Luis A. Cabassa and Brandon J. Hill of Wenzel Fenton Cabassa, P.A., and Felipe Fulgencio of Fulgencio Law, as class counsel; and 4. allowing them to notify the Class members.[CC] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Brandon J. Hill, Esq. Luis A. Cabassa, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A. 1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: 813-224-0431 Facsimile: 813-229-8712 E-mail: lcabassa@wfclaw.com bhill@wfclaw.com mk@wfclaw.com - and - Felipe B. Fulgencio, Esq. FULGENCIO LAW, P.L.L.C. 205 N. Armenia Avenue Tampa, FL 33609 Telephone: 813 463 0123 Facsimile: 813 251 4017 E-mail: felipe@fulgenciolaw.com FLIGHT SERVICES: $540K Settlement in Allen Suit Has Final Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, ANANAIS ALLEN, an individual, and AUSTIN CLOY, an individual, Plaintiffs, v. FLIGHT SERVICES AND SYSTEMS, INC., a foreign corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-1137-RSL (W.D. Wash.), Judge Robert S. Lasnik of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, granted the parties' motion for final approval of settlement. The Judge finally and unconditionally certified the Class defined all employees of the Defendant who are alleged to have been either Hospitality Workers or Transportation Workers and who worked one or more hours within the City of SeaTac at any time during the time period from Jan. 1, 2014, to Feb. 14, 2016, and who were paid less than the prevailing minimum wage prescribed by City of SeaTac Ordinance 7.45.050, i.e., a base rate of $15 per hour in 2014 and $15.24 in 2015 and 2016. The Settlement Agreement, which requires FSS to pay $540,000 as consideration to the Class Members, was the result of arm's length negotiations between FSS and the Class Counsel. The Settlement Agreement is fair and reasonable. The Judge approved the proposed class action settlement and ordered the following: (a) FSS is directed to fund the settlement, (b) FSS is authorized to distribute the Settlement Funds, and (c) FSS is directed to distribute the attorney's fees and incentive awards as provided in the Order Granting Motion for Attorney's Fees and Incentive Awards, of even date. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 2, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/7vvzP7 from Leagle.com. Ananais Allen, an individual & Austin Cloy, an individual, Plaintiffs, represented by Daniel R. Whitmore, Duncan Calvert Turner, BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER PLLC & Mark A. Trivett -- mtrivett@badgleymullins.com -- BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER PLLC. Flight Services and Systems, Inc., a foreign corporation, Defendant, represented by Alan D. Schuchman -- aschuchman@skellengerbender.com -- SKELLENGER BENDER, PS, Jimmy Goh -- jgoh@constangy.com -- CONSTANGY, ROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE LLP, pro hac vice & Rochelle Y. Nelson -- rnelson@skellengerbender.com -- SKELLENGER BENDER, PS. Opt-Outs, Interested Party, represented by David N. Mark -- david@marklawoffice.com -- WASHINGTON WAGE CLAIM PROJECT & Beau C. Haynes, WASHINGTON WAGE CLAIM PROJECT. FLOOR AND DECOR OUTLETS: Faces Tucker ADA Class Action in NY ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Floor And Decor Outlets of America, Inc. The case is styled as Henry Tucker on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Floor And Decor Outlets of America, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10610 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 14, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Floor and Decor Outlets of America, Inc. retails hard surface flooring products in the United States. The company offers tiles, stone, wood, laminate and vinyl, decoratives, and installation materials for backsplashes, walls, bathrooms, kitchen, living rooms, and patios applications.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq. Cohen & Mizrahi LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (917) 299-6612 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal FLOWERS FOODS: Coyle Class Action Dismissed ------------------------------------------- Flowers Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the court has dismissed the case captioned, Coyle v. Flowers Foods, Inc. and Holsum Bakery, Inc. On March 23, 2018, the court dismissed the lawsuit and approved an agreement to settle the matter for $4.3 million, comprised of $1.2 million in settlement funds, $2.9 million in attorneys' fees, and $0.2 million as an incentive for class members who are active distributors not to opt out of certain portions of the new distributor agreement. The settlement consisted of approximately 190 class members. Flowers Foods said, "This settlement charge was recorded as a selling, distribution and administrative expense in our Consolidated Statements of Income during the third quarter of fiscal 2017 and was paid during the first quarter of fiscal 2018." Flowers Foods, Inc. produces and markets bakery products in the United States. It operates through two segments, Direct-Store-Delivery (DSD) and Warehouse Delivery. Flowers Foods, Inc. was founded in 1919 and is headquartered in Thomasville, Georgia. FLOWERS FOODS: Still Defends Consolidated Class Suit in Georgia --------------------------------------------------------------- Flowers Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company continues to defend a consolidated class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia. On August 12, 2016, a class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by Chris B. Hendley (the "Hendley complaint") against the company and certain senior members of management (collectively, the "defendants"). On August 17, 2016, another class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by Scott Dovell, II (the "Dovell complaint" and together with the Hendley complaint, the "complaints") against the defendants. Plaintiffs in the complaints are securities holders that acquired company securities between February 7, 2013 and August 10, 2016. The complaints generally allege that the defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that (1) the company's labor practices were not in compliance with applicable federal laws and regulations; (2) such non-compliance exposed the company to legal liability and/or negative regulatory action; and (3) as a result, the defendants' statements about the company's business, operations, and prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. The counts of the complaints are asserted against the defendants pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act. The complaints seek (1) class certification under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, (2) compensatory damages in favor of the plaintiffs and all other class members against the defendants, jointly and severally, for all damages sustained as a result of wrongdoing, in an amount to be proven at trial, including interest, and (3) awarding plaintiffs and the class their reasonable costs and expenses incurred in the actions, including counsel and expert fees. On October 21, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York consolidated the complaints into one action captioned "In re Flowers Foods, Inc. Securities Litigation" (the "consolidated securities action"), appointed Walter Matthews as lead plaintiff ("lead plaintiff"), and appointed Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP and Johnson & Weaver, LLP as co-lead counsel for the putative class. On November 21, 2016, the court granted defendants' and lead plaintiff's joint motion to transfer the consolidated securities action to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia. Lead plaintiff filed his Consolidated Class Action Complaint on January 12, 2017, raising the same counts and general allegations and seeking the same relief as the Dovell and Hendley complaints. On March 13, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit which was granted in part and denied in part on March 23, 2018. The court dismissed certain allegedly false or misleading statements as nonactionable under federal securities laws, and will allow others to proceed to fact discovery. On July 23, 2018, lead plaintiff filed his motion for class certification. The defendants filed their memorandum of law in opposition to class certification on October 5, 2018. The deadline for lead plaintiff to file his reply in support of class certification is November 13, 2018. Flowers Foods, Inc. produces and markets bakery products in the United States. It operates through two segments, Direct-Store-Delivery (DSD) and Warehouse Delivery. Flowers Foods, Inc. was founded in 1919 and is headquartered in Thomasville, Georgia. FLOWERS FOODS: Zapata and Rodriguez Suits Dismissed --------------------------------------------------- Flowers Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the court has dismissed two class action suits filed in U.S. District Court Southern District of Texas, entitled, Zapata et al. v. Flowers Foods, Inc. and Flowers Baking Co. of Houston, LLC and the Rodriguez et al. v. Flowers Foods, Inc. and Flowers Baking Co. of Houston, LLC. On September 12, 2018, the court dismissed the case Zapata et al. v. Flowers Foods, Inc. and Flowers Baking Co. of Houston, LLC, 4:16-cv-00676 and the Rodriguez et al. v. Flowers Foods, Inc. and Flowers Baking Co. of Houston, LLC, 4:16-cv-00245 and approved an agreement to settle both matters for $740,700, including attorneys' fees, on behalf of 43 distributors. Flowers Foods said, "This settlement was paid and recorded as a selling, distribution and administrative expense in our Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations during the third quarter of fiscal 2018." Flowers Foods, Inc. produces and markets bakery products in the United States. It operates through two segments, Direct-Store-Delivery (DSD) and Warehouse Delivery. Flowers Foods, Inc. was founded in 1919 and is headquartered in Thomasville, Georgia. FROST ARNETT: Golubchik Files FDCPA Suit in New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Frost Arnett Company, et al. The case is styled as Yosef Golubchik, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Frost Arnett Company, John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-16113 (D. N.J., Nov. 13, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Frost-Arnett Company operates as a account receivable management company. The Company offers collections, recovery on delinquent accounts, early-out, return on investment- enhancing, insurance follow-up, pre-registration, and extended business office services. Frost-Arnett serves customers in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. Stein Saks, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 ext 101 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com GEM HOTEL: Violates Disabilities Act, Tucker Suit Asserts --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 300 West 22 Realty LLC. The case is styled as Henry Tucker on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 300 West 22 Realty LLC doing business as: The Gem Hotel Chelsea, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10616 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 14, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The GEM Hotel-Chelsea is an 81-room boutique hotel located in Chelsea, the world's headquarters for high profile art galleries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq. Cohen & Mizrahi LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (917) 299-6612 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal GOOGLE LLC: Mischaracterizes Free Data Storage, Roley Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ ANDREW ROLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff vs Google LLC and DOES 1-50, the Defendants, Case No. 180V336773 (Cal. Super. Ct., Oct. 25, 2018), seeks preliminary, permanent and mandatory injunctive relief prohibiting Google, their officers, agents and all those acting in concert with them, from committing in the future mischaracterization of "free" data storage. This action is intended to stop Google's misrepresentations, and to restore the benefit of the bargain to those Local Guides who attained a free terabyte of data. According to the complaint, the Defendant has enlisted millions of individuals around the United States (and millions more around the world) to enhance the quality of its products through "crowdsourcing." According to Google, crowd sourcing is the practice of obtaining information or input into a task or project by enlisting the services of a large number of people, either paid or unpaid, typically Via the Internet. One such example of Google's use of crowdsourcing is its efforts to improve Google Maps and Google Earth products by using individuals Who present in a location featured in Google product. The use of "local knowledge" allows unprecedented reach corners of the globe, and enhances and improves the quality of Google's offerings. Google formalized its use of locals when it established its "Local Guides" See https://plus.google.c0m/+GoogleMaps/posts/eGqahcAfme. The program purpose of the program, like the one it replaced called "City Experts," was to have locals photograph and comment on businesses and locations around the world in order to improve the quality and quantity of reviews about these locations. Google does not pay Local Guides for their efforts on the company's behalf. Instead, to encourage participation by individuals in its Local Guide Program, Google offered other incentives, such as "thank you gifts" and invitations to events for certain high volume Local Guide reviewers Whose reviews were approved by Google. For example, Google promised Local Guides who achieved "Level 4 status" a free terabyte of data storage. A terabyte is an immense amount of storage. It is estimated that a terabyte could hold more than 310,000 photographs, or 500 movies, or 17,000 hours of music, or 40 days' worth of videos. There are 1000 gigabytes in one terabyte. After Plaintiff became a Level 4 Local Guide, he claimed his terabyte of data. However, after inducing Plaintiff to perform the work necessary to become a Level 4 Local Guide, Google informed Plaintiff that its offer of a free terabyte of data storage was, in fact, only free for two years. Google's mischaracterization of the "free" data storage is patently unreasonable. No person would understand an offer from Google for a "free terabyte of storage" to be limited to "two years of free data storage" because Google intentionally failed to qualify its offer as limited in such a manner. Google's misrepresentation was intended to induce Plaintiff and other class members to perform the work that benefitted Google, which it did. Worse yet, Google's fraudulent inducement has the insidious effect of creating "subs" ??? industry slang for subscribers ??? who, having moved data onto Google's storage platforms, must then pay $10 per month beyond the two-year period to maintain access to their stored data, the lawsuit says. Google LLC is an American multinational technology company that specializes in Internet-related services and products, which include online advertising technologies, search engine, cloud computing, software, and hardware.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class: Monique Oliver, Esq. Christian Schreiber, Esq. OLIVIER SCHREIBER & CHAO LLP 201 Filbert 201 Street, Suite San Francisco, CA 94133 Telephone: (415) 484 0980 Facsimile: (415) 231 0037 E-mail: monique@osclegal.com christian@osclegal.com - and - Rebecca K. Shelquist, Esq. Robert A. Peterson, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 Facsimile: (612) 339-0981 E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com rapeterson@locklaw.com - and - Vildan A. Teske, Esq. Marisa C. Katz, Esq. TESKE, KATZ, KITZER & ROCHEL, PLLP 222 South 9th Street, Suite 4050 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 746-1558 Facsimile: (651) 846-5339 E-mail: teske@tkkrlaw.com katz@tkkrlaw.com - and - Seth Leventhal, Esq. LEVENTHAL PLLC 527 Marquette Ave. S., Suite 2100 Minneapolis, MN 55402-1273 Telephone: 612 234-7349 Facsimile: 612 437-4980 E-mail: seth@leventhalpllc.com GRAY TELEVISION: John O'Neil Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois -------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled JOHN O'NEIL JOHNSON TOYOTA, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GRAY TELEVISION, INC.; HEARST COMMUNICATIONS; NEXSTAR MEDIA GROUP, INC.; TEGNA INC.; TRIBUNE MEDIA COMPANY; SINCLAIR BROADCAST GROUP, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-06883 (D. Md., Sept. 19, 2018), was removed from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on October 15, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-02913 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 15, 2018) to the proceeding. The Case is assigned to the Hon. Deborah K. Chasanow. Gray Television, Inc., a television broadcast company, owns and operates television stations and digital assets in the United States. The company was formerly known as Gray Communications Systems, Inc. and changed its name to Gray Television, Inc. in August 2002. Gray Television, Inc. was founded in 1897 and is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul Mark Sandler, Esq. Eric R. Harlan, Esq. SHAPIRO SHER GUINOT & SANDLER 250 West Pratt Street Suite 2000 Baltimore, Maryland 21201 Telephone: (410) 385-0202 Facsimile: (410) 539-7611 E-mail: pms@shapirosher.com erh@shapirosher.com - and - Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq. Victoria Romanenko, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LaDUCA, LLP 507 C Street, N.E. Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 E-mail: jonc@cuneolaw.com vicky@cuneolaw.com - and - Don Barrett, Esq. Katherine Barrett Riley, Esq. Sarah Starns, Esq. David McMullan, Esq. BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A. P.O. Box 927 404 Court Square Lexington, MS 39095 Telephone: (662) 834-2488 E-mail: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com KBRiley@BarrettLawGroup.com sstarns@barrettlawgroup.com dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com - and - Shawn M. Raiter, Esq. LARSON KING, LLP 2800 Wells Fargo Place 30 East Seventh Street St. Paul, MN 55101 Telephone: (651) 312-6500 E-mail: sraiter@larsonking.com GREAT KILLS: NY Court Conditionally Certifies FLSA Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Lipsky Lowe LLP disclosed that the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York recently conditionally certified the collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act filed by Nicholas Mendez and authorized a notice to mailed to the putative collective action members, advising them about the case and their ability to join (i.e. "opt-in") the case. On December 15, 2017, Nicholas Mendez filed a putative class and collective action complaint against Great Kills Marina Cafe, Inc., Joseph Labriola, Robert Parascandola and Rosemary Saldino in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, which is assigned Case Number 1:17:Cv-7323 Scope of Class and Collective Action Members: The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all individuals whom Defendants employ or have employed as waiters since December 15, 2011. Claims in the Lawsuit: The lawsuit alleges the following causes of action on behalf of the class and collective action members. 1. Unpaid minimum wage under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and New York Labor Law ("Labor Law"). The Complaint alleges the waiters effective hourly rate was below the statutory minimum wage. The Complaint further alleges Defendants unlawfully claimed a tip credit against the minimum wage and are therefore required to pay the waiters at the minimum wage. 2. Off the clock work under the FLSA and Labor Law. The Complaint alleges Defendants failed to pay the waiters for every hour worked, but rather paid them only 5 hours per shift with a maximum of 35 hours per week. 3. Unpaid overtime under FLSA and Labor Law. The Complaint alleges Defendants failed to pay waiters overtime premium pay for any hour worked above forty in a week. 4. Unpaid spread of hours pay under the Labor Law. The Complaint alleges Defendants failed to pay the waiters an extra hour at the minimum wage for any day they worked more than ten hours. 5. Unlawful tip retention under the Labor Law. The Complaint alleges Defendants unlawfully kept the waiters tips by keeping a percentage of the tips paid for large parties. 6. Unlawful deductions under the Labor Law. The Complaint alleges Defendants unlawfully deducted from the waiters pay the cost of any meals customers did not pay. 7. Failure to provide the Notice and Acknowledgement of Pay Rate and Payday under the Labor Law. The Complaint alleges Defendants failed to provide the waiters this notice when they were hired at any point in their employment. GREYHOUND LINES: J. Smith Remanded to Calif. State Court -------------------------------------------------------- Judge Troy L. Nunley of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, remanded the case, JUSTIN SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GREYHOUND LINES, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-CV-02238-TLN-AC (E.D. Cal.), to Sacramento County Superior Court. The Plaintiff filed a Class Action against the Defendant in the Superior Court of California for the County of Sacramento, Case No. 34-2017-00219188 on Sept. 15, 2017. The Defendant removed the Plaintiff's Action to the Court and filed a Notice of Removal on Oct. 25, 2017 pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. The Plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand on Nov. 21, 2017 and the Hearing for that Motion is currently scheduled for Nov. 15, 2018. The Defendant filed a Motion to Stay Proceedings on Nov. 21, 2017 and the Hearing for that Motion is currently scheduled for Nov. 15, 2018. The Defendant has not filed an opposition to the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand and the Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the Defendant's Motion to Stay Proceedings. The Parties met and conferred regarding the matters at issue in these Motions and stipulated that good cause exists to remand the case back to state court, Sacramento County Superior Court. They wish to vacate the Motion to Remand and Motion to Stay Hearings scheduled for 2:00 p.m. on Nov. 15, 2018. Judge Nunley so ordered. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 2, 2018 Stipulated Order is available at https://is.gd/AvFYT4 from Leagle.com. Justin Smith, Plaintiff, represented by Galen T. Shimoda -- attorney@shimodalaw.com -- Shimoda Law Corp. & Justin Paul Rodriguez -- jrodriguez@shimodalaw.com - Shimoda Law Corp. Greyhound Lines, Inc., Defendant, represented by David J. Dow -- ddow@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, Pc & Kelsey Elizabeth Papst -- kpapst@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson. HANRO USA: Faces Garey Class Action Under ADA ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hanro U.S.A., Inc. The case is styled as Kevin Garey on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Hanro U.S.A., Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10567 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 13, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Hanro U.S.A. Inc. was founded in 1993. The company's line of business includes the wholesale distribution of women's, children's, and infants' clothing and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Shalom, Esq. The Law Offices of Jonathan Shalom 124-04 Metropolitan Avenue Kew Gardens, NY 11374 Phone: (516) 807-1748 Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com HARDEE'S FOOD: Bid to Remand HepA Exposure Suit to State Ct. Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Frank D. Whitney of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division, denied the Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand the case, E.P. and S.F., individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. HARDEE'S FOOD SYSTEMS LLC, HARDEE'S RESTAURANTS LLC, CKE RESTAURANTS HOLDINGS, INC., and MORNING STAR, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00483-FDW-DCK (W.D. N.C.) to state court. The Plaintiffs filed the class action in state court after a Hepatitis A exposure event occurring at a Hardee's restaurant in Charlotte, North Carolina. According to the Plaintiffs, an employee diagnosed with Hepatitis A potentially exposed thousands of customers to the illness. The Mecklenburg County Health Department announced around June 26, 2018 that all persons who consumed food or drink at the restaurant between June 13, 2018 and June 23, 2018 were at risk of contracting Hepatitis A. As a result of this incident, the Mecklenburg County Health Department offered free Hepatitis A prevention treatment, and 2,056 individuals obtained such treatment. The Plaintiffs brought the lawsuit on behalf of all persons who dined on food and/or beverages purchased at the Hardee's quick-service restaurant located at 2604 Little Rock Road, Charlotte, North Carolina between June 13 and 23, 2018. They allege three claims against all Defendants: 1) negligence, 2) product liability, and 3) breach of implied warranty of merchantability The Plaintiffs allege that as a result of the Defendants' misconduct, the Plaintiffs and the class members have incurred the need for necessary medical care, treatment, and services; incurred inconvenience and loss of time associated with such medical care, treatment, and services; and suffered serious emotional distress. They state that both the Plaintiffs' and the Class members' injuries are unknown and will require and will continue to require expensive medical care and treatment. In addition to the damages, the Plaintiffs further ask for punitive damages and attorney fees. The Defendants filed a Notice of Removal with the Court on Aug. 31, 2018. The Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Remand on Sept. 20, 2018, arguing that the Court does not have jurisdiction over the case under the Class Action Fairness Act because 1) the amount in controversy in the case does not exceed $5 million, and 2) diversity does not exist in the case. The Plaintiffs ask for a remand to state court. Judge Whitney finds that because 1) the amount in controversy likely exceeds $5 million, 2) minimal diversity exists, and 3) there are more than 100 members in the proposed Plaintiff class, the Court has jurisdiction over the case under CAFA. Therefore, he denied the Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand. However, the Judge noted sua sponte that the presence of Defendant Hardee's may trigger the local controversy exception to CAFA jurisdiction. He ordered the Parties to submit additional briefing to the Court on this issue no later than Nov. 16, 2018. The Parties are further ordered to proceed according to the guidelines laid out in the Court's earlier orders entered on Sept. 24, 2018. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 31, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/Gp1w9J from Leagle.com. E. P., Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Kent Bryson -- dan@wbmllp.com -- Whitfield, Bryson & Mason, LLP, Joseph G. Sauder -- jgs@sstriallawyers.com -- Chimicles & Tikellis LLP, pro hac vice & Scott Crissman Harris -- scott@wbmllp.com -- Whitfield, Bryson & Mason, LLP. S. F., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Kent Bryson, Whitfield, Bryson & Mason, LLP & Scott Crissman Harris, Whitfield, Bryson & Mason, LLP. CKE Restaurants Holdings, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Hardee's Food Systems LLC, a North Carolina Corporation, Hardee's Restaurants LLC, a Delaware Corporation & Morning Star, LLC, a Florida Corporation, Defendants, represented by Alan M. Maxwell -- amaxwell@wwhgd.com -- Weinberg, Wheeler, Hudgins, Gunn & Dial, LLC, pro hac vice, Jennifer Anne Adler -- jadler@wwhgd.com -- Weinberg, Wheeler, Hudgins, Gunn & Dial, LLC, pro hac vice, Nicholas P. Panayotopoulos -- npanayo@wwhgd.com -- Weinberg, Wheeler, Hudgins, Gunn & Dial, LLC, pro hac vice & Shawn D. Scott -- sscott@wwhgd.com -- Weinberg, Wheeler, Hudgins, Gunn & Dial, LLC. HEALTH ACQUISTION: Bazoe Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Healh Acquistion Corp. The case is styled as Marriaff Bazoe and on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated who were employed by Healh Acquistion Corp., Plaintiff v. Healh Acquistion Corp. and/or any other related or affiliated entities, Defendant, Case No. 150679/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nov. 14, 2018). Health Acquisition Corporation., doing business as Allen Health Care Services, provides home health care services. The Company offers services which includes diabetes, dementia, hospice and pediatric care, and live-in care services. Allen Health Care Services serves patients in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: VIRGINIA & AMBINDER LLP 40 Broad St, 7th FL NEW YORK, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 943-9080 The Defendants is represented by: LITTLER MENDELSON, PC 290 Broadhollow RD Melville, NY 11747 Phone: (631) 247-4700 HIGHGATE HOTELS: Faces Tucker Class Action for ADA Violation ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Highgate Hotels, L.P. The case is styled as Henry Tucker on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Highgate Hotels, L.P. doing business as: The Wagner Hotel, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10619 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 14, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Highgate Hotels, L.P. invests in, operates, and manages hospitality properties. The company was founded in 1988 and is based in Irving, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq. Cohen & Mizrahi LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (917) 299-6612 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal HOMETOWN AMERICA: Craw Suit Moved to Massachusetts District Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of BARBARA CRAW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HOMETOWN AMERICA, LLC; HOMETOWN AMERICA MANAGEMENT, LLC; HOMETOWN OAKHILL, LLC; HOMETOWN OAKPOINT I, LLC; and HOMETOWN OAKPOINT II, LLC, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of Massachusetts, County of Plymouth (Case No. 1883CV01017) to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on October 15, 2018. The clerk of court for the District of Massachusetts assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-12149-MPK (D. Mass, Oct. 15, 2018). The case is assigned to Magistrate Judge M. Page Kelley. Hometown America LLC provides real estate management services. The Company offers recreational facilities such as swimming pools, clubhouses, basketball courts, as well as online payment, green mission, and insurance services. Hometown America markets services for home financing and insurance sectors in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ethan R. Horowitz, Esq. NORTHEAST JUSTICE CENTER 50 Island Street, Ste. 203B Lawrence, MA 01840 Telephone: (781) 599-7730 E-mail: ehorowitz@njc-ma.org The Defendants are represented by: Tristan P. Colangelo, Esq. SUGARMAN, ROGERS, BARSHAK & COHEN, P.C. 101 Merrimac Street, 9th Floor Boston, MA 02114 Telephone: (617) 619-3423 E-mail: colangelo@srbc.com - and - Lisa C. Goodheart, Esq. SUGARMAN, ROGERS, BARSHAK & COHEN, P.C. 101 Merrimac Street Boston, MA 02114-4737 Telephone: (617) 227-3030 Facsimile: (617) 523-4001 E-mail: goodheart@srbc.com INDEPENDENT BANK: Trial in BOH Acquisition Suit Set for Jan. 2020 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Independent Bank Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 25, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that that the Court has entered a scheduling order providing that the case be ready for trial on January 27, 2020. Independent Bank is a party to a legal proceeding inherited by Independent Bank in connection with the Company's acquisition of BOH Holdings, Inc. and its subsidiary, Bank of Houston, or BOH, that was completed on April 15, 2014. Several entities related to R. A. Stanford, or the Stanford Entities, including Stanford International Bank, Ltd., or SIBL, had deposit accounts at BOH. Certain individuals who had purchased certificates of deposit from SIBL filed a class action lawsuit against several banks, including BOH, on November 11, 2009 in the U.S. District Court Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, in a case styled Peggy Roif Rotstain, et al. on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Trustmark National Bank, et al., Civil Action No. 3:09-CV-02384-N-BG. The suit alleges, among other things, that the plaintiffs were victims of fraud by SIBL and other Stanford Entities and seeks to recover damages and alleged fraudulent transfers by the defendant banks. On May 1, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion requesting permission to file a Second Amended Class Action Complaint in this case, which motion was subsequently granted. The Second Amended Class Action Complaint asserted previously unasserted claims, including aiding and abetting or participation in a fraudulent scheme based upon the large amount of deposits that the Stanford Entities held at BOH and the alleged knowledge of certain BOH officers. The plaintiffs seek recovery from Independent Bank and other defendants for their losses. The case was inactive due to a court-ordered discovery stay issued March 2, 2015 pending the Court's ruling on plaintiff's motion for class certification and designation of class representatives and counsel. On November 7, 2017, the Court issued an order denying the plaintiff's motion. In addition, the Court lifted the previously ordered discovery stay. On January 11, 2018, the Court entered a scheduling order providing that the case be ready for trial on January 27, 2020. The Company anticipates an increase in legal fees associated with the defense of this claim as the case proceeds to trial. Independent Bank notified its insurance carriers of the claims made in the Second Amended Class Action Complaint. The insurance carriers have initially indicated that a "loss" has not yet occurred or that the claims are not covered by the policies. However, Independent Bank is continuing to pursue insurance coverage for these claims, as well as for the reimbursement of defense costs, through the initiation of litigation and other means. Independent Bank believes that the claims made in this lawsuit are without merit and is vigorously defending this lawsuit. Independent Bank said, "This is complex litigation involving a number of procedural matters and issues. As such, Independent Bank is unable to predict when this matter may be resolved and, given the uncertainty of litigation, the ultimate outcome of, or potential costs or damages arising from, this case." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Independent Bank Group, Inc. operates as the bank holding company for Independent Bank that provides a range of commercial banking products and services to businesses, professionals, and individuals in the United States. Independent Bank Group, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is headquartered in McKinney, Texas. INDIANA: Ganus Files Prisoner Civil Rights Suit v. DOC Officers ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Carter, et al. The case is styled as Thomas R. Ganus, on his own behalf and on behalf of a class of those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Robert E Carter, Jr., Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Correction, Ron Neal warden, Mark Newkirk executive assistant, Marion Thatcher unit team manager, Pauline Williams corrections lieutenant, Bessie Leonard Law Library Supervisor, Kimberly Creasy Law Library Supervisor, Erin Jones Law Library Supervisor, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00928-RLM-MGG (N.D. Ind., Nov. 14, 2018). The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Martin Suit Removed to Arizona -------------------------------------------------- The class action styled as Ramon Martin individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Insys Therapeutics Incorporated a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. CV2018-013354 was removed from Maricopa County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona on November 13, 2018, and assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-04052-DMF. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury: Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability. Insys Therapeutics, Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company, develops and commercializes supportive care products. The company markets SUBSYS, a sublingual fentanyl spray for breakthrough cancer pain in opioid-tolerant adult patients; and SYNDROS, an orally administered liquid formulation of dronabinol for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, and anorexia associated with weight loss in patients with AIDS.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sean James O'Hara, Esq. Kercsmar & Feltus PLLC 7150 E Camelback Rd., Ste. 285 Scottsdale, AZ 85251 Phone: (480) 421-1001 Fax: (480) 421-1002 Email: sjo@kflawaz.com - and - Todd Feltus, Esq. Kercsmar & Feltus PLLC 7150 E Camelback Rd., Ste. 285 Scottsdale, AZ 85251 Phone: (480) 421-1001 Fax: (480) 421-1002 Email: tfeltus@kflawaz.com The Defendant is represented by: Brian Schulman, Esq. Ballard Spahr LLP - Phoenix, AZ 1 E Washington St., Ste. 2300 Phoenix, AZ 85004-2555 Phone: (602) 798-5419 Fax: (602) 798-5595 Email: SchulmanB@ballardspahr.com - and - J Matthew Donohue, Esq. Holland & Knight LLP - Portland, OR 2300 US Bancorp Twr. 111 SW 5th Ave. Portland, OR 97204 Phone: (503) 243-2300 Fax: (503) 241-8014 Email: matt.donohue@hklaw.com - and - Joseph L Franco, Esq. Holland & Knight LLP - Portland, OR 2300 US Bancorp Twr. 111 SW 5th Ave. Portland, OR 97204 Phone: (503) 243-2300 Fax: (503) 241-8014 - and - Michael Stephen Myers, Esq. Ballard Spahr LLP - Phoenix, AZ 1 E Washington St., Ste. 2300 Phoenix, AZ 85004-2555 Phone: (602) 798-5400 Fax: (602) 798-5595 Email: myersms@ballardspahr.com INTEL CORP: Trial in McAfee Shareholder Suit Set to Begin December ------------------------------------------------------------------ Intel Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 26, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 29, 2018, that the court in the McAfee, Inc. Shareholder Litigation set the case trial to begin in December 2018. On August 19, 2010, the company announced that it has agreed to acquire all of the common stock of McAfee, Inc. (McAfee) for $48.00 per share. Four McAfee shareholders filed putative class-action lawsuits in Santa Clara County, California Superior Court challenging the proposed transaction. The cases were ordered consolidated in September 2010. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that named former McAfee board members, McAfee, and Intel as defendants, and alleged that the McAfee board members breached their fiduciary duties and that McAfee and Intel aided and abetted those breaches of duty. The complaint requested rescission of the merger agreement, such other equitable relief as the court may deem proper, and an award of damages in an unspecified amount. In June 2012, the plaintiffs' damages expert asserted that the value of a McAfee share for the purposes of assessing damages should be $62.08. In January 2012, the court certified the action as a class action, appointed the Central Pension Laborers' Fund to act as the class representative, and scheduled trial to begin in January 2013. In March 2012, defendants filed a petition with the California Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate to reverse the class certification order; the petition was denied in June 2012. In March 2012, at defendants' request, the court held that plaintiffs were not entitled to a jury trial and ordered a bench trial. In April 2012, plaintiffs filed a petition with the California Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate to reverse that order, which the court of appeal denied in July 2012. In August 2012, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted that motion in November 2012, and entered final judgment in the case in February 2013. In April 2013, plaintiffs appealed the final judgment. The California Court of Appeal heard oral argument in October 2017, and in November 2017, affirmed the judgment as to McAfee's nine outside directors, reversed the judgment as to former McAfee director and chief executive officer David DeWalt, Intel, and McAfee, and affirmed the trial court's ruling that the plaintiffs are not entitled to a jury trial. At a June 2018 case management conference following remand, the Superior Court set an October hearing date for any additional summary judgment motions that may be filed, and set trial to begin in December 2018. In July 2018, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint which the court denied in September 2018. Also in July 2018, McAfee and Intel filed a motion for summary judgment on the aiding and abetting claims asserted against them; in October 2018, the court granted the motion as to McAfee and denied the motion as to Intel. Intel said, "Because the resolution of pretrial motions may materially impact the scope and nature of the proceeding, and because of uncertainties regarding the disposition of theories that may be asserted at trial and the extent of Intel's responsibility, if any, with respect to such claims, we are unable to make a reasonable estimate of the potential loss or range of losses, if any, arising from this matter. We dispute the class-action claims and intend to continue to defend the lawsuit vigorously." Intel Corporation designs, manufactures, and sells computer, networking, data storage, and communication platforms worldwide. The company operates through Client Computing Group, Data Center Group, Internet of Things Group, Non-Volatile Memory Solutions Group, Programmable Solutions Group, and All Other segments. The company was founded in 1968 and is based in Santa Clara, California. ISSEY MIYAKE: Diaz Files Class Action for ADA Violation ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Issey Miyake U.S.A. Corp. The case is styled as Edwin Diaz on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Issey Miyake U.S.A. Corp., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10508 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 13, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Issey Miyake U.S.A. Corp. designs and manufactures apparels. The Company offers women's and men's designer clothes, bags, and other related accessories. Issey Miyake U.S.A. serves customers in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq. Cohen & Mizrahi LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (917) 299-6612 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal JPMORGAN CHASE: Melissinos Suit Asserts CEA Violation ----------------------------------------------------- Melissinos Trading, LLC, Plaintiff, v. & JPMorgan Chase & Co.; John Edmonds; and John Doe Nos. 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-10628 (S.D. N.Y., November 14, 2018) is brought to recover for injuries to Plaintiff and members of the Class caused by Defendants' violations of the Commodity Exchange Act. This class action alleges that, from no later than January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2015, the Defendants engaged in the unlawful and intentional manipulation of gold, silver, platinum, and palladium futures contracts traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange and the Commodity Exchange, Inc. and options on precious metals futures contracts traded on NYMEX and COMEX. On October 9, 2018, Defendant Edmonds, an employee of Defendant JPMorgan Chase & Co., pleaded guilty to a two-count information. The counts charged in the information were, respectively, conspiracy to commit wire fraud, in violation of commodities fraud, commodities price manipulation, and spoofing. The Defendant Edmonds' guilty plea is Defendants' price manipulations with respect to NYMEX and COMEX precious metals futures contracts and options on those contracts, notes the complaint. These manipulations were effectuated during the Class Period through the use of a technique known as "spoofing". Spoofing, as defined by the Commodity Exchange Act, is the act of "bidding or offering with the intent to cancel the bid or offer before execution", says the complaint. Melissinos Trading, LLC is a limited liability company with headquarters in New Jersey. During the Class period, Plaintiff transacted in COMEX gold and silver futures contracts as well as NYMEX palladium futures contracts. JPMorgan Chase & Co. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in this District at 270 Park Ave., New York, New York 10017. JPM, through its trading employees in the United States, transacted in precious metals futures contracts and options on those contracts on both NYMEX and COMEX throughout the Class Period. Edmonds was employed as a precious metals trader by JPM throughout the Class Period. Defendant Edmonds is a resident of Brooklyn, New York. Defendants John Does 1-10, inclusive, are other persons whose identities are currently unknown to Plaintiff. John Does 1-10 include, but are not necessarily limited to, precious metals traders in the employ of JPM that conspired with Edmonds to manipulate the prices of precious metals futures contracts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Martin, Esq. 33 Whitehall Street, 14th Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: 646-357-1100 Facsimile: 202-540-7201 Email: smartin@hausfeld.com - and - Timothy S. Kearns, Esq. Reena A. Gambhir, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 1700 K Street, NW, Suite 650 Washington, DC 20006 Phone: 202-540-7200 Facsimile: 202-540-7201 Email: tkearns@hausfeld.com rgambhir@hausfeld.com - and - Adam Frankel, Esq. GREENWICH LEGAL ASSOCIATES, LLC 881 Lake Avenue Greenwich, CT 06831 Phone & Fax: 203-622-6001 Email: AFRANKEL@GRWLEGAL.COM JUUL LABS: Claims in Colgate Suit Over Vape Products Safety Trimmed ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, BRADLEY COLGATE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JUUL LABS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-02499-WHO (N.D. Cal.), Judge William H. Orrick of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (i) granted in part and denied in part JUUL's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, with leave to amend; and (ii) denied JUUL's motion to strike the Plaintiffs' nationwide class allegations pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(f), 23(c)(1)(A), and 23(d)(1)(D). The Plaintiffs bring class claims against JUUL, a market leader in the burgeoning electronic cigarette industry, for various state law violations related to JUUL's advertising and labelling of its electronic cigarettes. The Plaintiffs are 13 individuals from seven states: California, New Jersey, Washington, Pennsylvania, New York, Michigan, and Massachusetts. The Plaintiffs fall into two categories, (1) adults who use JUUL's electronic nicotine delivery systems ("ENDS") and (2) minors who use JUUL's ENDS. Plaintiffs Bradley Colgate, Kaytlin McKnight, Anthony Smith, Corey Smith, Kacie Ann Lagun, Tommy Benham, and David Langan ("Adult Plaintiffs") fall into the first group. Except for McKnight, the Adult Plaintiffs smoked cigarettes prior to using JUUL's ENDS. The second group consists of M.H. and her mother and natural Guardian Jennifer Hellman, A.U. and her mother and natural guardian Commitante, and Jill Nelson, who appears to bring claims on behalf of her daughter L.B. ("Minor Plaintiffs"). JUUL is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. PAX Labs, Inc. is also a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. JUUL originally operated under the name PAX Labs, Inc. In 2017, it was renamed JUUL Labs, Inc. and a new company was spun out as Pax Labs, Inc. The Plaintiffs bring 11 causes of action: (1) False Advertising; (2) Violation of Consumers Legal Remedies Act; (3) Fraud; (4) Unfair, Unlawful and Deceptive Trade Practices; (5) Unjust Enrichment, (6) Strict Liability - Failure to Warn; (7) Strict Product Liability - Design Defect; (8) Strict Liability ??? Manufacturing Defect; (9) Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability; (10) Breach of Express Warranty; and (11) Negligent Misrepresentation. They propose to define the class as all persons who purchased, in the United States, a JUUL e-cigarette and/or JUULpods. They also allege a subclass consisting of all class members who at the time of their purchase were under the age of 18. JUUL moves to dismiss for three reasons. First, they argue that the Plaintiffs' claims are preempted by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ("FDCA") as amended by the TCA, which provides the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") with exclusive authority to promulgate regulations on ENDS labeling. Second, they contend the Plaintiffs' fraud claim fails to satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b)'s heightened pleading requirements. Third, they assert that the Plaintiffs' failed to allege sufficient facts to plausibly satisfy the elements of any of their claims. JULL also moves to strike Plaintiffs' nationwide class allegations pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(f), 23(c)(1)(A), and 23(d)(1)(D). Judge Orrick granted in part and denied in part JUUL's motion to dismiss. Insofar as the Plaintiffs' claims are based on misrepresenting the pharmacokinetics of JUUL's nicotine formulation on the product labelling, they are preempted and dismissed with prejudice. The Plaintiffs' claims based on JUUL's alleged misrepresentation of the percentage of nicotine on the labelling of JUUL's pods are not preempted. The Plaintiffs' claims based on JUUL's advertising which sound in fraud fail to meet the heightened pleading requirements of Rule 9(b) and are dismissed with prejudice. To the extent that the Plaintiffs' remaining claims are based on mislabeled nicotine percentage on the packaging for JUUL's pods, JUUL's motion to dismiss is granted only as to the breach of express warranty claim and the unidentified state law consumer protection statutes claim. These claims are dismissed with leave to amend. The Judge denied JUUL's motion to strike the Plaintiffs' nationwide class allegations as it is not ripe at this stage of the litigation. For one thing, the pleadings are not settled and the Plaintiffs indicated at oral argument that they will amend with sufficient specificity to allow all of their claims to proceed. Second, while class allegations may be stricken at the pleading stage in the appropriate case, doing so is not warranted as the Defendant has not presented any argument that would completely preclude class certification. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 30, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/6K8Y5O from Leagle.com. Mr. Bradley Colgate & Kaytlin McKnight, Plaintiffs, represented by Adam Gutride -- adam@gutridesafier.com -- Gutride Safier LLP, Esfand Nafisi -- enafisi@classlawdc.com -- Migliaccio & Rathod LLP, Seth Adam Safier-- seth@gutridesafier.com -- Gutride Safier LLP, Todd Michael Kennedy -- todd@gutridesafier.com -- Gutride Safier LLP, Jason Samual Rathod , Migliaccio and Rathod LLP, pro hac vice, Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Migliaccio & Rathod & Anthony J. Patek -- anthony@gutridesafier.com -- Gutride Safier LLP. Anthony Smith, David Langan, Corey Smith, Jennifer Hellman, Tommy Benham, Jill Nelson & Lisa Commitante, Plaintiffs, represented by Seth Adam Safier, Gutride Safier LLP & Anthony J. Patek, Gutride Safier LLP. M. H., a minor, by her Mother and Natural Guardian, Jennifer Hellman appointed guardian ad litem, L. B., a minor, by her Mother and Natural Guardian, JIll Nelson appointed guardian ad litem, Kacie Ann Lagun, on behalf of themselves, the general public and those similarly situated & A. U., a minor, by her Mother and Naturual Guardian, Lisa Commitante appointed guardian ad litem, Plaintiffs, represented by Adam Gutride, Gutride Safier LLP, Esfand Nafisi, Migliaccio & Rathod LLP, Jason Samual Rathod, Migliaccio and Rathod LLP, Seth Adam Safier, Gutride Safier LLP & Anthony J. Patek, Gutride Safier LLP. JUUL Labs, Inc., Defendant, represented by Austin Van Schwing -- aschwing@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Charles Joseph Stevens -- cstevens@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn Crutcher LLP, Jessica Reed Culpepper -- jculpepper@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher LLP, Joshua D. Dick -- jdick@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Peter C. Squeri -- psqueri@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP & Winston Y. Chan -- wchan@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn Crutcher LLP. KIKKERLAND RETAIL: Violates ADA, Garey Suit in Alleges ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kikkerland Retail, LLC. The case is styled as Kevin Garey on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Kikkerland Retail, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10565 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 13, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Kikkerland Design, Inc. provides living, solar, lighting, clocks, kitchen, bathroom, stationary, and bar products. It offers chandeliers and flash lighting products; laundry bags and shower curtains; and ashtrays, cube jigger, stash openers, corkscrews, openers, and bottle openers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Shalom, Esq. The Law Offices of Jonathan Shalom 124-04 Metropolitan Avenue Kew Gardens, NY 11374 Phone: (516) 807-1748 Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com L2T INC: Faces Class Action in New York Asserting ADA Violation --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against L2T, Inc. The case is styled as Kevin Garey on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. L2T, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10569 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 13, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. L2t, Inc., doing business as Trina Turk, provides ready-to-wear apparel, accessories, and home collections. It offers dresses, tops, bottoms, jumpsuits, jackets, jewelry, swimwear, tech accessories, sweaters, tunics, coats and outerwear, sunglasses, handbags, and accessories for women; and jackets, shirts, pants, shorts, and swimwear for men.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Shalom, Esq. The Law Offices of Jonathan Shalom 124-04 Metropolitan Avenue Kew Gardens, NY 11374 Phone: (516) 807-1748 Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com LADENBURG THALMANN: Appeal from Nixed Texas Class Suit Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that plaintiffs' notice of appeal of a dismissal order is still pending. In January 2016, an amended complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas against Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. and related entities as well as their officers and directors. The amended complaint added Ladenburg and other underwriters of securities offerings in 2013 and 2014 that in the aggregate raised approximately $2,900,000 as defendants to the purported class action. Ladenburg was one of the underwriters of the October 2013 initial public offering. The complaints allege, among other things, that the offering materials were misleading based on representations concerning the maintenance and integrity of the issuer's pipelines, and that the underwriters are liable for violations of federal securities laws. In April 2018, the court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the second amended complaint with prejudice and entered final judgment for the defendants. In May 2018 the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the dismissal order. Ladenburg Thalmann said, "If the plaintiffs' appeal is successful, Ladenburg intends to vigorously defend against these claims." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. operates as a diversified financial services company in the United States. Its Independent Advisory and Brokerage Services segment offers advisory and securities brokerage services for clients, including advisor managed accounts, general securities, mutual funds, and variable and fixed annuities; brokerage support services, such as access to stock, bond, ETF, and options execution; products comprising insurance, non-traded real estate investment trusts, and unit trusts; and research, compliance, supervision, accounting, and related services. Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. was founded in 1876 and is based in Miami, Florida. LAS VEGAS SANDS: Fosbre Consolidated Class Action Concluded ----------------------------------------------------------- Las Vegas Sands Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 26, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the consolidated class action suit entitled, Frank J. Fosbre, Jr. v. Las Vegas Sands Corp., Sheldon G. Adelson and William P. Weidner, has been concluded. On May 24, 2010, Frank J. Fosbre, Jr. filed a purported class action complaint in the U.S. District Court, against Las Vegas Sands Corp. (LVSC), Sheldon G. Adelson and William P. Weidner. The complaint alleged that LVSC, through the individual defendants, disseminated or approved materially false information, or failed to disclose material facts, through press releases, investor conference calls and other means from August 1, 2007 through November 6, 2008. The complaint sought, among other relief, class certification, compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs. On July 21, 2010, Wendell and Shirley Combs filed a purported class action complaint in the U.S. District Court, against LVSC, Sheldon G. Adelson and William P. Weidner. The complaint alleged that LVSC, through the individual defendants, disseminated or approved materially false information, or failed to disclose material facts, through press releases, investor conference calls and other means from June 13, 2007 through November 11, 2008. The complaint, which was substantially similar to the Fosbre complaint, discussed above, sought, among other relief, class certification, compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs. On August 31, 2010, the U.S. District Court entered an order consolidating the Fosbre and Combs cases, and appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel. As such, the Fosbre and Combs cases are reported as one consolidated matter. On November 1, 2010, a purported class action amended complaint was filed in the consolidated action against LVSC, Sheldon G. Adelson and William P. Weidner. The amended complaint alleges that LVSC, through the individual defendants, disseminated or approved materially false and misleading information, or failed to disclose material facts, through press releases, investor conference calls and other means from August 2, 2007 through November 6, 2008. The amended complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification, compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs. On January 10, 2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which, on August 24, 2011, was granted in part and denied in part, with the dismissal of certain allegations. On November 7, 2011, the defendants filed their answer to the allegations remaining in the amended complaint. On July 11, 2012, the U.S. District Court issued an order allowing defendants' Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the U.S. District Court's order dated August 24, 2011, striking additional portions of the plaintiffs' complaint and reducing the class period to a period of February 4 to November 6, 2008. On August 7, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a purported class action second amended complaint (the "Second Amended Complaint") seeking to expand their allegations back to a time period of 2007 (having previously been cut back to 2008 by the U.S. District Court) essentially alleging very similar matters that had been previously stricken by the U.S. District Court. On October 16, 2012, the defendants filed a new motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. The plaintiffs responded to the motion to dismiss on November 1, 2012, and defendants filed their reply on November 12, 2012. On November 20, 2012, the U.S. District Court granted a stay of discovery under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act pending a decision on the new motion to dismiss and therefore, the discovery process was suspended. On April 16, 2013, the case was reassigned to a new judge. On July 30, 2013, the U.S. District Court heard the motion to dismiss and took the matter under advisement. On November 7, 2013, the judge granted in part and denied in part defendants' motions to dismiss. On December 13, 2013, the defendants filed their answer to the Second Amended Complaint. Discovery in the matter resumed. On January 8, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion to expand the certified class period, which was granted by the U.S. District Court on June 15, 2015. Fact discovery closed on July 31, 2015, and expert discovery closed on December 18, 2015. On January 22, 2016, defendants filed motions for summary judgment. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motions for summary judgment on March 11, 2016. Defendants filed their replies in support of summary judgment on April 8, 2016. Summary judgment in favor of the defendants was entered on January 4, 2017. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on February 2, 2017, and their opening brief in support of their appeal on July 14, 2017. Defendants filed their answering briefs in opposition to the appeal on October 13, 2017. Plaintiffs filed their reply brief in support of their appeal on December 14, 2017. On May 1, 2018, a three judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit unanimously affirmed the U.S. District Court's summary judgment ruling for the defendants. Plaintiffs have failed to file a certiorari petition with the United Supreme Court by the deadline and therefore, this matter is concluded. Las Vegas Sands Corp., together with its subsidiaries, develops, owns, and operates integrated resorts in Asia and the United States. It owns and operates The Venetian Macao Resort Hotel, the Sands Cotai Central, The Parisian Macao, The Plaza Macao and Four Seasons Hotel Macao, Cotai Strip, and the Sands Macao in Macao, the People???s Republic of China; and iconic Marina Bay Sands in Singapore. Las Vegas Sands Corp. was founded in 1988 and is based in Las Vegas, Nevada. LCK DESIGN: Violates ADA, Garey Suit Asserts -------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against LCK Design, LLC. The case is styled as Kevin Garey on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LCK Design, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10572 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 13, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Lck Design, LLC is a privately held company in Sunny Isle Beach, FL and is a Single Location business, categorized under Design Services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Shalom, Esq. The Law Offices of Jonathan Shalom 124-04 Metropolitan Avenue Kew Gardens, NY 11374 Phone: (516) 807-1748 Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com LIFEPOINT HEALTH: Continues to Defend Wolf Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------- LifePoint Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 26, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company continues to defend itself from a putative class action suit entitled, Wolf v. LifePoint Health, Inc., et al. On July 22, 2018, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Me rger Agreement") with RegionalCare Hospital Partners Holdings, Inc. (D/B/A RCCH HealthCare Partners), a Delaware corporation ("RCCH"), and Legend Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of RCCH ("Merger Sub"), pursuant to which Merger Sub will merge with and into the Company (the "Merger"), with the Company surviving the Merger as a subsidiary of RCCH on the terms and conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement. RCCH is owned by certain funds managed by affiliates of Apollo Global Management, LLC. On September 7, 2018, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware challenging the Merger. The case, captioned Wolf v. LifePoint Health, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-cv-01397-UNA, names the Company and the members of the Company's Board of Directors as the defendants. The complaint, among other things, alleges that the Company omitted from its proxy statement certain material information in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder. The complaint seeks, among other things, class action certification, injunctive relief prohibiting the consummation of the Merger, a declaration that the defendants have violated the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9, an order directing the filing of a non-deficient proxy statement and an award of attorneys' fees. The Company believes that the action lacks merit and intends to defend vigorously against this action. LifePoint Health, Inc., through its subsidiaries, owns and operates community hospitals, regional health systems, physician practices, outpatient centers, and post-acute facilities in the United States. Its hospitals provide a range of medical and surgical services, such as general surgery, internal medicine, obstetrics, emergency room care, radiology, oncology, diagnostic care, coronary care, rehabilitation, and pediatric, as well as specialized services, including open-heart surgery, skilled nursing, psychiatric care, and neuro-surgery. LifePoint Health, Inc. was founded in 1997 and is based in Brentwood, Tennessee. LILLA P: Garey Brings ADA Class Action --------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lilla P, LLC. The case is styled as Kevin Garey on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Lilla P, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10573 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 13, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Lilla P is a contemporary brand offering easy, elevated everyday basics for a stylish lifestyle.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Shalom, Esq. The Law Offices of Jonathan Shalom 124-04 Metropolitan Avenue Kew Gardens, NY 11374 Phone: (516) 807-1748 Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com LIZETTE ARGUELLO: Garcia Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls ----------------------------------------------------------- HENRY GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. LIZETTE ARGUELLO INSURANCE INC. D/B/A ESTRELLA INSURANCE,a Florida Profit Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-24477-KMM (S.D. Fla., Oct. 26, 2018), seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals, and to secure redress for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, Defendant is an insurance company that sells auto, commercial, home/renters, business, health/life, boat/RV, and motorcycle policies. To promote its services, Defendant engages in unsolicited marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the process. On or about September 25, 2018, the Defendant sent the following telemarketing text messages to Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in 4000. Defendant's text messages were transmitted to Plaintiff's cellular telephone, and within the time frame relevant to this action. Defendant's text messages constitute telemarketing because they encouraged the future purchase or investment in property, goods, or services, i.e., selling Plaintiff insurance. The Plaintiff received the subject texts within this judicial district and, therefore, Defendant's violation of the TCPA occurred within this district. The Defendant caused other text messages to be sent to individuals residing within this judicial district. At no point in time did Plaintiff provide Defendant with his express written consent to be contacted using an ATDS. The Plaintiff is the subscriber and sole user of the 4000 Number, and is financially responsible for phone service to the 4000 Number. The Plaintiff has been registered with the national do-not-call registry since December 4, 2014. The impersonal and generic nature of Defendant's text message, demonstrates that 2014.[BN] Counsel for Plaintiff and the Class: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1 st Avenue, Suite 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: 305 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, PA 19495 Biscayne Blvd No. 607 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: 305 975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com LLOYD PEST CONTROL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Miranda Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- EMILIO MIRANDA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE LLOYD PEST CONTROL CO.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 37-2018-00052510-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty., Oct. 15, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, and provide accurate wage statements. The Plaintiff Miranda was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt employee from July 2016 to July 2018. The Lloyd Pest Control Co. Inc. provides pest control services in San Diego, Riverside, and Orange County. It offers protection against ants, fleas, roaches, spiders, carpet beetles, rats, mice, termites, wasps, bed bugs, and bees. The company was founded in 1931 and is based in San Diego, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Drew Koning, Esq. Blake Zollar, Esq. KONING ZOLLAR LLP 2210 Encinitas Blvd, Ste. S Encinitas, CA 92024 Telephone: (858) 252-3234 Facsimile: (858) 252-3238 - and - Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq. Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq. Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq. BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858) 551-1223 Facsimile: (858) 551-1232 LSP PRODUCTS: Harris Product Liability Suit Transferred to E.D. Ca. ------------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled as Tiffany Harris individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LSP Products Group, Inc., NCH Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-03091 (C.D. Cal., April 12, 2018) was transferred to the Eastern District of California and assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-02973-TLN-KJN on Nov. 14, 2018. The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability. LSP Products Group, Inc. designs and manufactures plumbing products. It offers bathtub drain assemblies and repair kits, turn ball valves, washing machine outlet boxes, icemaker boxes, mini-hammer arresters, gas outlet boxes and faceplates, clamps, clamp systems, hangers, groundwork items, flashings and shields, test plugs, cleanout covers, bathwaste assemblies, and trim kits and accessories. NCH Corporation is an international marketer of maintenance products. It is one of the largest companies in the world to sell such products through direct marketing channels. NCH has several wholly owned subsidiaries, some of them in the maintenance products business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Phone: (877) 206-4741 Fax: (866) 633-0228 Email: abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com - and - Meghan George, Esq. Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, PC 21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Phone: (877) 206-4741 Fax: (866) 633-0228 Email: mgeorge@toddflaw.com - and - Thomas Edward Wheeler, Esq. Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Phone: (888) 595-9111 Fax: (866) 633-0228 Email: twheeler@toddflaw.com - and - Gregory F. Coleman, Esq., PHV Greg Coleman Law PC 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Phone: (865) 247-0080 Fax: (865) 522-0049 Email: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com - and - Lisa A. White, Esq., PHV Greg Coleman Law PC 500 W. Main Avenue, Suite 600 Knoxville, TN 37902 Phone: (865) 247-0080 Fax: (865) 522-0049 Email: lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com - and - Mark E. Silvey, Esq., PHV Greg Coleman Law PC 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Phone: (865) 247-0080 Fax: (865) 522-0049 Email: mark@gregcolemanlaw.com - and - Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Phone: (877) 206-4741 Fax: (866) 633-0228 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Teresa Zintgraff Youhanaie, Esq., NCAED Timothy D McGonigle PC 1880 Century Park East, Suite 516 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 478-7110 Fax: (888) 266-9410 Email: tyouhanaie@icloud.com - and - Adam W Green, Esq. Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell and Berkowitz PC 1301 McKinney Street Suite 3700 Houston, TX 77010 Phone: (713) 650-9700 x 7180 Fax: (713) 650-9701 Email: agreen@bakerdonelson.com - and - Amy L Champagne, Esq. Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell and Berkowitz PC 100 Vision Drive Suite 400 Jackson, MI 39211 Phone: (601) 351-8912 Fax: (601) 974-8912 Email: achampagne@bakerdonelson.com - and - Samuel D Gregory, Esq. Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell and Berkowitz PC 100 Vision Drive Suite 400 Jackson, MI 39211 Phone: (601) 969-4656 Fax: (601) 714-9956 Email: sdgregory@bakerdonelson.com - and - Timothy D. McGonigle, Esq., NCAED Timothy D McGonigle Law Offices 1880 Century Park East Suite 516 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 478-7110 Fax: (888) 266-9410 Email: tim@mcgoniglelaw.net MDL 2326: Boston Scientific Seeks to Dismiss Caldwell Case ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CALDWELL, Sandra and David Caldwell vs. Boston Scientific Corporation (d/b/a Mansfield Scientific, Inc. & Microvasive, Inc.), and John Doe Corporations 1-50, the Case 2:12-cv-03403 (S.D. W.Va.), the Defendant moves the Court to dismiss this case with prejudice, pursuant to the procedure and requirements established by Pretrial Order No. 186 [MDL No. 2326, Re: Boston Scientific Corp., Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation]. In support of the motion, Defendant attests that: 1. Defendant has received a valid, executed settlement release from plaintiff. 2. Settlement funds (via a QSF or otherwise) have been disbursed to plaintiff's counsel. 3. Defendant has been informed that disbursement of the settlement funds to plaintiff has occurred.[CC] Counsel for Boston Scientific Corp.: Jon A. Strongman, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. 2555 Grand Boulevard Kansas City, MI 64108 Telephone: (816) 474 6550 Facsimile: (816) 421 5547 E-mail: jstrongman@shb.com MDL 2591: Bid for Judgment on Pleadings in MIR 162 Corn Case Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE: SYNGENTA AG MIR 162 CORN LITIGATION. This Document Relates To: Louis Dreyfus Company Grains Merchandising LLC v. Syngenta AG, et al., No. 16-2788-JWL, MDL No. 2591, Case No. 14-md-2591-JWL (D. Kan.), Judge John W. Lungstrum of the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas denied Syngenta's motion for judgment on the pleadings with respect to the remaining claims asserted by Plaintiff Louis Dreyfus Co. Grains Merchandising, LLC. The MDL includes hundreds of similar suits filed against Syngenta by corn farmers and others in the corn industry. The suits generally relate to Syngenta's commercialization of genetically-modified corn seed products, Viptera and Duracade, which contained the trait MIR 162, without approval of that trait by China, an export market. The plaintiffs have alleged that Syngenta's commercialization of its products caused the genetically-modified corn to be commingled throughout the corn supply in the United States; that China rejected imports of all corn from the United States because of the presence of MIR 162; that such rejection caused corn prices to drop in the United States; and that corn farmers and others in the industry were harmed by that market effect. The Court certified state-wide classes for tort claims by producers under the law of eight different states. The particular case within the MDL to which the order relates was brought by Plaintiff LDC in the District of Minnesota. LDC alleges that it operates grain elevators and that it buys, sells, and exports corn. By its first amended complaint, LDC asserted claims against Syngenta under the federal Lanham Act and state-law claims for negligence, fraudulent misrepresentation, and tortious interference with business expectations. By Memorandum and Order of Jan. 19, 2018, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's Lanham Act and fraud claims, as well as the negligence claim to the extent based on certain theories. Syngenta now seeks judgment on the remaining negligence and tortious interference claims. Judge Lungstrum finds that Section 52-577 sets an absolute three-year bar on tort claims, and there is no evidence that the Connecticut Legislature did not mean what it stated in that statute. Moreover, LDC has not identified any Connecticut court that has extended American Pipe beyond the U.S. Supreme Court's own limitation to toll the statute's three-year period. In the absence of authority from Connecticut, the Judget will not create such an exception to the plain language of Section 52-577. Accordingly, he rejects LDC's argument for application of American Pipe tolling in the case. Alternatively, LDC argues that it is entitled to tolling under the continuing course of conduct doctrine. The Judge finds that LDC has alleged related conduct continuing after October 2013, which would allow the doctrine to apply in the case. LDC has alleged non-segregable injuries -- the drop in the price of corn and the closure of the Chinese market -- from the commercialization of both products, and the Connecticut Supreme Court has distinguished conduct causing such a cumulative injury from the case in which repeated events give rise to discrete injuries, which case would not fall within the tolling doctrine. LDC will be required eventually to produce evidence of a continuing course of conduct sufficient to support application of the tolling doctrine. At this stage, however, based solely on the pleadings, the Judge concludes that the doctrine could apply to toll the running of the three-year period in Section 52-577 in the case. Thus, he cannot conclude that LDC's claims are untimely as a matter of law, and it therefore denied Syngenta's motion for judgment on the pleadings. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 30, 2018 Memorandum and Order is available at https://is.gd/kToGGZ from Leagle.com. All Plaintiffs, represented by Don M. Downing -- ddowning@grgpc.com -- Gray, Ritter & Graham, PC, pro hac vice, Patrick J. Stueve -- stueve@stuevesiegel.com -- Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP, Richard L. Coffman, The Coffman Law Firm, Scott A. Powell -- scott@hwnn.com -- Hare Wynn Newell & Newton, pro hac vice & William B. Chaney -- wchaney@grayreed.com -- Gray Reed & McGraw, LLP, pro hac vice. All Defendants, represented by Michael D. Jones -- michael.jones@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis, pro hac vice & Thomas P. Schult -- tschult@berkowitzoliver.com -- Berkowitz Oliver Williams Shaw & Eisenbrandt, LLP. Ellen K. Reisman, Special Master, represented by Ellen K. Reisman -- tschult@berkowitzoliver.com -- Reisman Karron Greene LLP. Stracener Farming Company, Plaintiff, represented by Clark W. Mason -- clark@clarkmason.com -- Clark Mason Attorneys, pro hac vice, James J. Thompson, Jr. -- JT@JimThompsonLaw.com -- pro hac vice, Jerry Obe Kelly, Kelly Law Firm, PA, pro hac vice, John Paul Byrd -- wwinfo@paulbyrdlawfirm.com -- Paul Byrd Law Firm, PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin J. Phipps -- mphipps@phippscavazos.com -- Phipps Anderson Deacon LLP, Mikal C. Watts -- mcwatts@wattsguerra.com -- Watts Guerra, LLP & Nolan E. Awbrey, Riley Jackson, PC, pro hac vice. David Stracener, Plaintiff, represented by Clark W. Mason, Clark Mason Attorneys, pro hac vice, James J. Thompson, Jr., pro hac vice, Jerry Obe Kelly, Kelly Law Firm, PA, pro hac vice, John Paul Byrd, Paul Byrd Law Firm, PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin J. Phipps, Phipps Anderson Deacon LLP, Mikal C. Watts, Watts Guerra, LLP & Nolan E. Awbrey, Riley Jackson, PC, pro hac vice. Larry Petit, Plaintiff, represented by Clark W. Mason, Clark Mason Attorneys, pro hac vice, James J. Thompson, Jr., pro hac vice, Jerry Obe Kelly, Kelly Law Firm, PA, pro hac vice, John Paul Byrd, Paul Byrd Law Firm, PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin J. Phipps, Phipps Anderson Deacon LLP, Mikal C. Watts, Watts Guerra, LLP & Nolan E. Awbrey, Riley Jackson, PC, pro hac vice. Trans Coastal Supply Company Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Jayne Conroy -- JConroy@simmonsfirm.com -- Simmons Hanly Conroy, Martin J. Phipps, Phipps Anderson Deacon LLP, Mikal C. Watts, Watts Guerra, LLP, Patrick J. Stueve, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP, Paul J. Hanly -- phanly@simmonsfirm.com -- Jr., Simmons Hanly Conroy, Sarah Burns, Simmons Hanly Conroy & William B. Chaney -- wchaney@grayreed.com -- Gray Reed & McGraw, LLP. Luke Claas, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt -- wchaney@grayreed.com -- Grant & Eisenhofer, PA, pro hac vice, Edmund S. Aronowitz, Grant & Eisenhofer, PA, pro hac vice, J. Brett Milbourn -- BMILBOURN@WBSVLAW.COM -- Walters Bender Strohbehn & Vaughan, PC, James J. Pizzirusso, Hausfeld LLP, pro hac vice, Martin J. Phipps, Phipps Anderson Deacon LLP, Mikal C. Watts, Watts Guerra, LLP, Paul D. Lundberg -- paul@lundberglawfirm.com -- Lundberg Law Firm, PLC, pro hac vice & Thomas V. Bender -- TBENDER@WBSVLAW.COM -- Walters Bender Strohbehn & Vaughan, PC. Meinke Farms, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt, Grant & Eisenhofer, PA, pro hac vice, Edmund S. Aronowitz, Grant & Eisenhofer, PA, pro hac vice, J. Brett Milbourn, Walters Bender Strohbehn & Vaughan, PC, James J. Pizzirusso, Hausfeld LLP, pro hac vice, Martin J. Phipps, Phipps Anderson Deacon LLP, Mikal C. Watts, Watts Guerra, LLP, Paul D. Lundberg, Lundberg Law Firm, PLC, pro hac vice & Thomas V. Bender, Walters Bender Strohbehn & Vaughan, PC. Cargill International SA, Defendant, represented by Clifford M. Greene -- cgreene@greeneespel.com -- Greene Espel PLLP, Erin Sindberg Porter -- esindbergporter@greeneespel.com -- Greene Espel PLLP, Janine W. Kimble, Greene Espel PLLP, John W. Ursu -- jursu@greeneespel.com -- Greene Espel PLLP, Martin J. Phipps, Phipps Anderson Deacon LLP, Mikal C. Watts, Watts Guerra, LLP & X. Kevin Zhao -- kzhao@greeneespel.com -- Greene Espel PLLP. Syngenta Biotechnology, Inc., Third Party Plaintiff, represented by D. Scott Aberson -- scott.aberson@maslon.com -- Maslon Edelman Borman & Brand, LLP, David S. Chipman, CASA of Shawnee County, pro hac vice, Edwin J.U. -- edwin.u@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis, Michael D. Jones -- michael.jones@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis, Patrick F. Philbin -- patrick.philbin@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis & Thomas P. Schult -- tschult@berkowitzoliver.com -- Berkowitz Oliver Williams Shaw & Eisenbrandt, LLP. Syngenta Corporation, Third Party Plaintiff, represented by David S. Chipman, CASA of Shawnee County, pro hac vice. Syngenta Seeds, Inc., Third Party Plaintiff, represented by David S. Chipman, CASA of Shawnee County, pro hac vice. Cargill International SA, Defendant, represented by Clifford M. Greene, Greene Espel PLLP, Erin Sindberg Porter, Greene Espel PLLP, Janine W. Kimble, Greene Espel PLLP, John W. Ursu, Greene Espel PLLP, Martin J. Phipps, Phipps Anderson Deacon LLP, Mikal C. Watts, Watts Guerra, LLP & X. Kevin Zhao, Greene Espel PLLP. MDL 2741: Fuller Suit vs Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled MELISSA FULLER, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-01726, 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 Oct. 26, 2018. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-06542-VC to the proceeding. This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff 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 Sonnier 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] Attorneys for Plaintiff: D. Todd Mathews, Esq. Joseph B. Carnduff, Esq. 156 N. Main St. Edwardsville, IL 62025 Telephone: (618) 659-9833 Facsimile: (618) 659-9834 E-mail: todd@gorijulianlaw.com jcarnduff@gorijulianlaw.com MDL 2741: Lamb Suit vs. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled WILLIAM A. LAMB, and SARAH E. LAMB, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-00552, 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 Oct. 26, 2018. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-06541-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 Lamb 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] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Jennifer A. Moore, Esq. Ashton Rose Smith, Esq. GROSSMAN & MOORE, PLLC One Riverfront Plaza 401 West Main Street, Suite 1810 Louisville, KY 40202 Telephone: (502) 657-7100 Facsimile: (502) 657-7111 E-mail: jmoore@gminjurylaw.com asmith@gminjurylaw.com MECTA CORPORATION: Riera Appeals C.D. Calif. Ruling to 9th Cir. --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Jose Riera, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit titled Jose Riera, et al. v. Somatics, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-06686-RGK-PJW, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles. The appellate case is entitled Jose Riera, et al. v. Somatics, LLC, et al., Case No. 18-56470, filed in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit. That appellate case is styled as Jose Riera, et al. v. Mecta Corporation, et al., Case No. 18-80043. The Plaintiffs have sought certification of these classes: (1) All individuals in the United States who received ECT treatment in California, and suffered resulting injuries from May 28, 1982 through to the date of judgment, where such treatment was administered by an ECT device manufactured, sold, and/or distributed by either Defendant, Mecta or Somatics, after May 28, 1982; and (2) The spouses of the patients who have suffered related loss of consortium damages. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript must be ordered by November 29, 2018; -- Transcript is due on December 31, 2018; -- Appellants Daniel Benjamin, Marcia Benjamin, Deborah Chase, Michelle Himes, Jose Riera and Diane Scurrah's opening brief is due on February 7, 2019; -- Appellees Mecta Corporation and Somatics, LLC's answering brief is due on March 11, 2019; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants JOSE RIERA, DEBORAH CHASE, MICHELLE HIMES, DIANE SCURRAH, MARCIA BENJAMIN and DANIEL BENJAMIN, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: David M. Karen, Esq. DK LAW GROUP LLP 3155 Old Conejo Road Thousand Oaks, CA 91320 Telephone: (805) 498-1212 Facsimile: (805) 498-3030 E-mail: dk@dk4law.com Defendant-Appellee SOMATICS, LLC, is represented by: David Sean Poole, Esq. POOLE & SHAFFERY, LLP 25350 Magic Mountain Parkway Valencia, CA 91355 Telephone: (213) 439-5390 Facsimile: (213) 439-0183 E-mail: dpoole@pooleshaffery.com Defendant-Appellee MECTA CORPORATION is represented by: Ian Stewart, Esq. WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER LLP 555 S. Flower Street, Suite 2900 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2407 Telephone: (213) 443-5100 E-mail: ian.stewart@wilsonelser.com MIDLAND CREDIT: Vlastelica Sues over Debt Collection Practices -------------------------------------------------------------- DARLENE VLASTELICA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC, and ENCORE CAPITAL GROUP, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-07161 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 25, 2018), seeks to recover statutory damages, attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs of suit, under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. According to the complaint, Ms Darlene Vlastelica is a resident of the State of Illinois and natural person, from whom Defendants attempted to collect several delinquent consumer debts allegedly owed for a defaulted personal cell phone account and two defaulted credit card accounts used for personal or household purposes. Midland Credit Management, Inc. is engaged in the business of a collection agency, using the mails and telephone to collect defaulted consumer debts originally owed to others. The Defendants sent a collection letter to Plaintiff threatening to unlawfully report credit information to a third party, falsely representing that a debt was enforceable when in fact it was not, failing to inform Plaintiff that the partial payment it was seeking would in fact reset the statute of limitations on an alleged debt, thereby permitting Defendants to sue Plaintiff to enforce the debt, and misrepresenting the impact of agreeing to a settlement offer on an alleged debt, the lawsuit says. The Plaintiff has thus suffered an injury as a result of Defendants' conduct, giving rise to standing before this Court. Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1544 (2016), quoting Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 580 (1992) (Congress has the power to define injuries and articulate chains of causation that will give rise to a case or controversy where none existed before.); Bellwood v. Dwivedi, 895 F. 2d 1521, 1526-27 (7th Cir. 1990) ("Congress can create new substantive rights, such as a right to be free from misrepresentations, and if that right is invaded the holder of the right can sue without running afoul of Article III, even if he incurs no other injury."). The Plaintiff has a congressionally defined right to receive all communications from a debt collector free from any false representations and false threats.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Mario K. Kasalo, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF M. KRIS KASALO, LTD. 20 North Clark Street, Suite 3100 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: 312-726-6160 Facsimile: 312-698-5054 E-mail: mario.kasalo@kasalolaw.com - and - Michael J. Wood, Esq. Celetha Chatman, Esq. Community Lawyers Group, Ltd. 73 W. Monroe Street, Suite 514 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 757 1880 Facsimile: (312) 265 3227 E-mail: mwood@communitylawyersgroup.com cchatman@communitylawyersgroup.com MOMENTA PHARMACEUTICALS: Certification of Two Classes Sought ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as THE HOSPITAL AUTHORITY OF METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE, d/b/a NASHVILLE GENERAL HOSPITAL and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES DISTRICT COUNCIL 37 HEALTH & SECURITY PLAN, the Plaintiffs, vs. MOMENTA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. and SANDOZ INC., the Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-01100 (M.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order: 1. certifying Classes: Damages Class: "all persons and entities who indirectly purchased, paid for, and/or reimbursed some or all of the purchase price for, generic enoxaparin or Lovenox(TM), in Arizona, Arkansas, California, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin, from September 21, 2011, through September 30, 2015, for the purpose of personal consumption by themselves, their families, or their members, employees, insureds, participants, patients, beneficiaries or anyone else." Excluded from the proposed Damages Class are: a) Persons and entities who only bought for purposes of resale; b) Defendants, their officers, directors, management, employees, subsidiaries, and affiliates; c) Federal and state governmental agencies except for cities, towns, municipalities, counties or other municipal government entities, if otherwise qualified; d) Payors that received 100% reimbursement on all transactions, such as fully insured health plans (i.e., plans that purchased insurance covering 100% of their reimbursement obligation to members); e) Persons and entities who purchased, or paid or reimbursed only for branded Lovenox (TM), and not generic enoxaparin, from a pharmacy or other retail outlet; f) "Flat co-pay" consumers, whose only purchases were paid or reimbursed in part by a third-party payor, and whose copayment was the same regardless of the retail purchase price; and g) Judges assigned to this case and any members of their immediate families. Nationwide Injunctive Relief Class: "all persons and entities residing in the United States that, during the period from September 21, 2011, through the present (the ???Class Period???), indirectly purchased Lovenox (TM) or generic enoxaparin for their own use and not for resale." 2. appointing Plaintiffs as Class representatives; 3. appointing Lieff Cabraser as Class Counsel; and 4. excluding in its entirety the testimony of Dr. Cremieux.[CC] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Adam Gitlin, Esq. Brendan P. Glackin, Esq. Dean M. Harvey, Esq. Bruce W. Leppla, Esq. Katherine L. Benson, Esq. Mark P. Chalos, Esq. John T. Spragens, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 946111-3339 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 Facsimile: (415) 956-1008 Attorneys for Sandoz Inc.: Teresa T. Bonder (pro hac vice) Liz Brodway Brown (pro hac vice) D. Andrew Hatchett (pro hac vice) Michael P. Kenny (pro hac vice) Matthew D. Kent (pro hac vice) ALSTON & BIRD LLP One Atlantic Center 1201 West Peachtree Street Atlanta, GA 30309-3424 Telephone: (404) 881-7000 Facsimile: (404) 881-7777 - and - Timothy L. Warnock (TN Bar No. 12844) RILEY WARNOCK & JACOBSON, PLC 1906 West End Avenue Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 320-3700 Facsimile: (615) 320-3737 Attorneys for Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Jeremy Lowe, Esq. Jason T. Murata, Esq. Thomas G. Rohback, Esq. AXINN, VELTROP & HARKRIDER LLP 90 State House Square Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860) 275-8100 Facsimile: (860) 275-8101 - and - Richard B. Dagen, Esq. Bradley D. Justus, Esq. Michael L. Keeley, Esq. Daniel K. Oakes, Esq. AXINN, VELTROP & HARKRIDER LLP 950 F Street, NW Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 912-4700 Facsimile: (202) 912-4701 - and - R. Dale Grimes, Esq. Clark D. Milner, Esq. BASS, BERRY & SIMS PLC 150 Third Avenue South, Suite 2800 Nashville, TN 37201 Telephone: (615) 742-6200 MONSANTO COMPANY: Anderson Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup -------------------------------------------------------------- BRENDA ANDERSON, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-01827 (E.D. Mo., Oct. 26, 2018), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. 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. The Plaintiff brings this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[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 MONSANTO COMPANY: Bindon Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ------------------------------------------------------------ ANNETTE A. BINDON, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-01854 (E.D. Mo., Oct. 29, 2018), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiffs maintain 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. The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth S. Webb #51236 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 MONSANTO COMPANY: Calkins et al Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ------------------------------------------------------------------ DENNIS CALKINS and MARY CALKINS, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-01828 (E.D. Mo., Oct. 26, 2018), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiffs maintain 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 Plaintiffs' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[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 MONSANTO COMPANY: Hogan Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ----------------------------------------------------------- MARTHA HOGAN, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-01822 (E.D. Mo., Oct. 26, 2018), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintain 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 Plaintiffs' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[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 MONSANTO COMPANY: Jarrett Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ------------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM E. JARRETT, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-01823 (E.D. Mo., Oct. 26, 2018), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintain 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 Plaintiffs' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[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 MONSANTO COMPANY: Kruppas Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ------------------------------------------------------------ ALEXANDER KRUPPA and DINAH KRUPPA, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-01825 (E.D. Mo., Oct. 26, 2018), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiffs maintain 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 Plaintiffs' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[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 NABORS INDUSTRIES: Consolidated Class Action in Texas Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------- Nabors Industries Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company continues to defend a consolidated class action suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. On September 29, 2017, Nabors and Nabors Maple Acquisition Ltd. were sued, along with Tesco Corporation ("Tesco") and its Board of Directors, in a putative shareholder class action filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. The plaintiff alleges that the September 18, 2017 Preliminary Proxy Statement filed by Tesco with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission omitted material information with respect to the proposed transaction between Tesco and Nabors announced on August 14, 2017. The plaintiff claims that the omissions rendered the Proxy Statement false and misleading, constituting a violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and alleges liability by Nabors as a control person of Tesco. The court consolidated several matters and entered a lead plaintiff appointment order. The plaintiff filed their amended complaint, adding Nabors Industries, Ltd. as a party. Nabors has filed its motion to dismiss and will vehemently defend itself against the allegations. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Nabors Industries Ltd. provides drilling and drilling-related services and technologies for land-based and offshore oil and natural gas wells. It operates through five segments: U.S., Canada, International, Drilling Solutions, and Rig Technologies. The company offers equipment manufacturing, rig instrumentation, optimization software, and directional drilling services. Nabors Industries Ltd. was founded in 1952 and is headquartered in Hamilton, Bermuda. NECESSARY CLOTHING: Sued by Garey Over Disabilities Act Breach -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Necessary Clothing, Inc. The case is styled as Kevin Garey on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Necessary Clothing, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10574 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 13, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Necessary Clothing Inc is a privately held company in New York, NY and is a Single Location business, categorized under Clothing Stores.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Shalom, Esq. The Law Offices of Jonathan Shalom 124-04 Metropolitan Avenue Kew Gardens, NY 11374 Phone: (516) 807-1748 Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com NEW YORK ADORNED: Garey Sues Piercing Shop for ADA Breach --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against New York Adorned, Inc. The case is styled as Kevin Garey on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. New York Adorned, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10509 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 13, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. New York Adorned, Inc., was established in 1996 by Lori Leven before the ban on tattooing was lifted in NYC. They are a piercing and jewelry store that believes in the power of individual creativity and collaborative effort.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Shalom, Esq. The Law Offices of Jonathan Shalom 124-04 Metropolitan Avenue Kew Gardens, NY 11374 Phone: (516) 807-1748 Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com NEWALTA ENVIRONMENTAL: Bid to Strike Third-Party Complaint in Berry ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CHRIS BERRYMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NEWALTA ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC., Defendant/Third-party Defendant. v. SMITH MANAGEMENT AND CONSULTING, LLC, Third-party Defendant, Civil Action No. 18-793 (W.D. Pa.), Judge Nora Barry Discher of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania denied Berryman's motion to strike or sever Newelta's third-party complaint. The labor law dispute involves alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act ("PMWA"). In his complaint, Berryman avers that Newalta employed him to perform services as a solids control technician in the oil and gas industry. He alleges that Newalta improperly classified him and other similarly situated workers as independent contractors to avoid paying them overtime. He therefore brings the class-action suit to recover overtime pay under the FLSA and the PMWA. In response, Newalta asserts that it is not an employer for purposes of the FLSA or PMWA. Although Newalta admits that Berryman performed some very limited services for the company, it claims that Smith Management and Consulting, LLC employed him for those services. Newalta further asserts that Smith Management was a third-party services provider for Newalta and that Smith Management was responsible for paying Berryman. Newalta filed a third-party complaint against Smith Consulting on July 23, 2018. There, Newalta asserts that Smith Management controlled all aspects of Berryman's employment. It also claims that, to the extent there was any violation of the FLSA or PMWA, Smith Management is fully liable for such violation, not Newalta. Accordingly, Newalta brings forth claims for breach of contract, common law indemnity, and contribution. On Aug. 13, 2018, Berryman filed a motion to strike or sever Newalta's third-party complaint. Citing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14, he claims that the third-party complaint is wholly improper because the employer cannot contract around FLSA obligations. In other words, Berryman argues that the FLSA does not allow an employer to seek indemnity or contribution. He further contends that the Court does not have diversity or supplemental jurisdiction over the claims in the third-party complaint. Finally, he argues that it would be inefficient for the court to hear the claims in the third-party complaint in this current class-action suit. With that legal framework in mind, Judge Discher turns to the sufficiency of the third-party complaint. First, as long as Newalta brought a proper third-party complaint, the Court has no difficulty in finding subject matter jurisdiction. Second, third-party complaints are proper under Rule 14 provided that the pleadings provide a basis for the third-party defendant's liability to the defendant/third-party plaintiff. Finally, the Judge disagrees with Berryman to the extent he argues that it would be "inefficient" to allow the third-party complaint to proceed in the suit. Judge Discher concludes that to the extent Newalta seeks indemnification or contribution for relief under the FLSA, those claims are preempted and will be dismissed with prejudice. The third-party complaint is otherwise proper. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the claims in the third-party complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1367(a). Additionally, the third-party complaint comports with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14(a). Finally, the third-party claims should be heard in the suit to further judicial efficiency and to prevent the necessity of trying related claims in different lawsuits. Accordingly she denied Berryman's motion. An appropriate order follows. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 31, 2018 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://is.gd/TJanrC from Leagle.com. CHRIS BERRYMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew W. Dunlap -- adunlap@mybackwages.com -- Josephson Dunlap Law Firm, Michael A. Josephson -- mjosephson@mybackwages.com -- Josephson Dunlap Law Firm, Jennifer Solak , Josephson Dunlap Law Firm, pro hac vice, Joshua P. Geist -- josh@goodrichandgeist.com -- Goodrich & Geist, P.C. & Richard J. Burch -- rburch@brucknerburch.com -- Bruckner Burch PLLC. NEWALTA ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC., Defendant, represented by Rebecca B. Decook -- becky.decook@moyewhite.com -- Moye White LLP, pro hac vice, Andrew T. Flynn -- andrew.flynn@moyewhite.com -- Moye White LLP, pro hac vice, Bruce C. Fox -- bruce.fox@obermayer.com -- Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel LLP, Jeffrey B. Cadle -- jeffrey.cadle@obermayer.com -- BNY Mellon Center & Rachel E. Yeates -- rachel.yeates@moyewhite.com -- Moye White LLP, pro hac vice. NEWALTA ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC., ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by Andrew T. Flynn, Moye White LLP, pro hac vice, Rebecca B. Decook, Moye White LLP, Bruce C. Fox, Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel LLP, Jeffrey B. Cadle, BNY Mellon Center & Rachel E. Yeates, Moye White LLP. SMITH MANAGEMENT AND CONSULTING, LLC, ThirdParty Defendant, represented by Daniel D. Fassio -- dfassio@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP. OAK NYC APPAREL: Faces ADA Class Action in New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Oak NYC Apparel Co., L.P. The case is styled as Kevin Garey on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Oak NYC Apparel Co., L.P., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10506 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 13, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Oak NYC Apparel Co., L.P. is a privately held company in Brooklyn, NY, categorized under Boutiques.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Shalom, Esq. The Law Offices of Jonathan Shalom 124-04 Metropolitan Avenue Kew Gardens, NY 11374 Phone: (516) 807-1748 Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com OKLAHOMA: Court Dismisses Fishinghawk Suit Without Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Scott L. Palk of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma dismissed without prejudice the case, EVAN C. FISHINGHAWK, Plaintiff, v. CARL BEAR, WARDEN, et al., Defendants, Case No. CIV-18-926-SLP (W.D. Okla.). The Plaintiff, a state prisoner appearing pro se, brings the action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 alleging violations of his federal constitutional rights. The matter was referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge Shon T. Erwin pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(B)-(C) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On Oct. 16, 2018, Judge Erwin issued a Report and Recommendation in which he recommended the Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed without prejudice due to the Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court's Order directing the Plaintiff to either pay the $400 filing fee or submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis conforming to the statutory requirements of 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a)(2) on Oct. 11, 2018. In the Report and Recommendation, Judge Erwin advised the Plaintiff of his right to object to the findings set forth therein and further advised him that failure to timely object would constitute a waiver of his right to appellate review of the factual and legal matters in the Report and Recommendation. On Oct. 26, 2018, the Plaintiff submitted what appears to be an objection to the Report and Recommendation. He states he has no funds to appeal and has turned the case into a class action and references a class action complaint mailed on Oct. 18, 2018. A review of the Court's docket demonstrates that he did commence a separate action purportedly as a class action by filing a complaint on Oct. 19, 2018. The Plaintiff does not object to the findings set forth in the Report and Recommendation or attempt to demonstrate cause for his failure to cure the deficiencies noted by the Court. Instead, he states that he objects to not refiling and asks that if the Court dismisses his action, it do so without prejudice so that the Plaintiff can "file properly." Although the Court could construe the Plaintiff's submission as a notice of voluntary dismissal, Judge Palk declined to do so. The Plaintiff has demonstrated his ability to file a notice of voluntary dismissal in other litigation before the Court and did not expressly do so in the action. Instead, the Judge adopted the Report and Recommendation and dismissed the action without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) based on the Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court's Order. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 31, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/UNgGIu from Leagle.com. Evan C. Fishinghawk, Plaintiff, pro se. OLIVE & BETTE'S: Garey Files Class Action Under ADA --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Olive & Bette's Co., LLC. The case is styled as Kevin Garey on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Olive & Bette's Co., LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10510 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 13, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Olive and Bette's Co., Inc. designs and retails apparel for women. It also offers accessories. The company offers its products through its boutiques and a Web boutique.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Shalom, Esq. The Law Offices of Jonathan Shalom 124-04 Metropolitan Avenue Kew Gardens, NY 11374 Phone: (516) 807-1748 Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com OPTIMUM HEALTHCARE: $4.9MM Arrington Suit Deal Has Final Approval ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ANDREA ARRINGTON, ET AL. v. OPTIMUM HEALTHCARE IT, LLC, Civil Action No. 17-3950 (E.D. Pa.), Judge R. Barclay Surrick, J. of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted both (i) the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Approval of Settlement of Class and Collective Action, and (ii) the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Approval of Attorneys' Fees and Costs Arrington, Terry Scott, Lakina Taylor, and Jarmond Johnson, on behalf of themselves and the putative class, request the Court's final approval of a negotiated collective and class action settlement with Defendant Optimum, which would resolve their claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the wage hour statutes of various states, including Pennsylvania. The Court previously granted the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval. The Plaintiffs now seek final certification of their settlement class and final approval of the class and collective action settlement. The Plaintiffs also seek approval of attorneys' fees and costs. The proposed Settlement Agreement provides for a gross settlement amount of $4.9 million. The parties have agreed that this amount will be distributed in three installments. The first 50% of the gross settlement amount, $2.45 million, will be wired to a settlement escrow account on Dec. 1, 2018. The second installment of $500,000 will be wired to the settlement escrow account on June 1, 2019. Finally, the third installment of $1.95 million will be wired to the settlement escrow account on Dec. 1, 2019. The parties have also agreed to deduct the following amounts from the gross settlement: (1) service awards of $7,500 for each of the named Plaintiffs; (2) attorneys' fees in an amount of one-third of the gross settlement amount, or $1,633,333.33; and (3) the class counsel's reasonable out of pocket costs in the amount of $21,091.56. These amounts subtracted from the gross settlement amount results in a net settlement amount of $3,215,576. Each of the "Eligible Class Members" will be paid a settlement award from this net settlement amount. Eligible Class Members include the named Plaintiffs, any opt-in Plaintiffs and the settlement class members who have submitted claim forms. The amount of each award will be determined in accordance with the number of overtime hours the Eligible Class Member worked during the class period. Based on the number of claims that class counsel has received, they predict that settlement class members who have submitted valid claims forms will receive, on average, $1,487.57. In exchange for this amount, the Settlement Class Members, including the named Plaintiffs, will provide a release to Optimum that is limited to the alleged claims in the Amended Complaint. The release is not a general release, and only releases claims related to wage and hour/unpaid overtime claims. In addition, the release of FLSA claims applies only to "Eligible Class Members," which includes Plaintiffs, Opt-in Plaintiffs, and Settlement Class Members who submitted claim forms. Those class members who did not submit claim forms do not release their claims. A hearing on the final approval of the proposed settlement was held on Sept. 17, 2018. During the hearing, the parties notified the Court of certain amendments to the payment terms contained in the Settlement Agreement. The parties determined that these amendments were necessary to address the declining financial condition of Optimum. Based upon the parties' representations at the hearing, Judge Surrick concluded that the Settlement Agreement, including the proposed changes, was fair and reasonable. He also concluded that the award of attorneys' fees as requested by the class counsel was fair and reasonable. For these foregoing reasons, the Judge granted the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Approval of Settlement of Class and Collective Action and the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Approval of Attorneys' Fees and Costs. An appropriate Order follows. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 31, 2018 Memorandum is available at https://is.gd/yNsiFm from Leagle.com. ANDREA ARRINGTON & TERRY SCOTT, Plaintiffs, represented by DAVID M. BLANCHARD -- blanchard@bwlawonline.com -- BLANCHARD & WALKER PLLC, ERIC LECHTZIN -- elechtzin@bm.net -- BERGER MONTAGUE PC, HAROLD L. LICHTEN -- hlichten@llrlaw.com -- LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN PC, OLENA SAVYTSKA -- osavytska@llrlaw.com -- LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN PC, SHANON J. CARSON -- scarson@bm.net -- BERGER MONTAGUE PC & CAMILLE FUNDORA -- cfundora@bm.net -- Berger Montague PC. JARMOND JOHNSON & LAKINA TAYLOR, Plaintiffs, represented by HAROLD L. LICHTEN, LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN PC, SHANON J. CARSON, BERGER MONTAGUE PC & ERIC LECHTZIN, BERGER MONTAGUE PC. OPTIMUM HEALTHCARE IT, LLC, Defendant, represented by CRAIG BENSON -- cbenson@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C., MARC D. ESTEROW -- mesterow@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. & MATTHEW J. HANK -- mhank@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.. PBF ENERGY: Removed Kendig Case to Central District of California ----------------------------------------------------------------- PBF Energy Limited and Torrance Refining Company LLC remove the case captioned as MICHELLE KENDIG and JIM KENDIG, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated current and former employees, the Plaintiffs, vs. EXXONMOBIL OIL CORP.; EXXONMOBIL PIPELINE COMPANY; PBF ENERGY LIMITED; TORRANCE REFINING COMPANY, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. BC 722119, from the Los Angeles Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Oct. 26, 2018. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-09224 to the proceeding. The complaint concerns alleged breaches of Defendants' obligations to authorize and permit rest periods and to furnish timely and accurate wage statements, pursuant to California Labor Code.[BN] Attorneys for Defendants PBF Energy Limited and Torrance Refining Company LLC: Gary T. Lafayette, Esq. Barbara L. Lyons, Esq. LAFAYETTE & KUMAGAI LLP 1300 Clay Street, Suite 810 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 357-4600 Facsimile: (415) 357-4605 PERCEPTA LLC: Renewed Bid to Certify Collective Action Denied ------------------------------------------------------------- LAUREN LAYTON, TAHARRIA HAMILTON, DEBORAH ESTES and LISA DAVINO, the Plaintiffs, v. PERCEPTA, LLC, the Defendant, Case 6:17-cv-01488-CEM-DCI (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Carlos E. Mendoza entered an order on Oct. 29, 2018: 1. adopting and confirming a Report and Recommendation submitted by Magistrate Judge Daniel C. Irick and making a part of this Order; and 2. denying Plaintiffs' renewed motion to conditionally certify a collective action.[CC] PETER MANNING: Garey Files Class Suit Asserting ADA Breach ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Peter Manning LLC. The case is styled as Kevin Garey on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Peter Manning LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10570 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 13, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Peter Manning LLC is a privately held company in New York, NY and is a Headquarters business, categorized under Wholesale Men's Apparel.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Shalom, Esq. The Law Offices of Jonathan Shalom 124-04 Metropolitan Avenue Kew Gardens, NY 11374 Phone: (516) 807-1748 Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com PLS CHECK: Fails to Supply Sufficient Uniforms to Staff, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ JESENA SOLIMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. PLS CHECK CASHIERS OF NEW YORK, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 159898/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Oct. 25, 2018), seeks to recover damages and other legal and equitable relief against Defendant under the New York State Labor Law, the New York Code of Rules and Regulations, and the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act. According to the complaint, Defendant is not employer in the Hospitality Industry, but rather, owns and operates check cashing facilities. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a cashier/teller from August 15, 2016 through present. The Plaintiff worked approximately five to six days per week with shifts lasting from eight to ten hours. Defendant required Plaintiff and the Class to wear a uniform consisting of a shirt emblazoned with Defendant's logo for each of shift worked. Defendant only provided Plaintiff and the Class with one to three uniforms each despite each them working five or more days per week. Defendant failed to supply sufficient articles of uniform clothing consistent with the average number of days per week worked by Plaintiff and the Class. Defendant did not launder Plaintiff or the Class's required uniforms, nor did Defendant offer to launder them. The Plaintiff and the Class's uniforms were issued by Defendant for the express benefit of Defendant and it was a condition of their employment to wear them during each shift. The Defendant never paid any uniform maintenance pay or reimbursement for the cost of maintaining uniforms. The Plaintiff and the Class routinely spent time off-the-clock and money to clean and maintain their uniforms consistent with the uniform appearance standards Defendant required, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Mark Gaylord, Esq. BOUKLAS GAYLORD LLP Attorneys for Plaintiffs 400 Jericho Turnpike Suite 226 Jericho, NY 11753 Telephone: (516) 742-4949 Facsimile: (516) 742-1977 PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Court Certifies Class in Pozzuolo Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned ROBERT J. POZZUOLO, and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, the Defendant., Case No. 2:18-cv-01797-TJS (E.D. Pa), the Hon. Judge Timothy J. Savage entered an order on Oct. 25, 2018: 1. granting Plaintiff's motion for class certification of: "a) All persons with addresses within Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania; b) who were sent a two-sided initial collection letter from Defendant PRA; c) attempting to collect a consumer debt alleged due in connection with a Capital One Bank (USA), N.A. account; d) which stated "DISPUTES: Call 1-800-772-1413 [or other telephone number] or write to Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Disputes Department", e) where the letter bears a send date of April 27, 2017 through the date of this class certification Order"; 2. designating Robert Pozzuolo as Class Representative, and authorizing Cary L. Flitter, Andrew M. Milz, and Jody T. Lopez- Jacobs of the Flitter Milz, P.C. firm to serve as Class Counsel for the Class; 3. directing parties to confer Notice and any proposed Class Action Notice Administration firm and directing Plaintiff to submit a proposed form of Class notification to the Court for review and approval within 20 days of this Order; and 4. directing Defendant to produce a Class List with names and last known address to Plaintiff???s counsel within 20 days of this Order for use in mailing Notice to the Class.[CC] Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class: Cary L. Flitter, Esq. Drew M. Milz, Esq. Jody T. Lopez-Jacobs, Esq. FLITTER MILZ , P.C. 450 N. Narberth Avenue, Suite 101 Narberth, PA 19072 Telephone: (610) 822-0782 PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Pariot Suit Asserts FDCPA Violation ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC. The case is styled as Latasha Pariot, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-09614 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 14, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, also known as Anchor Receivables Management, manages past-due accounts. It serves customers through account representatives.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Aaron Stieglitz, Esq. Law Offices of Jonathan A Stieglitz 11845 West Olympic Boulevard Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Phone: (323) 979-2063 Fax: (323) 488-6748 Email: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com PORTLAND GENERAL: Appeal in Trojan Class Action Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Portland General Electric Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 26, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the Court of Appeals for the State of Oregon has yet to issue a decision on plaintiffs' appeal related to customer class action lawsuits. In 1993, Portland General Electric Company (PGE) closed the Trojan nuclear power plant (Trojan) and sought full recovery of, and a rate of return on, its Trojan costs in a general rate case filing with the OPUC. In 1995, the Public Utility Commission of Oregon (OPUC) issued a general rate order that granted the Company recovery of, and a rate of return on, 87% of its remaining investment in Trojan. Numerous challenges and appeals were subsequently filed in various state courts on the issue of the OPUC's authority under Oregon law to grant recovery of, and a return on, the Trojan investment. In 2007, following several appeals by various parties, the Oregon Court of Appeals issued an opinion that remanded the matter to the OPUC for reconsideration. In 2003, in two separate legal proceedings, lawsuits were filed against PGE on behalf of two classes of electric service customers: i) Dreyer, Gearhart and Kafoury Bros., LLC v. Portland General Electric Company, Marion County Circuit Court; and ii) Morgan v. Portland General Electric Company, Marion County Circuit Court. The class action lawsuits seek damages totaling $260 million, plus interest, as a result of the Company's inclusion, in prices charged to customers, of a return on its investment in Trojan. In August 2006, the Oregon Supreme Court (OSC) issued a ruling ordering the abatement of the class action proceedings. The OSC concluded that the OPUC had primary jurisdiction to determine what, if any, remedy could be offered to PGE customers, through price reductions or refunds, for any amount of return on the Trojan investment that the Company collected in prices. In 2008, the OPUC issued an order (2008 Order) that required PGE to provide refunds of $33 million, including interest, which refunds were completed in 2010. Following appeals, the 2008 Order was upheld by the Oregon Court of Appeals in 2013 and by the OSC in 2014. In June 2015, based on a motion filed by PGE, the Marion County Circuit Court (Circuit Court) lifted the abatement on the class action proceedings and in July 2015, heard oral argument on the Company's motion for Summary Judgment. In March 2016, the Circuit Court entered a general judgment that granted the Company's motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed all claims by the plaintiffs. In April 2016, the plaintiffs appealed the Circuit Court dismissal to the Court of Appeals for the State of Oregon. A Court of Appeals decision remains pending. PGE believes that the 2014 OSC decision and the Circuit Court decisions that followed have reduced the risk of any loss to the Company beyond the amounts previously recorded and discussed above. However, because the class actions remain subject to a decision in the appeal, management believes that it is reasonably possible that such a loss to the Company could result. As these matters involve unsettled legal theories and have a broad range of potential outcomes, sufficient information is currently not available to determine the amount of any such loss. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Portland General Electric Company, an integrated electric utility company, engages in the generation, wholesale purchase, transmission, distribution, and retail sale of electricity in the state of Oregon. The company operates seven thermal plants; seven hydroelectric plants; and two wind farms. The company was founded in 1930 and is headquartered in Portland, Oregon. PRIME COMMUNICATIONS: Appeals Order in Lorenzo Suit to 4th Cir. --------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Prime Communications, L.P., filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Rose Lorenzo v. Prime Communications, L.P., Case No. 5:12-cv-00069-H-KS, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina at Raleigh. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the District Court denied the Defendant's Motion to Decertify Class and granted the Defendant's Alternative Motion to Amend Class Definition. The Court previously certified this Fair Labor Standards Act class: All natural persons employed by Prime Communications, L.P., in retail stores and kiosks in the State of North Carolina from May 4, 2010 to November 30, 2013 who were paid commissions or bonuses during that same period based on point of sales transactions. The appellate case is captioned as Rose Lorenzo v. Prime Communications, L.P., Case No. 18-2297, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Opening Brief and Appendix are due on December 10, 2018; and -- Response Brief is due on January 9, 2019.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee ROSE LORENZO, and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Zev H. Antell, Esq. Harris D. Butler, Esq. BUTLER ROYALS, PLC 140 Virginia Street Richmond, VA 23219-0000 Telephone: (804) 648-4848 E-mail: zev.antell@butlerroyals.com harris.butler@butlerroyals.com - and - Stephen A. Dunn, Esq. EMANUEL & DUNN 130 South Salisbury Street P. O. Box 426 Raleigh, NC 27602-0000 Telephone: (919) 792-3703 E-mail: sdunn@emanuelanddunn.com Defendant-Appellant PRIME COMMUNICATIONS, L.P., a Texas General Partnership, is represented by: Thomas M. Miller, Esq. John W. Smith, Esq. BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS, LLP 1819 5th Avenue, N Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 521-8243 E-mail: mmiler@bradley.com jsmth@bradley.com - and - Amy Elizabeth Puckett, Esq. Avery A. Simmons, Esq. BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS, LLP 214 North Tryon Street Charlotte, NC 28202 Telephone: (704) 332-6000 E-mail: apuckett@bradley.com asimmons@bradley.com - and - Scott Burnett Smith, Esq. BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS, LLP 200 Clintion Avenue West Huntsville, AL 35801-0000 Telephone: (256) 517-5100 E-mail: ssmith@bradley.com PROJECT BUILDERS: Medina Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------ OMAR MEDINA, On Behalf of Himself And All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. PROJECT BUILDERS CONSTRUCTION CORP., PROJECT BUILDERS GROUP LLC, MAXIE DEVELOPMENT LLC, BESSIE GIANNOPULOS, PARIS GIANNOPULOS and WILLIAM MADDEN, the Defendants, Case 1:18-cv-06336 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 7, 2018), seeks to recover damages and equitable relief based upon Defendants' flagrant and willful violations of Plaintiffs' rights guaranteed to them by the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act; the overtime provisions of New York Labor Law; the requirement that employers furnish employees with wage statements on each payday containing specific categories of information under the NYLL section 195(3); and the requirement that employers furnish employees with a wage notice at the time of hiring containing specific categories of accurate information, NYLL section 195(1). According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for Defendants -- construction companies and their owners/managers -- as a carpenter and/or laborer from in or about July 1, 2015 until July 25, 2017. Throughout his employment, the Defendants required Plaintiff to work, and Plaintiff did work, at least 51 hours a week. However, Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff at the overtime rate of pay of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for each hour that Plaintiff worked per week in excess of forty, as the FLSA and the NYLL require. Furthermore, Defendants failed to furnish Plaintiff with accurate and/or complete wage statements on each payday as the NYLL requires or provide Plaintiff with a wage notice containing the criteria enumerated under the NYLL. The Defendants paid and treated of all their non-managerial employees who worked for them in the same manner, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Louis M. Leon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM CAFARO 108 West 39 th Street, Suite 602 New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (212) 583-7400 E-mail: LLeon@Cafaroesg.com QUALITY CUSTOM: D. Hession's Suit Remanded to Colo. State Court --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge R. Brooke Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado remanded the case, DREW HESSION, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. QUALITY CUSTOM DISTRIBUTION SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Civil Action No 18-cv-01867-RBJ (D. Colo.), to Arapahoe County District Court. Thhe Plaintiff moves to remand the case to state court, arguing that the Defendant has not established that the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000, and therefore, the Court does not have diversity jurisdiction. Hession was employed by QCD as a warehouse worker from November 2017 to April 2018. He alleges that he and "dozens" of employees on his team regularly worked more than 12 hours per shift, but that QCD did not pay them for all the time he and the others worked and did not pay them overtime compensation required by Colorado law. He filed the suit in the Arapahoe County District Court on June 20, 2018 on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated. QCD removed the case to the Court, invoking federal jurisdiction on grounds of diversity of citizenship pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section The Plaintiff does not dispute that there is diversity of citizenship between him and QCD. However, he insists that the amount in controversy now, i.e., claimed by him individually, does not exceed the sum or value of $75,000 as required by 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a). QCD disagrees. In its Notice of Removal it stated that adding its estimate of the Plaintiff's attorney's fees in the amount of $106,400 to the $3,600 estimated damages for Mr. Hession, QCD arrives at a grand total amount in controversy of $110,032.07. The Plaintiff notes that such an attorney's fee would be approximately 30 times the estimated damages and would not be remotely proportional to the estimated damages. He notes that his case at this point is simply an individual action with a prayer for class action certification that has not been ruled on, and that as such, there is no possibility that Mr. Hession's individual damages plus reasonable attorney's fees could reach $75,000. Judge Jackson agrees that the Court does not, at this time, have subject matter jurisdiction. He agree that thes Court would not consider awarding attorney's fees in the range of teh Defendant's estimates on the type and size of Mr. Hession's individual claim. Even if he were to include taxable costs and pre-judgment interest, an award exceeding $75,000 on his individual claim would not be reasonable. Nor would the Court permit the discovery envisioned by the Defendant for an individual claim of $3,600 in unpaid wages and overtime, as that level of discovery would be grossly disproportionate to the size of the claim. Moreover, the Judge interpretes the Plaintiff's statements in the motion to remand and reply brief as implicit if not explicit representations that they would not request an attorney's fee that would cause the amount in controversy to exceed $75,000. The elephant in the room, of course, is that the Plaintiff hopes to get a class certified on behalf of the purported "dozens" of workers whom they claim to have be similarly situated. If a class were certified, then it might be that the amount in controversy would exceed $75,000. At that point, if the addition of class members has not destroyed diversity, the Defendant could potentially be in a position to try removal again. That, however, is a question for another day. At this point, the Judge finds that QCD has not established a basis for federal jurisdiction. For these reasons, Judge Jackson granted the Plaintiff's motion to remand, and remanded the case to the Arapahoe County District Court. He denied as moot the Defendant's motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, to stay proceedings and compel arbitration. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 2, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/ZFwF5s from Leagle.com. Drew Hession, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Adam Murdoch-Kitt Harrison -- AHarrison@sawayalaw.com -- Sawaya Law Firm & David H. Miller -- DMiller@sawayalaw.com -- Sawaya Law Firm. Quality Custom Distribution Services, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jonathan Helmsley Geneus -- Jonathan.Geneus@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis, P.C. & Ryan Paul Lessmann -- Ryan.Lessmann@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis, P.C.. QUANTA SERVICES: Continues to Defend Benton Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Quanta Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company continues to defend itself in Lorenzo Benton v. Telecom Network Specialists, Inc., et al. In June 2006, plaintiff Lorenzo Benton filed a class action complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, alleging various wage and hour violations against Telecom Network Specialists (TNS), a former subsidiary of Quanta. Quanta retained liability associated with this matter pursuant to the terms of Quanta's sale of TNS in December 2012. Benton represents a class of workers that includes all persons who worked on certain TNS projects, including individuals that TNS retained through numerous staffing agencies. The plaintiff class in this matter is seeking damages for unpaid wages, penalties associated with the failure to provide meal and rest periods and overtime wages, interest and attorneys' fees. In January 2017, the trial court granted a summary judgment motion filed by the plaintiff class and found that TNS was a joint employer of the class members and that it failed to provide adequate meal and rest breaks and failed to pay overtime wages. In February 2018, a hearing was held on a final motion for summary judgment on damages filed by the plaintiff class seeking approximately $11.1 million for its claims; however, a final determination regarding the amount of damages was not made. Quanta believes the court's decision on liability is not supported by controlling law and continues to contest its liability and the damage calculation asserted by the plaintiff class in this matter. Additionally, in November 2007, TNS filed cross complaints for indemnity and breach of contract against the staffing agencies, which employed many of the individuals in question. In December 2012, the trial court heard cross-motions for summary judgment filed by TNS and the staffing agencies pertaining to TNS's demand for indemnity. The court denied TNS's motion and granted the motions filed by the staffing agencies; however, the California Appellate Court reversed the trial court's decision in part and instructed the trial court to reconsider its ruling. In February 2017, the court denied a new motion for summary judgment filed by the staffing companies and has since stated that the staffing companies would be liable to TNS for any damages owed to the class members that the staffing companies employed. Quanta Services said, "The final amount of liability, if any, payable in connection with this matter remains the subject of pending litigation and will ultimately depend on various factors, including the outcome of Quanta's appeal of the trial court's ruling on liability, the final determination with respect to any damages owed by Quanta, and the solvency of the staffing agencies. Based on review and analysis of the trial court's rulings on liability, Quanta does not believe, at this time, that it is probable this matter will result in a material loss. However, if Quanta is unsuccessful in this litigation and the staffing agencies are unable to fund damages owed to class members, Quanta believes the range of reasonably possible loss to Quanta upon final resolution of this matter could be up to approximately $11.1 million, plus attorneys' fees and expenses of the plaintiff class." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Quanta Services, Inc. provides specialty contracting services to the electric power, communication, and oil and gas industries in the United States, Canada, Australia, Latin America, and internationally. Quanta Services, Inc. was founded in 1997 and is headquartered in Houston, Texas. RABBEX LLC: Medero Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------- ORLANDO MEDERO, and other similarly-situated individuals, the Plaintiff (s), v. RABBEX LLC and FRANCISCO DIEZ, individually, the Defendants, Case 1:18-cv-24501-CMA (S.D. Fla., Oct. 27, 2018), seeks to recover money damages for unpaid half-time overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was hired to work as a laborer/production employee at Defendants' processing plant. The Plaintiff was a full time non-exempt hourly employee, working 5-6 days per week more than 40 hours every week. The Plaintiff was entitled to be paid for overtime hours as established by the FLSA. The Plaintiff and all other current and former employees similarly situated to Plaintiff worked during one or more weeks on or after October 2017 without being properly compensated for overtime hours at the rate of time-and-a-half their regular rate, for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorney for Plaintiff: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com RED ROBIN: Mina Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages --------------------------------------------------- MARK MINA, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. RED ROBIN INTERNATIONAL, INC.; RED ROBIN GOURMET BURGERS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-09472 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 7, 2018), alleges that Red Robin has violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Ac through its unauthorized contact of consumers on the consumers' respective cellular telephones, by sending consumers unsolicited text messages for marketing and advertising purposes, without prior express written consent, invading the consumers' right to privacy. According to the complaint, Red Robin is a restaurant chain with over 500 restaurants throughout the United States and Canada. Red Robin offers a loyalty program called "Red Robin Royalty" to drive guest traffic and build brand awareness by providing loyalty guests with various incentives and rewards. Red Robin regularly promoted, and continues to promote, the Red Robin Royalty program through text message marketing. Red Robin does so, at least in part, because text message marketing is a relatively inexpensive way to reach out to restaurant guests that enables Red Robin to compete with restaurant chains that have larger marketing resources and more extensive marketing strategies, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Marc L. Godino, Esq. Danielle L. Manning, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: info@glancylaw.com - and - Mark S. Greenstone, Esq. GREENSTONE LAW APC 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9156 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: mgreenstone@greenstonelaw.com - and - Michael J. Jaurigue, Esq. Ryan A. Stubbe, Esq. JAURIGUE LAW GROUP 300 West Glenoaks Boulevard, Suite 300 Glendale, CA 91202 Telephone: (818) 630-7280 Facsimile: (888) 879-1697 E-mail: michael@jlglawyers.com ryan@jlglawyers.com REISS USA: Violates ADA, Garey Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Reiss USA Limited. The case is styled as Kevin Garey on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Reiss USA Limited, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10514 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 13, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Reiss Ltd. engages in the manufacture of design-led menswear, womenswear, and accessories. It offers men's suits and tailoring, blazers, coats and jackets, knitwear, shirts, tops, trousers, jeans, shoes, accessories, bags, and underwear; women's dresses, jumpsuits, tops, knitwear, coats and jackets, suiting, skirts, trousers, jeans, bags, shoes, and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Shalom, Esq. The Law Offices of Jonathan Shalom 124-04 Metropolitan Avenue Kew Gardens, NY 11374 Phone: (516) 807-1748 Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com RITE CHECK: Violates Disabilities Act, Tucker Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rite Check Cashing Inc. The case is styled as Henry Tucker on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Rite Check Cashing Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10613 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 14, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Rite Check Cashing Inc provides banking services. The Bank offers personal banking, wealth management, loans, savings accounts, leasing, retirement plans, investment management, and insurance services. Rite Check Cashing serves customers in the State of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq. Cohen & Mizrahi LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (917) 299-6612 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal ROCKWATER ENERGY: Tuggle Seeks to Certify Wellsite Personnel Class ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES TUGGLE, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ROCKWATER ENERGY SOLUTIONS, INC., the Defendant, Case 5:18-cv-00595-OLG (W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to conditionally certify and send Court-approved notice to the Putative Class Members: "all day rate wellsite personnel who worked as consultants for Rockwater Energy Solutions, Inc. any time during the past 3 years."[CC] Attorneys in Charge for Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Clif Alexander, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER , PLLC 819 North Upper Broadway Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq, BRUCKNER BURCH , PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com RUSHMORE SERVICE: Court Denies Arbitration Bid in Torres FDCPA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, DANIEL TORRES, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. RUSHMORE SERVICE CENTER, LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No. 18-9236 (SDW) (LDW) (D. N.J.), Judge Susan D. Wigenton of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey denied without prejudice the Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings. The Plaintiff, a consumer, allegedly incurred a debt that was subsequently assigned or otherwise transferred to the Defendant, a debt collector. In a letter to the Plaintiff dated Dec. 8, 2017, the Defendant advised that it had been retained by PREMIER Bankcard, LLC to collect on the Plaintiff's overdue account. The Letter further stated that unless the Plaintiff notifies the office within 30 days after receiving the notice that he disputes the validity of this debt or any portion thereof, the office will assume the debt is valid. On May 15, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a putative class action alleging that the Defendant violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"). The Complaint alleges, inter alia, that because the Letter provided both a telephone number and mailing address, Plaintiff was not properly notified that to effectively dispute the alleged debt, such dispute must be in writing. On Aug. 1, 2018, the Defendant filed the instant Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings, attaching an exemplar of First Premier Bank's Credit Card Contract and Account Opening Disclosures, which includes an arbitration provision and class-action waiver. The Plaintiff opposed the motion on Aug. 21, 2018, and the Defendant replied on Aug. 28, 2018. Judge Wigenton finds that the existence of the Card Agreement and its arbitration provision and class-action waiver is not referenced in the Complaint but is raised for the first time in the Defendant's motion. Because the question of arbitrability cannot be resolved without considering evidence extraneous to the pleadings, it would be inappropriate to apply a Rule 12(b)(6) standard in deciding the instant motion. As the Third Circuit instructed in Guidotti, in this type of scenario, the motion to compel arbitration must be denied pending further development of the factual record. Thus, Judge Aleo denied the Defendant's motion without prejudice, and ordered the parties to conduct limited discovery on the issue of arbitrability. Afterwards, the Defendant may file a renewed motion to compel arbitration, which the Court will review under a Rule 56 standard. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 31, 2018 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/GAwrwa from Leagle.com. DANIEL TORRES, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by TODD D. MUHLSTOCK -- ECF@MuhlstockLaw.com -- BARSHAY SANDERS PLLC. RUSHMORE SERVICE CENTER, LLC, Defendant, represented by DANIEL J.T. MCKENNA -- MCKENNADBALLARDSPAHR.COM -- BALLARD SPAHR, LLP & WILLIAM PATRICK REILEY -- REILEYWBALLARDSPAHR.COM -- BALLARD SPAHR. RUTHERFORD COUNTY, TN: K.W. et al Seek to Certify Four Classes -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as K.W., EX REL KANISA DAVIS ; A.B., EX REL SANDRA BRIEN ; AND J.B., EX REL JAQUELINE BRINKLEY, DYLAN J. GEERTS, the Plaintiffs, vs. RUTHERFORD COUNTY, TENNESSEE, the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-1975 (M.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiffs seek certification pursuant to Rule 23(a), Rule, 23(b)(2) and Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure of these four classes: 1) Illegal Custodial Arrest Classes: Subclass A. "The Injunctive Arrest Class" (for declaratory and injunctive relief): "all juveniles who may, because of Rutherford County's policies or de facto practices, be illegally taken into custody by Rutherford County Sheriff's deputies for a status or misdemeanor delinquent charge where such juveniles have a Tennessee state law right to be released with a summons or citation in lieu of custodial arrest because (a) no law enforcement officer personally witnesses the offense, (b) the alleged offense is not one of the few named misdemeanors for which a warrantless arrest is specifically authorized even if the offense occurs outside the presence of an officer, (c) the offense is not one of the categorical exceptions to T.C.A. section 40-7-118's mandatory ???cite and release" requirement, and (d) no court orders has issued an arrest order prior to the custodial arrest being conducted." Subclass B. "The Damages Arrest Class" (for compensatory damages): "all persons who have been taken into custody as juveniles by Rutherford County Sheriff's deputies for unruly or misdemeanor delinquent charges where such juveniles had a Tennessee state law right to be released with a summons or citation in lieu of a custodial arrest because (a) no law enforcement officer personally witnessed the alleged offense, (b) the alleged offense was not one of a few named misdemeanors for which a warrantless arrest is specifically authorized even if the offense occurred outside the officer's presence, (c) the alleged offense was not one of the categorical exceptions to T.C.A. section 40-7-118's mandatory "cite and release" requirement, and (d) the arrest was not made pursuant to a previously-issued court arrest order." 2) Detention Classes: Subclass C. "The Injunctive Detention Class" (for declaratory and injunctive relief): "all juveniles who may, because of Rutherford County's policies or de facto practices, be securely detained pretrial as a juvenile in Subject to the one-year limitations period for "civil actions brought under the federal civil rights statutes," which period is in turn tolled by Plaintiffs??? and putative class members??? minority until their respective 18th birthdays, circumstances that do not meet the prerequisites for secure detention under T.C.A. section 37-1-114(c) and the United States Constitution. Subclass D. "The Damages Detention Class" (for compensatory damages): "all persons who have, because of Rutherford County's policies or de facto practices, been securely detained pretrial as a juvenile in circumstances that did not satisfy any of the categorical prerequisites for secure detention listed in T.C.A. secvtion 37-1-114(c)(1) ??? (6)".[CC] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Wesley B. Clark, Esq. WESLEY B. CLARK 2706 LARMON DR. NASHVILLE, TN 37204 Telephone: 615 984-4681 Facsimile: 615 514-9674 E-mail: wesley@brazilclark.com - and - Mark J. Downton, Esq. 2706 LARMON DR. NASHVILLE, TN 37204 Telephone: 615 984-4681 Facsimile: 615 514-9674 E-mail: lawyerdownton@gmail.com - and - Kyle F. Mothershead, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF KYLE MOTHERSHEAD 414 Union St., Suite 900 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: 615 982-8002 Facsimile: 615 229-6387 E-mail: kyle@mothersheadlaw.com SAN GALLAN INC: Hernandez Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------- DAVID B. HERNANDEZ and other similarly-situated individuals, the Plaintiff(s), vs. SAN GALLAN, INC. d/b/a BRAVO GOURMET SANDWICH a/k/a BRAVO PERUVIAN CUISINE and DENNIS QUIROZ, and VANESA OLIVA Individually, the Defendants, Case No. 0:18-cv-62591-JIC (S.D. Fla., Oct. 27, 2018), seeks to recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is a non-exempt, hourly, full-time restaurant employee from May 14, 2018 to October 12, 2018 or 21 weeks. The Plaintiff was hired to work as a cook. The Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours every week, but he was not paid for overtime hours. The Plaintiff was paid for all his working hours at his regular rate of $12.00 an hour. Therefore, during the relevant period of time Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff overtime wages at the rate of time and one-half his regular rate for every hour that he worked in excess of 40, in violation of Section 7 (a) of the FLSA, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorney for Plaintiff: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com SEMPRA ENERGY: 388 Suits Filed over Aliso Canyon Leak at Nov. 2 --------------------------------------------------------------- Sempra Energy said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that as of November 2, 2018, 388 lawsuits, including approximately 48,000 plaintiffs, are pending against SoCalGas, some of which have also named Sempra Energy. On October 23, 2015, SoCalGas discovered a leak at one of its injection-and-withdrawal wells, SS25, at its Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility (the Leak), located in the northern part of the San Fernando Valley in Los Angeles County. The Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility has been operated by SoCalGas since 1972. SS25 is one of more than 100 injection-and-withdrawal wells at the storage facility. SoCalGas worked closely with several of the world's leading experts to stop the Leak, and on February 18, 2016, the California Department of Conservation's Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) confirmed that the well was permanently sealed. SoCalGas calculated that approximately 4.62 Bcf of natural gas was released from the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility as a result of the Leak. As of November 2, 2018, 388 lawsuits, including approximately 48,000 plaintiffs, are pending against SoCalGas, some of which have also named Sempra Energy. All of these cases, other than a matter brought by the Los Angeles County District Attorney and the federal securities class action are coordinated before a single court in the LA Superior Court for pretrial management (the Coordination Proceeding). Pursuant to the Coordination Proceeding, in March 2017, the individuals and business entities asserting tort and Proposition 65 claims filed a Second Amended Consolidated Master Case Complaint for Individual Actions, through which their separate lawsuits will be managed for pretrial purposes. The consolidated complaint asserts causes of action for negligence, negligence per se, private and public nuisance (continuing and permanent), trespass, inverse condemnation, strict liability, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraudulent concealment, loss of consortium and violations of Proposition 65 against SoCalGas, with certain causes also naming Sempra Energy. The consolidated complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages for personal injuries, lost wages and/or lost profits, property damage and diminution in property value, injunctive relief, costs of future medical monitoring, civil penalties (including penalties associated with Proposition 65 claims alleging violation of requirements for warning about certain chemical exposures), and attorneys' fees. In January 2017, pursuant to the Coordination Proceeding, two consolidated class action complaints were filed against SoCalGas and Sempra Energy, one on behalf of a putative class of persons and businesses who own or lease real property within a five-mile radius of the well (the Property Class Action), and a second on behalf of a putative class of all persons and entities conducting business within five miles of the facility (the Business Class Action). Both complaints assert claims for strict liability for ultra-hazardous activities, negligence and violation of California Unfair Competition Law. The Property Class Action also asserts claims for negligence per se, trespass, permanent and continuing public and private nuisance, and inverse condemnation. The Business Class Action also asserts a claim for negligent interference with prospective economic advantage. Both complaints seek compensatory, statutory and punitive damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. In December 2017, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District ruled that the purely economic damages alleged in the Business Class Action are not recoverable under the law. In February 2018, the California Supreme Court granted a petition filed by the plaintiffs to review that ruling. In September and October of 2017, property developers filed two complaints, one of which was amended in July 2018, against SoCalGas and Sempra Energy alleging causes of action for strict liability, negligence per se, negligence, continuing nuisance, permanent nuisance and violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, as well as claims for negligence against certain directors of SoCalGas. The complaints seek compensatory, statutory and punitive damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. These claims are joined in the Coordination Proceeding. Sempra Energy, together with its subsidiaries, invests in, develops, and operates energy infrastructure, as well as provides electric and gas services in the United States and internationally. The company primarily serves residential, commercial, and industrial customers. Sempra Energy was founded in 1998 and is headquartered in San Diego, California. SHUTTERFLY INC: Continues to Defend Monroy Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------- Shutterfly, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Monroy v. Shutterfly, Inc. On November 30, 2016, Alejandro Monroy on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, filed a complaint against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The complaint asserts that the Company violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act by extracting his and others' biometric identifiers from photographs and seeks statutory damages and an injunction. The Company believes the suit is without merit and intends to vigorously defend against it. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Shutterfly, Inc. manufactures and retails personalized products and services primarily in the United States, Canada, and the European Community. The company operates through Consumer and Shutterfly Business Solutions segments. It offers a range of personalized photo-based products and services that enable consumers to upload, edit, enhance, organize, find, share, create, print, and preserve their memories. The company was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in Redwood City, California. SHUTTERFLY INC: Continues to Defend Taylor Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------- Shutterfly, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company continues to defend itself from a purported class action suite entitled, Taylor v. Shutterfly, Inc. On December 12, 2017, Megan Taylor filed a purported class action complaint on behalf of herself and other customers in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Taylor alleges that the Company misrepresents a deal it currently offers through Groupon because it does not allow purchasers of the Groupon offer to combine or "stack" it with other promotional codes offered by the Company. Taylor is seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief. The Company believes the suit is without merit and intends to vigorously defend against it. Shutterfly, Inc. manufactures and retails personalized products and services primarily in the United States, Canada, and the European Community. The company operates through Consumer and Shutterfly Business Solutions segments. It offers a range of personalized photo-based products and services that enable consumers to upload, edit, enhance, organize, find, share, create, print, and preserve their memories. The company was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in Redwood City, California. SHUTTERFLY INC: Continues to Defend Vigeant Class Action Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Shutterfly, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company continues to defend itself from a purported class action suit entitled, Vigeant v Meek et al. On March 1, 2018, a purported class action complaint was filed against several directors of Lifetouch, Inc. (which became a direct wholly-owned subsidiary of Shutterfly on April 2, 2018) and the trustee of the Lifetouch Employee Stock Ownership Plan (the "ESOP") in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. On April 2, 2018, the complaint was amended to include the prior ESOP trustees and plan sponsor (Lifetouch) as additional named defendants. The complaint alleges violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, including that the ESOP should not have been permitted to continue investing in Lifetouch stock during a period in which the Lifetouch stock price was declining. The plaintiffs seek recovery for damages arising from the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The Company believes this suit is without merit and intends to vigorously defend against it. Shutterfly, Inc. manufactures and retails personalized products and services primarily in the United States, Canada, and the European Community. The company operates through Consumer and Shutterfly Business Solutions segments. It offers a range of personalized photo-based products and services that enable consumers to upload, edit, enhance, organize, find, share, create, print, and preserve their memories. The company was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in Redwood City, California. SKYLINE BUILDING: Abante Rooter Sues for Invasion of Privacy ------------------------------------------------------------ Abante Rooter and Plumbing, Inc., and Sidney Naiman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Skyline Building Care, Inc., and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-06909 (N.D. Cal., November 14, 2018) seeks damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant in negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and related regulations, specifically the National Do-Not-Call provisions, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy. The Defendant used an "automatic telephone dialing system" to place its calls to Plaintiffs seeking to solicit its services. During all relevant times, Defendant did not possess Plaintiffs' "prior express consent" to receive calls using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice on its cellular telephones, says the complaint. Plaintiffs requested numerous times that Defendant put its cellular numbers on Defendant's internal Do-Not-Call list. Despite such requests, Defendant continued to call Plaintiffs' cellular telephones, the Plaintiff asserts. Abante Rooter and Plumbing, Inc. is a corporation of the State of California, whose principal place of business is in the county of Alameda. Plaintiff Sidney Naiman is a natural person residing in the county of Contra Costa. Skyline Building Care, Inc. is a janitorial service company. The true names and capacities of the Defendants sued herein as Doe Defendants 1 through 10, inclusive, are currently unknown to Plaintiff, who therefore sues such Defendants by fictitious names.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Thomas E. Wheeler, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Phone: 323-306-4234 Fax: 866-633-0228 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com twheeler@toddflaw.com SOUTH SIDE SERVICES: Ortiz Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Adrian Ortiz and Luis Espinoza, Plaintiffs, v. South Side Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 717490/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Queens Cty., November 14, 2018) alleges that, pursuant to the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), Plaintiffs are entitled to recover from the Defendant: unpaid wages at the overtime wage rate; unpaid wages; statutory penalties; liquidated damages; prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and attorneys' fees and costs. The Defendant knowingly and willfully failed to pay Plaintiffs the overtime wage rate for all hours worked over 40 hours in a week in contravention of the NYLL, says the complaint. Plaintiff, Adrian Ortiz, is an adult resident of Queens County, New York. From in or about November 2014 to in or about May 2018, Plaintiff was hired by Defendant as a carpenter. Plaintiff, Luis Espinoza, is an adult resident of Queens County, New York. From in or about November 2014 to in or about April 2018, Plaintiff was hired by Defendant as a carpenter. South Side Services, Inc., is a domestic business corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York, with a place of business located at Westchester County, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lawrence Spasojevich, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JAMES F. SULLIVAN, P.C. 52 Duane Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 374-0009 Fax: (212) 374-9931 Email: ls@jfslaw.net SOUTHERN POWER: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Remaining Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Southern Power Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the court has denied the motion for reconsideration and a separate motion to certify the issue for interlocutory appeal. In January 2017, a putative securities class action complaint was filed against Southern Company, certain of its officers, and certain former Mississippi Power officers in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, by Monroe County Employees' Retirement System on behalf of all persons who purchased shares of Southern Company's common stock between April 25, 2012 and October 29, 2013. The complaint alleges that Southern Company, certain of its officers, and certain former Mississippi Power officers made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Kemper County energy facility in violation of certain provisions under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The complaint seeks, among other things, compensatory damages and litigation costs and attorneys' fees. In June 2017, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that provided additional detail about their claims, increased the purported class period by one day, and added certain other former Mississippi Power officers as defendants. In July 2017, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' amended complaint with prejudice, to which the plaintiffs filed an opposition in September 2017. On March 29, 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, issued an order granting, in part, the defendants' motion to dismiss. The court dismissed certain claims against certain officers of Southern Company and Mississippi Power and dismissed the allegations related to a number of the statements that plaintiffs challenged as being false or misleading. On April 26, 2018, the defendants filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's order, seeking dismissal of the remaining claims in the lawsuit. On August 10, 2018, the court denied the motion for reconsideration and denied a motion to certify the issue for interlocutory appeal. Southern Power Company, a public utility company, develops, acquires, constructs, owns, and manages generation assets, primarily renewable energy projects. It owns 100 megawatt wind project located in Oklahoma. The company was founded in 2001 and is based in Atlanta, Georgia. Southern Power Company is a subsidiary of The Southern Company. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Failed to Pay Wages & Overtime, Garay Says -------------------------------------------------------------- MARCO GARAY, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO, a Texas corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.: RG18926106 (Cal. Super. Ct., Oct. 25, 2018), alleges that Defendant failed to provide meal periods, failed to provide rest periods, failed to pay hourly wages, failed to provide accurate written wage statements, and failed to timely pay all final wages under the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a non-exempt, hourly employee from August 1, 2002 through September 2015. During his employment with Defendants, Plaintiff regularly worked shifts of eight or more hours per day, without being afforded a meal period during the first five hours, and/or a second meal break after ten hours, as required by California law. The Defendants had a policy of automatically deducting time from Plaintiffs timesheets, regardless of whether Plaintiff took a meal period or not. The Plaintiff and the putative class were also allegedly not paid for all hours worked in excess of eight hours a day, and/or forty hours a week at the correct overtime rate. For example, when Plaintiff picked up a double shift by agreeing to work an additional shift for another employee after working his regularly scheduled shift, he would be paid straight time for all hours worked, even though Plaintiff would have worked in excess of eight hours per day and/or forty hours in the workweek. As a result, Plaintiff and the putative was not paid for all overtime hours worked at the correct rate of pay. The Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and Hourly Employee Class members all earned wages every pay period at the correct rates, including overtime rates. The Defendants paid Plaintiff premium wages based on a rate of compensation that did not reflect, among other things, non-discretionary bonuses and/or shift differential pay, as required by Labor Code section 226.7(b) and Sections 11 and 12 of the applicable Wage Order on the occasions when Defendants paid her premium wages in lieu of meal and/or rest periods. The Defendants have the ability to provide them with accurate wage statements but have intentionally provided them with written wage statements that Defendants have known do not comply with Labor Code section 226(a). That Defendants have the ability to pay final wages in accordance with Labor Code but have intentionally adopted policies or practices that are incompatible with those requirements, the lawsuit says. Southwest Airlines Co. is a major United States airline headquartered in Dallas, Texas, and is the world's largest low-cost carrier.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Shaun Setareh, Esq. H. Scott Leviant, Esq. William M. Pao, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 315 South Beverly Drive, Suite 315 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone (310) 888-7771 Facsimile (310) 888-0109 E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com scott@setarehlaw.com william@setarehlaw.com SPEEDYPC SOFTWARE: Certification Orders in Beaton Suit Affirmed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ARCHIE BEATON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SPEEDYPC SOFTWARE, a British Columbia Company, Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 18-1010 (7th Cir.), Judge Diane Wood of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's order certifying the nationwide class and the Illinois subclass of software purchasers. Beaton's laptop started misbehaving, he looked for an at-home fix. An internet search turned up a product from SpeedyPC Software that offered both a diagnosis and a cure. Beaton took advantage of Speedy's free trial, which warned that his device was in bad shape and encouraged him to purchase its software solution: SpeedyPC Pro. He did. But he was disappointed with the outcome: despite Speedy's promises, the software failed to improve his laptop's performance. Beaton became convinced that he was the victim of a scam. He filed a consumer class action against Speedy, raising both contract and tort theories. Beaton sued Speedy in 2013 on behalf of a class of consumers defined as all individuals and entities in the United States who have purchased SpeedyPC Pro. Despite Speedy's lofty pledges, Beaton claimed, the software failed to perform as advertised. Instead, it indiscriminately and misleadingly warned all users that their devices were in critical condition, scared them into buying SpeedyPC Pro, and then ran a functionally worthless "fix." Speedy twice tried, and twice failed, to get the lawsuit thrown out. The district court first rejected its effort to have the complaint dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. Speedy then tried a motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds, based on the fact that the software's End User License Agreement contained a choice-of-law provision selecting the law of British Columbia (Canada) to govern any claims arising from it. The district court, however, decided to retain the case without definitively resolving the choice-of-law issue at that juncture. Four years after the suit was filed, Beaton moved to certify a class and subclass of software purchasers. Beaton's proposed class definition was narrower than the one in his complaint. It included all individuals living in the United States who downloaded a free trial of SpeedyPC Pro and thereafter purchased the full version between Oct. 28, 2011 and Nov. 21, 2014. He also proposed a subclass of the class members "who reside in Illinois" and several other states. The district court certified Beaton's class claims for breaches of the implied warranties of fitness for a particular purpose and merchantability. On behalf of a subclass consisting only of Illinois residents, the court certified claims for fraudulent misrepresentation under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act ("ICFA"). It rejected the proposed subclass insofar as it included residents from other states, because Beaton failed to identify the relevant consumer-protection laws of those states. Speedy filed and the Seventh Circuit granted a petition for interlocutory appeal of the class certification decisions. The Court note s that Speedy's petition may have been untimely, but Beaton chose not to press the issue. The time limit for an appeal under Rule 23(f) is not statutory, and so a failure to abide by it does not affect its jurisdiction. Hoping to dodge the consumer class action, Speedy turned to the Court for relief. Speedy complains that the class definitions and legal theories covered by the court's certification orders impermissibly differ from those outlined in the original complaint. Judge Wood affirmed the district court's decisions to certify the nationwide class and the Illinois subclass. He finds no abuse of discretion in the court's certification orders. The Judge holds that the Defendants spend much time and money fighting Rule 23 certifications to the hilt. Yet certification is largely independent of the merits and a certified class can go down in flames on the merits. He is satisfied that the court reasonably exercised its discretion in adopting its class definition. He similarly find no reversible error in the district court's decision to certify Beaton's two implied warranty claims. Speedy forfeited its estoppel argument by not raising it before the district court. It merely acknowledged that Beaton changed his position on whether British Columbia or Illinois law controlled his contract claims. Even on the merits, Speedy's estoppel theory falls short. Finally, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3). A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 31, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/auRykg from Leagle.com. James K. Borcia -- jborcia@tresslerllp.com -- for Defendant-Appellant. Ryan D. Andrews -- randrews@edelson.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellee. Roger Perlstadt -- rperlstadt@edelson.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellee. John Lawson, for Plaintiff-Appellee. ST. FRANK LTD: Garey Files ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y. ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against St. Frank LTD. The case is styled as Kevin Garey on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. St. Frank LTD., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10564 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 13, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. St. Frank, Ltd. sources and sells various handmade textiles. It sells textiles online. The company was incorporated in 2012 and is based in San Francisco, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Shalom, Esq. The Law Offices of Jonathan Shalom 124-04 Metropolitan Avenue Kew Gardens, NY 11374 Phone: (516) 807-1748 Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com STATE FARM MUTUAL: Stinson Suit Removed to W.D. Kentucky -------------------------------------------------------- The class action styled as Richard Stinson individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No. 18-CI-006033 was removed from Jefferson Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky on November 13, 2018, and assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-00752-DJH. The nature of suit is stated as Insurance. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company provides various insurance and financial services in the United States and Canada. Its insurance products include general, auto, accident, homeowners, condo owners, renters, life and annuities, fire and casualty, health, disability, long term care, business, and boat insurance products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abigale R. Green, Esq. Abigale Rhodes Green Inquiry Law, PLLC 239 S. Fifth Street, Suite 1800 Louisville, KY 40202 Phone: (502) 736-8159 Fax: (502) 736-8150 agreen@arglawfirm.com - and - Christina T. Natale, Esq. Jones Ward PLC 1205 E. Washington Street, Suite 111 Louisville, KY 40206 Phone: (502) 882-6000 Fax: (502) 887-2007 Email: christina@jonesward.com - and - Jasper D. Ward, IV, Esq. Jones Ward PLC 1205 E. Washington Street, Suite 111 Louisville, KY 40206 Phone: (502) 882-6000 Fax: (502) 587-2007 Email: jasper@jonesward.com - and - Sam Aguiar, Esq. Sam Aguiar Injury Lawyers, PLLC 1201 Story Avenue, 3rd Fllor Louisville, KY 40206 Phone: (502) 400-6969 Fax: (502) 491-3946 Email: Sam@kylawoffice.com The Defendant is represented by: David T. Klapheke, Esq. Boehl Stopher & Graves, LLP - Louisville 400 W. Market Street, Suite 2300 Louisville, KY 40202 Phone: (502) 589-5980 Fax: (502) 561-9400 Email: dklapheke@bsg-law.com STATE FARM: PIP Statute Unconstitutional, Lowry Says ---------------------------------------------------- ERA LOWRY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, the Defendant, Case 0:18-CV-62575-PD (SAD. Fla., Oct. 26, 2018), asks the Court to declare that parts of Section 627.736, Florida Statutes (the "PIP" statute) is unconstitutional both facially and as applied to the Plaintiff and the putative class. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff brings this case because Defendant as a general business practice, has been systematically and routinely denying all PIP claims when the person injured in an automobile collision does not receive initial treatment within 14 days of the accident. Plaintiff understands that Defendant bases these denials on recent changes to Section 627.736, Florida Statutes, as amended by Chapter 2012-197, Laws of Florida, which added a 14-day prerequisite to PIP coverage. After the effective date of these amendments, a person injured in an automobile collision is completely precluded from PIP coverage and benefits if they do not initially receive services or care within 14 days of the automobile collision. The Plaintiff alleges that the 14-day prerequisite to PIP coverage is unconstitutional, and as such Defendant cannot and has not lawfully denied PIP claims of insureds and their assigners, including Plaintiff and class members, the lawsuit says. State Farm is a large group of insurance and financial services companies throughout the United States with corporate headquarters in Bloomington, Illinois.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Edward H. Berserk, Esq. Mark S. Fists, Esq. ZEBERSKY PAYNE SHAW LEWENZ, LLP 110 SEE. 6 ht Street, Suite 2150 Ft. Lauder dale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 989-6333 Facsimile: (954) 989-7781 E-mail: ezebersky@zpllp.com mfistos@zpllp.com - and - Gary M. Farmer, Jr., Esq. GARY M. FARMER, JR., PA. 4420 NEE. 24 ht Avenue Lighthouse Point, FL 33064 Telephone: (954) 648-3903 E-mail: gary@pathtojustice.com - and - Kimberly A. Riggers, Esq. DIGGERS LAW, PA 3770 Piney Grove Drive Tallahassee, FL 32311 Telephone: (850) 597-1355 E-mail: gravediggers-law.com STERIGENICS U.S.: Removes Suit over Ethylene Oxide to N.D. Ill. --------------------------------------------------------------- Sterigenics U.S. LLC removes to case captioned as NEIL GRAVES, Individually and On Behalf of All Those Similarly Situated; and MARJORIE GRAVES, Individually and On Behalf of All Those Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. STERIGENICS U.S. LLC and GTCR LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 2018L010510, from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the Northern District of Illinois. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.: 1:18-cv-07189 to the proceeding. According to the complaint, on September 27, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. Sterigenics is a leading provider of state-of-the-art sterilization services. Ethylene oxide, a gas, is a heavily regulated chemical. The Company claims its use of ethylene oxide at the Willowbrook facility is subject to federal regulations promulgated by United States Environmental Protection Agency and the federal Food and Drug Administration, as well as Illinois regulations promulgated by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. Sterigenics' Willowbrook facility is operating legally and in compliance with applicable regulations. Indeed, Sterigenics' Willowbrook facility not only meets federal and state standards, but exceeds them.[BN] Attorneys for Sterigenics U.S. LLC and GTCR LLC: Maja C. Eaton, Esq. Gerard D. Kelly, Esq. Elizabeth M. Chiarello, Esq. Michael L. Lisak, Esq. Stephanie C. Stern, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP One South Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 853-7000 Facsimile: (312) 853-7036 E-mail: meaton@sidley.com gkelly@sidley.com echiarello@sidley.com mlisak@sidley.com sstern@sidley.com STRAT LAND: Class Certification in Whisenant Suit Reversed ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case, TONY R. WHISENANT, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. STRAT LAND EXPLORATION CO., Defendant/Appellant, Case No. 115660 (Okla. Civ. App.), Judge Deborah B. Barnes of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division IV, (i) reversed the trial court's order granting the Plaintiff's motion for class certification, and (ii) remanded for further proceedings. In February 2015, Whisenant filed his Second Amended Class Action Petition asserting claims based upon Strat Land's underpayment or non-payment of royalties on natural gas and/or constituents of the gas stream produced from wells in Oklahoma. Whisenant asserts he has a royalty interest in a well -- in particular, the Tretbar Family 1-15 well in Beaver County, Oklahoma -- owned in part and operated by Strat Land]. He asserts Strat Land has operated over 100 wells which produce gas in Oklahoma and many more in which it holds a working interest, and that the members of the proposed class are so numerous and geographically dispersed that joinder of all members is impracticable. The wells in question are all located on or adjacent to the Oklahoma Panhandle in Ellis, Harper, Beaver, and Texas Counties. Whisenant asserts there are questions of law and fact common to Whisenant and the other class members, including, among others, whether raw gas is in Marketable Condition at the meter run/gathering line inlet; whether Strat Land deducted (in cash or in kind) amounts for placing the gas (and its constituents) into Marketable Condition before paying royalty to Whisenant and the other Class Members; whether Strat Land paid royalty to Whisenant and the other Class Members for all gas constituents, such as condensate, fractionated NGLs, nitrogen, and helium, produced from their wells; and whether Strat Land's uniform practice of paying royalties based on the net, instead of the gross, gas contract value constituted a breach of Strat Land's lease obligations to Whisenant and the other Class Members. Whisenant asserts he is typical of other Class Members because Strat Land pays royalty to him and the other Class Members using a common method -- i.e., Strat Land pays royalty based upon the net revenue it receives under its marketing contracts rather than based upon the gross amount the midstream company -- in particular, DCP Midstream -- receives from its sale of the gas at the interstate (or intrastate) pipeline. In December 2015, Whisenant filed a motion for class certification. As set forth in the trial court's order granting class certification, the proposed class consists of all royalty owners in Oklahoma wells (a) operated by Strat Land; (b) marketed by Strat Land to DCP Midstream (formerly known as Duke Energy Field Services); and (c) that have produced gas and/or gas constituents (such as residue gas, natural gas liquids, helium, or condensate) from Feb. 12, 2009 to the time Class Notice is given. In its order granting the motion for class certification, the trial court determined the requirements under 12 O.S. Supp. 2014 Section 2023 were satisfied. From the trial court's order granting the motion for class certification, Strat Land appeals. Judge Barnes concludes the requisites for a class action have not been met. She finds that that questions of law or fact common to the members of the class do not predominate over questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is not superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. Upon her de novo review, she concludes the trial court erred in granting the motion for class certification. Fo these reasons, Judge Barnes reversed the trial court's order granting class certification. The matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with her Opinion. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 31, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/OT0vdr from Leagle.com. Rex A. Sharp -- rsharp@midwest-law.com -- REX A. SHARP, P.A., Prairie Village, Kansas, for Plaintiff/Appellee. Mark Banner -- mbanner@hallestill.com -- HALL, ESTILL, HARDWICK, GABLE, GOLDEN & NELSON, P.C., Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Defendant/Appellant. SUNRISE SENIOR: Heredia Moved to C.D. Calif. -------------------------------------------- In the case, AUDREY HEREDIA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING LLC, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00616-HSG (N.D. Cal.), Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (i) granted the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration; (ii) granted its motion to transfer, and (iii) deferred ruling on the Defendant's motion to dismiss. In this putative class action, Plaintiffs Heredia, Amy Fearn, and Helen Ganz allege three causes of action against the Defendant under (1) California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act; (2) California's Unfair Competition Law; and (3) Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code Section 15610.30 (elder financial abuse). The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant, an operator of assisted living facilities for seniors, misrepresented how it used an individualized resident assessment in determining the level of care required by its residents. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant's facilities are not sufficiently staffed to meet the aggregate assessed needs of all facility residents, a fact which the Defendant does not disclose to residents, their families, and the public. On information and belief, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant has the capability to determine the facility staffing levels required to meet the aggregate care scores promised to residents, but does not do so because certain corporate directives discourage facilities from providing compensation and benefits sufficient to attract and retain sufficient numbers of qualified staff. The Defendant uses this resident assessment system to assign Service Levels and charge the corresponding daily rates, as a matter of corporate policy and practice, Sunrise has failed to ensure sufficient staffing is provided to meet assessed resident needs. The Plaintiffs filed a putative class action complaint in Alameda County Superior Court on June 27, 2017. The Defendant filed a notice of removal on Jan. 29, 2018. It initially filed a version of the motion on Feb. 5, 2018, after which the Plaintiffs filed the FAC. The Plaintiffs filed the motion to appoint Helen Ganz's daughter, Elise, as her guardian ad litem on Feb. 23, 2018. The Defendant confirmed it did not oppose that motion on March 8, 2018. On March 30, 2018, the Defendant filed its renewed motions to compel or dismiss for improper venue, to transfer, and to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The Plaintiffs filed their opposition on April 30, 2018, and the Defendant replied on May 21, 2018. On June 7, 2018, the Court heard argument on the pending motions and granted the Plaintiffs' motion to appoint Elise Ganz as her mother's guardian ad litem. Judge Gilliam will grant the Defendant's unopposed motion to compel arbitration of Heredia's claims and will stay the proceedings with respect to Heredia only. He will also grant the Defendant's motion to transfer. He finds that (i) transferring the action to the Central District serves the convenience of both the parties and non-party witnesses -- particularly if the case is ultimately certified; (ii) while there are more putative class members and more of the Defendant's facilities in the Central District, the District is home to (1) the majority of the parties' counsel, (2) the named Plaintiffs, (3) a substantial number of putative class members, and (4) a substantial number of the Defendant's facilities; (iii) the transfer will facilitate ease of access to documentary evidence in both the parties' and non-parties' possession; and (iv) because more than half of the putative class lives in the Central District and the Defendant has more communities in the Central District than in the Northern District, the convenience to the parties outweighs the Plaintiff's choice of forum and favors transfer. Finally, because the case will be transferred to the Central District of California, the Judge will defers ruling on the Defendant's motion to dismiss, so that it may be considered by the transferee court. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Gilliam (i) granted the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration; (ii) granted the motion to transfer; and (iii) deferred ruling on the motion to dismiss. The Clerk of Court will transfer the case to the U.S.District Court for the Central District of California. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 31, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/VDkxlL from Leagle.com. Audrey Heredia, as successor-in-interest to the Estate of Carlos Heredia & Corbina Mancuso, as successor-in-interest to the Estate of Ruby Mancuso; on their own behalves and on behalf of others similarly situated, Petitioners, represented by Christopher J. Healey -- chris.healey@dentons.com -- Dentons LLP, George Nobuo Kawamoto -- george@stebnerassociates.com -- Stebner and Associates, Guy Burton Wallace -- gwallace@schneiderwallace.com -- Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP, Jennifer Ann Uhrowczik -- juhrowczik@schneiderwallace.com -- Schneider Wallace Cottrel Konecky Wotkyns LLP, Julie C. Erickson -- jce@arnslaw.com -- The Arns Law Firm, Kathryn Ann Stebner -- Kathryn@stebnerassociates.com -- Stebner & Associates, Michael Dougald Thamer -- mthamer@trinityinstitute.com -- Law Offices Of Michael D. Thamer PC, Robert Stephen Arns -- ddl@arnslaw.com -- The Arns Law Firm, Sarah S. Colby -- sscolby@schneiderwallace.com -- Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP & William Timothy Needham -- tneedham@janssenlaw.com -- Janssen Malloy LLP. Sunrise Senior Living LLC, Respondent, represented by Rachel S. Brass -- rbrass@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Jason C. Schwartz -- jschwartz@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn and Crutcher LLP & Katherine C. Warren, Gibson Dunn and Crutcher LLP. TATMAR REST: Marillo Sees Unpaid Wages & Overtime under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ MILES MARILLO, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. TATMAR REST., INC., d/b/a "Quartorze Bis Restaurant", and JOHN DOES No. 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-09930 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 27, 2018), seeks unpaid wages, minimum wage, unpaid overtime wages for overtime work for which they were not paid time and one half their regular hourly wage rate, and liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor. According the Plaintiff and the other members of the putative class worked numerous hours as wait staff employees for Defendants and were not paid their share of tips and were not paid their proper wages, minimum wages, overtime wages and spread of hour wages by Defendant. The Plaintiff also complains that Defendants failed to provide to him and the Class notice of each Class member's rate of pay and the name of each class member's employer in violation of the NYLL section 195(1), and is therefore each Class member is entitled to $50 for each workday in which the violations occurred or continued to occur on or after April 9, 2011, or a maximum total of $5,000, as provided for by NYLL section 198(1)-b.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: William C. Rand, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM COUDERT RAND 501 Fifth Ave., Suite 1500 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 286-1425 Facsimile: (646) 688-3078 THE WILLIAM: Tucker Sues Hotel for ADA Violation ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against 24 E 39 LLC. The case is styled as Henry Tucker on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 24 E 39 LLC doing business as: The William, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10614 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 14, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The William is a modern boutique hotel located in the Bryant Park area of Manhattan, New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq. Cohen & Mizrahi LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (917) 299-6612 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal TODISCO TOWING: Sued over Alleged Involuntary Towing Services ------------------------------------------------------------- ALGENIS FIGUEROA-ADAMS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. TODISCO TOWING LLC, the Defendant, Case 18-3009 (Mass. Super. Ct., Oct. 19, 2018), alleges that Defendant has engaged in unlawful, unfair and/or deceptive billing practices as it relates to its involuntary towing and storage services. Specifically, Figueroa-Adams contends that Todisco has a practice of demanding and/or collecting impermissible amounts of money in connection with its involuntary towing and storage practices in violation of the requirements of law. As a result of this scheme, Figueroa-Adams alleges that Todisco has reaped the benefit of collecting amounts of money it was not authorized to collect by law; and accordingly, Todisco has committed various violations of M.G.L. c. 93A, section 2, and has been unjustly enriched by its practices, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: John R. Yasi, Esq. Brian P. McNiff, Esq. FORREST, LAMOTHE, MAZOW, MCCULLOUGH, 2 Salem Green, Suite 2 Salem, MA 01970 YASI & YASI, P.C. Telephone: (617) 231-7829 E-mail: jyasi@forrestfamothe.com bmcniff@forrestlamothe.com TRANS WORLD: Rovinelli Files Class Suit in Massachusetts -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Trans World Entertainment et al. The case is styled as Adam Rovinelli, Jennifer Carlos, Juan Vasquez individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Trans World Entertainment, Synapse Group, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-12377-DPW (D. Mass., Nov. 14, 2018). Trans World Entertainment Corporation is an American company which operates entertainment media retail stores across the United States of America. It currently operates just over 300 freestanding and shopping mall-based stores under several brand names, down from about 540 in August 2010. Synapse Group, Inc. is a multichannel marketing company. Synapse is also the largest consumer magazine distributor in the United States, with access to over 700 magazine titles from all the major publishers.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Angela M. Edwards, Esq. Law Office of Angela Edwards 72 Canterbury Circle East Longmeadow, MA 01028 Phone: (413) 525-3820 Email: angelaedwards@charter.net TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Violates FDCPA, Khaytin Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Transworld Systems, Inc. The case is styled as Mikhail Khaytin on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v. Transworld Systems, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06477 (E.D. N.Y., Nov. 14, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Transworld Systems Inc. provides accounts receivable, debt recovery, and past due accounts services for businesses, medical companies, dental companies, education facilities, Fortune 500 companies, and small businesses in the United States and internationally.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Maxim Maximov, Esq. Maxim Maximov, LLP 1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Phone: (718) 395-3459 Fax: (718) 408-9570 Email: m@maximovlaw.com TRIUMP GROUP: Leu Seeks Overtime Compensation under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------- STEFAN LEU, Individually and on behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. THE TRIUMP GROUP OPERATIONS, INC., and APA AVIATION SERVICES, LLC, the Defendants, Case 6:18-cv-06106-SOH (W.D. Ark., Oct. 26, 2018), seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, as a result of Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff and all other hourly-paid aircraft maintenance employees lawful overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week, under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from 2015 to Dec. 8, 2018 as an hourly-paid senior aircraft painter. The Defendants had a practice of not paying Plaintiff, and other hourly-paid aircraft maintenance employees one and one-half times their regular rate for any hours worked in excess of forty hours per workweek. Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed violations of the FLSA and AMWA, the lawsuit says. Triump Group owns and operates a sheet metal parts and manufacturing facility for various aircrafts and aircraft components in Hot Springs. Apa Aviation operates as a staffing company for customers in the company for customers in the aerospace and aircraft industry across the United States including the Triump Group.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Chris Burks, Esq. Joshua Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: chris@sanfordlawfirm.com josh@sanfordlawfirm.com UNITED STATES: Federal Circuit Appeal Filed in Baker Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Mary A. Baker, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit entitled Baker, et al. v. US, Case No. 1:14-cv-00548-RHH, in the United States Court of Federal Claims. The nature of suit is stated as "Taking - Rails to Trails." The appellate case is captioned as Baker, et al. v. US, Case No. 19-1137, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Docketing Statement is due on November 30, 2018; and -- Appellant/Petitioner's brief is due on December 31, 2018.[BN] The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by: Mark F. Hearne, II, Esq. ARENT FOX, LLP 112 South Hanley Road Clayton, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 296-4000 E-mail: thor@arentfox.com Defendant-Appellee UNITED STATES is represented by: Clare Marie Boronow, Esq. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 999 18th Street, North Tower Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 844-1362 E-mail: clare.boronow@usdoj.gov VENUS BY MARIA: Garey Sues Over Disabilities Act Violation ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Venus by Maria Tash, Inc. The case is styled as Kevin Garey on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Venus by Maria Tash, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10512 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 13, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Maria Tash is an American jeweller and a professional body piercer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Shalom, Esq. The Law Offices of Jonathan Shalom 124-04 Metropolitan Avenue Kew Gardens, NY 11374 Phone: (516) 807-1748 Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Jacobs Bid to Transfer Subpoena Granted --------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff filed a Motion to Transfer Enforcement and Motion to Transfer Subpoena on October 15, 2018, in the case captioned as MELINA N. JACOBS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC; VERIZON INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT CORP; VERIZON EMPLOYEE BENEFITS COMMITTEE; MARC C. REED; MARTHA DELEHANTY; ANDREW H. NEBENS; CONNIA NELSON; SHANE SANDERS; ROBERT J. BARISH; DONNA C. CHIFFRILLER; DONNA C. HIFFRILLER, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-mc-00144-JDB (D. Col., Oct. 15, 2018). Judge Randolph D. Moss granted the Plaintiff's Motion on November 1, 2018. Verizon Communications Inc., through its subsidiaries, offers communications, information, and entertainment products and services to consumers, businesses, and governmental agencies worldwide. The company was formerly known as Bell Atlantic Corporation and changed its name to Verizon Communications Inc. in June 2000. Verizon Communications Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Garrett Webster Wotkyns, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP 8501 N Scottsdale Road, Suite 270 Scottsdale, AZ 85253 Telephone: (480) 428-0142 Facsimile: (866) 505-8036 E-mail: gwotkyns@schneiderwallace.com VICTORY PREPARATORY: Faces Civil Rights Class Action in Colorado ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Victory Preparatory Academy, et al. The case is styled as Maria Castaneda on behalf of minor children on behalf of M. F. on behalf of J. F., Mary Flores on behalf of minor child on behalf of E. F., Mary (I) Flores individually, Joel Flores on behalf of minor child on behalf of E. F., Joel (I) Flores individually, Bertha Ceja on behalf of V. S., B. F. an individual on behalf of those similarly-situated; and John Does 1-150, minor children, Plaintiffs v. Victory Preparatory Academy a governmental entity, Ron Jajdelski in his official capacity and in his individual capacity, Jeff Smith in his official capacity and in his individual capacity, Camil DeLaCruz in her official capacity and in her individual capacity, Rosalie Montano in her official capacity, Norma Clinkinbeard in her offical capacity and in her individual capacity and in her individual capacity, Jeff Reed in his official capacity and in his individual capacity, James Seay in his individual capacity and in his individual capacity, Nancy Brooks in her official capacity and in her individual capacity; and John Does 1-10, in their individual and official capacities, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02916 (D. Colo., Nov. 13, 2018). The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights. Victory Preparatory Academy serves middle and high school students in Commerce City and is an expansion of a successful elementary program, Community Leadership Academy. The now K-12 schools serve over 900 students, 86 percent who qualify for free or reduced lunch, 93% who identify as Hispanic or Latino, and over 55% who are English Language learners???percentages higher than those of the geographic district.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nicholas Alexander Lutz, Esq. Rathod & Mohamedbhai LLC 2701 Lawrence Street, Suite 100 Denver, CO 80205 Phone: (303) 578-4400 Fax: (303) 578-4401 Email: nl@rmlawyers.com VIRGINIA: Kirschmann Files Civil Rights Suit v. State Under ADA --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against the State Of Virginia, et al. The case is styled as Rhonda Kirschmann, L.D.K., minor brought by next friend and parent, Rhonda Kirschmann and all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. State Of Virginia, Virginia Department of Social Services, Chesapeake Department of Child Protective Services, Elise Pugh Chesapeake CPS Worker, Beverly Jackson Chesapeake CPS Worker, Rachquel Gibbons-Jackson Chesapeake CPS Worker, Vickie Haralson Chesapeake CPS Director, Wendy Holland Cheaspeake CPS Worker, Gail Heath Davidson CPS Regional Specialist, Chesapeake Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court, Judge Rufus Banks Chief Judge of the Chesapeake Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, Judge Larry D. Willis CHIEF Judge in the Chesapeake Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, Judge Eileen Anita Olds Presiding Judge of the Chesapeake Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, Attorney Peter Imbrogno Guardian Ad Litem to PLAINTIFF L.D.K., Leonard Brown Chesapeake City Attorney's Office, Dr. Brian K. Wald, Psy D. Parenting Capacity Evaluator, James Ryan Davidson, L.P.C. Therapist, Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services Office of Programs (Over CASA), Chesapeake CASA Program, Darnell Gaddis Chesapeake CASA Program Director, Safiya Reynolds CASA, Chesapeake Circuit (de Novo Trial) Court, Judge John W. Brown Presiding Judge in the Chesapeake Circuit De Novo Trial Court, James E. Schliessmann Assistant Attorney General, Corie Wolf Assistant Attorney General, Judge Marjorie Taylor Arrington Presiding Judge of the Chesapeake Circuit De Novo Trial Court, Attorney Marc P. Messier Criminal Defense attorney, Lisa Mallory Criminal Defense attorney, Douglas Walter Criminal Defense Attorney, Norfolk Circuit Court, Judge Junius P. Fulton, III Chief Judge of the Norfolk Circuit Court, Judge Louis A. Sherman Presiding Judge of the Norfolk Circuit Court, Hampton Police Department, Chesapeake Commonwealth Attorney's office, Nancy G. Parr Commonwealth's Attorney for the City of Chesapeake, Hampton Commonwealth Attorney's office, Anton A. Bell Commonwealth's Attorney for the City of Hampton, The Court of Appeals of Virginia, Judge Walter S. Felton CHIEF Judge in the Court of Appeals of Virginia, Judge James W. Haley Panel Judge of the Court of Appeals of Virginia, Judge Sam Coleman Panel Judge of the Court of Appeals of Virginia, Judge Rosemarie Annunziata Panel Judge of the Court of Appeals of Virginia, Judge Glen A. Huff Panel Judge of the Court of Appeals of Virginia, Judge Robert P. Frank Panel Judge in the Court of Appeals of Virginia, Supreme Court of Virginia, JUSTICE Leroy R. Hassell, Sr. CHIEF JUSTICE in the Supreme Court of Virginia, JUSTICE Cynthia D. Kinser CHIEF JUSTICE in the Supreme Court of Virginia, Chief Justice Donald Wayne Lemons CHIEF JUSTICE in the Supreme Court of Virginia, Justice Samuel Bernard Goodwyn En Banc Panel Justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia, Justice William C. Mims En Banc Panel Justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia, Justice Elizabeth A. Mc Clanahan En Bane Pane! Justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia, Justice Cleo E. Powell En Banc Panel Justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia, Justice D. Arthur Kelsey En Banc Panel Justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia, Interim Justice Jane Marum Roush En Banc Panel Justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia, Hampton Circuit Court, Judge Wilford Taylor, Jr. CHIEF Judge in the Hampton Circuit Court, Judge Bonnie L. Brown Presiding Judge of Hampton Circuit Court, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00600-MSD-DEM (E.D. Va., Nov. 13, 2018). The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights, and was filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. Virginia, a southeastern U.S. state, stretches from the Chesapeake Bay to the Appalachian Mountains, with a long Atlantic coastline. It's one of the 13 original colonies, with historic landmarks including Monticello, founding father Thomas Jefferson's iconic Charlottesville plantation. The Virginia Department of Social Services (VDSS) is a state supervised and locally administered social servicessystem that provides oversight and guidance to 120 local offices across the state. Child Protective Services (CPS) identifies, assess, and provide services to children and families in an effort to protect children, preserve families, whenever possible, and prevent maltreatment.[BN] The Plaintiffs appear pro se. WELTMAN & WEINBERG: Court Certifies Class in Gibbons FDCPA Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MEGHAN GIBBONS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WELTMAN, WEINBERG & REIS CO., LPA, Defendant, Civil Action No. 17-1851 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Joel L. Slomsky of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. A hearing on the Motion was held on Oct. 15, 2018. Judge Slonsky certified, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3), the class of all persons with addresses within the jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit who, beginning one year prior to the filing of the Complaint through and including the final resolution of the case, were sent an initial letter from Defendant attempting to collect a consumer debt which was printed on law firm letterhead. The Judge grantes Rule 23 certification for the following Plaintiff's claims: (i) the Defendant violated Section 1692e of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") by using false, deceptive, and misleading representations in debt-collection communications; (ii) the Defendant violated Section 1692e(3) of the FDCPA by falsely representing or implying that any communication is from an attorney; and (iii) the Defendant violated Section 1692e(10) of the FDCPA by using false representations or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect a debt. Plaintiff Meghan Gibbons is appointed as the Class Representative; and Francis & Mailman, P.C. as the Class Counsel. The parties will confer regarding an appropriate notice of the Rule 23 class action. The Plaintiff will submit a proposed form of notice to the Court for review within 30 days following entry of the Order. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 31, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/dGn92B from Leagle.com. MEGHAN GIBBONS, Plaintiff, represented by DAVID A. SEARLES -- info@consumerlawfirm.com -- FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C., JAMES A. FRANCIS, FRANCIS & MAILMAN, PC, JOSEPH L. GENTILCORE -- jogentilcore@gmail.com -- Francis & Mailman, P.C. & JOHN SOUMILAS, FRANCIS & MAILMAN,P.C. WELTMAN, WEINBERG & REIS CO., LPA, Defendant, represented by RICHARD J. PERR -- rperr@finemanlawfirm.com -- FINEMAN KREKSTEIN & HARRIS, P.C. & GRAEME E. HOGAN -- ghogan@finemanlawfirm.com -- FINEMAN KREKSTEIN & HARRIS, P.C. WEST MEMPHIS FENCE: Palma Seeks Overtime Compensation under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- PEDRO PALMA, Individually and on behalf of all Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. WEST MEMPHIS FENCE & CONSTRUCTION, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00208-DPM (E.D. Ark., Nov. 2, 2018), seeks declaratory judgment; monetary damages; liquidated damages; prejudgment interest; costs; and a reasonable attorney's fee, as a result of Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff and other fence installers lawful overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week, under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees worked in excess of 40 hours per week throughout their tenure with Defendant. On average, Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees worked over 50 hours per week. They did not receive any overtime compensation. Within the time period relevant to this case, Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were misclassified as exempt and paid a day rate. The Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees never agreed that their day rate would be sufficient to cover all hours worked, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plantiff: Josh Sanford, Esq. Chris Burks, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 S. Shackleford, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: chris@sanfordlawfirm.com josh@sanfordlawfirm.com WISCONSIN: Permanent Injunction Entered in LHS Strip Search Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, J.J., by and through his next friend, Sakeena Jackson, for themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. JON E. LITSCHER, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Corrections, et al., Defendants, Case No. 17-CV-47 (W.D. Wis.), Judge James D. Peterson of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin approved the parties' stipulated Consent Decree and Permanent Injunction. On Jan. 23, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed a Class Action Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, initiating the action under 42 U.S.C. section 1983. On Jan. 24, 2017, they filed a Motion for Class Certification. The Plaintiffs amended their Complaint on April 18, 2017, and filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction on April 19, 2017. The Defendants answered the Complaint and Amended Complaint, and responded to the Plaintiffs' motions. The parties conducted significant discovery. The claims in the action relate to the use of restrictive housing (also known as room confinement), chemical agents, mechanical restraints, and strip searches at Lincoln Hills School ("LHS") and Copper Lake School ("CLS"). Following briefing, hearings, and rulings by the Court, and the parties' input, the Court entered a preliminary injunction on July 10, 2017. The Court entered an order certifying a class on Sept. 15, 2017. Anticipating the costs of litigation and recognizing a shared interest in improving the conditions of confinement for youth at LHS and CLS, the Plaintiffs and the Defendants intend for the full compliance with the Agreement to resolve all claims in the action. In entering into the Agreement, the State does not admit any violations of constitutional rights of youth confined at LHS and CLS, nor does it admit any violation of state or federal law. The Agreement may not be used as evidence of liability in any other legal proceeding. However, the State remains firmly committed to improving the conditions of confinement for youth at LHS and CLS. The Consent Decree Consent Decree and Permanent Injunction includes provisions on room confinement; OC-spray and other chemical agents; mechanical restraints; strip searches; de-escalation training; programming; and staffing' amendments to administrative code. The terms of this Agreement are incorporated into an Order to be entered by the Court. The Court will retain jurisdiction over the action until the Agreement terminates and all claims for injunctive relief in the Action have been dismissed. The Parties agree that Teresa Abreu will be retained to serve as the Parties' jointly appointed Monitor. Should Teresa Abreu become unwilling or unable to act as Monitor, the Parties will meet and confer to attempt to agree upon a replacement. Should the Parties be unable to agree on a Monitor within 45 days of Teresa Abreu becoming unavailable, they will each recommend two potential Monitors, from which the Court will select a replacement. The Defendants will pay the Monitor's reasonable fees and costs. The Parties recognize that DOC needs to be able to anticipate the costs associated with the Monitor's services. Accordingly, the Monitor's fees will be presumed reasonable if they are less than or equal to $130,000 for the first year of monitoring and $100,000 per year for any subsequent years. The Defendants agree to pay the Plaintiffs' counsel the $885,000 in full satisfaction of all claims for fees and costs for work done by the Plaintiffs' counsel through June 18, 2018, in connection with the litigation. The payment will be made within 20 days of the Court's entry of an Order granting Final Approval to the Settlement Agreement. The Defendants agree to pay the Plaintiffs' Counsel's reasonable expenses and fees for time reasonably spent on the case from June 19, 2018, through the date of the Court's entry of an Order granting Final Approval to the Settlement Agreement. The Parties agree that the plaintiffs will be compensated for their time at the rate of $220.50/hour (the current Prison Litigation Reform Act cap). Such payment will be in full satisfaction of all claims for fees and costs for work done by the Plaintiffs' counsel in connection with this litigation from June 19, 2018, through the date of the Court's entry of an Order granting Final Approval to the Settlement Agreement. The Defendants further agree to pay the Plaintiffs' Counsel's reasonable expenses and fees for time reasonably spent on the case from the date of the Court's entry of an Order granting Final Approval to the Settlement Agreement. The Parties agree that Plaintiffs will be compensated for their time at the highest rate permitted by the Prison Litigation Reform Act at the time each request for fees is submitted to Defendants. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 31, 2018 Sitpulated Order is available at https://is.gd/JVGqaX from Leagle.com. J. J., By and through his next friend Sakeena Jackson, K. D., By and through her next friends John Levy and Meranda Davis, C. M., By and through his next friend Toinette Ducksworth, R. N., By and through his next friend Gloria Norwood, M.S., By and through his next friend Jolene Waupekanay, A.V., By and through his next friend Veronica Rocha-Montejano, M.R., By and through his next friend Autumn Rodgers, S.K., By and through her next friend Thomas Korn, A.P., By and through her next friend Louise Plaskey, C.B., By and through his next friend and grandmother, Flossie Johnson & D.P., By and through her mother and next friend, Earnestine Perry, Plaintiffs, represented by Emily Logan Stedman -- emily.stedman@quarles.com -- Quarles & Brady, Jessica R. Feierman -- jfeierman@jlc.org -- Juvenile Law Center, Karen U. Lindell, Juvenile Law Center, Karyn L. Rotker, ACLU of Wisconsin Foundation, Inc., Laurence J. Dupuis -- ldupuis@aclu-wi.org -- Aclu Of Wisconsin Foundation, Inc., Marsha L. Levick, Juvenile Law Center, Matthew J. Splitek, Quarles & Brady LLP, Rachel Anne Graham -- rachel.graham@quarles.com -- Quarles & Brady LLP, Asma Imtiazali Kadri, American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin Foundation, Katherine E. Burdick, Juvenile Law Center, R. Timothy Muth, Aclu Of Wisconsin Foundation, Inc. & Zachary T. Eastburn -- zachary.eastburn@quarles.com -- Quarles and Brady LLP. Jon E. Litscher, Secretary, Wisconsin Department of Corrections, John D. Paquin, Administrator, Juvenile Division of Corrections, WI Dept. of Corrections, Wendy A. Peterson, Superintendent, Lincoln Hills School for Boys & Copper Lake School for Girls & Brian Gustke, Director of Security, Lincoln Hills School for Boys & Copper Lake School for Girls, Defendants, represented by Benjamin Andrew Sparks -- bsparks@crivellocarlson.com -- Crivello Carlson, S.C. & Samuel C. Hall, Jr. -- shall@crivellocarlson.com -- Crivello Carlson, S.C. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, The Wisconsin State Journal, The Associated Press, The Wisconsin Newspaper Association & The Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council, Intervenors, represented by Dustin Brett Brown -- dbrown@gklaw.com -- Godfrey & Kahn, S.C.. WYNN RESORTS: Appointment of Lead Plaintiff in Ferris Case Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ Wynn Resorts, Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the parties in the securities class action suit initiated by John V. Ferris and Joann M. Ferris, are awaiting an order from the court appointing a lead plaintiff's counsel. On February 20, 2018, a securities class action was filed against the Company and certain current and former officers of the Company in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York (which was subsequently transferred to the United States District Court, District of Nevada) by John V. Ferris and Joann M. Ferris on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's common stock between February 28, 2014 and January 25, 2018. The complaint alleges, among other things, certain violations of federal securities laws and seeks to recover unspecified damages as well as attorneys' fees, costs and related expenses for the plaintiffs. The parties are awaiting an order from the court appointing a lead plaintiff's counsel. The defendants in these actions will vigorously defend against the claims pleaded against them. These actions are in preliminary stages and management has determined that based on proceedings to date, it is currently unable to determine the probability of the outcome of these actions or the range of reasonably possible loss, if any. Wynn Resorts, Limited owns and operates destination casino resorts. The company was founded in 2002 and is based in Las Vegas, Nevada. ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Still Defends Evans Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Zions Bancorporation, National Association said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the appellate briefing process in Evans v. CB&T, has been completed with a ruling anticipated in 2019. A civil class action lawsuit, Evans v. CB&T, brought against the company in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California in May 2017. This case was filed on behalf of a class of up to 50 investors in International Manufacturing Group (IMG) and seeks to hold the company liable for losses of class members arising from their investments in IMG, alleging that the company conspired with and knowingly assisted IMG and its principal in furtherance of an alleged Ponzi scheme. In December 2017, the District Court dismissed all claims against the Bank. In January 2018, the plaintiff filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The appellate briefing process has been completed with a ruling anticipated in 2019. Zions Bancorporation, National Association provides various banking and related services primarily in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. The company offers community banking services, such as small and medium-sized business and corporate banking; commercial and residential development, construction, and term lending; retail banking; treasury cash management and related products and services; residential mortgage servicing and lending services; trust and wealth management services; capital markets services, including municipal finance advisory and underwriting; and investment services. Zions Bancorporation, National Association was founded in 1873 and is based in Salt Lake City, Utah. ********* 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 ***