/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/181204.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, December 4, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 242 Headlines ACCELERATED RECEIVABLES: Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections ADT INC: Continues to Defend IPO-Related Class Action Suits AE OUTFITTERS: Nixon Sues Clothing Retailer Under ADA AIG DIRECT: Willis Sues over Unsolicited Telephone Calls AKAL SECURITY: Appeals Ruling in Gelber FLSA Suit to 11th Cir. ALTERYX INC: Suits over Amazon Web Services Dismissed AMERICAN HONDA: Sued Over Defective 2018 Honda Civic CVT APPLE INC: Grace Appeals N.D. California Ruling to Ninth Circuit ARIZONA: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Redgrave Class Action ATLANTIC CREDIT: Ventura Sues over Debt Collection Practices ATRIUM STAFFING: Violates Disabilities Act, Says Nixon AVON: Sued for Allegedly Discriminating Against Pregnant Women B&D&F LLC: Nixon Brings ADA Class Action in E.D.N.Y. BALDOR SPECIALTY: Faces ADA Class Action in New York BAT-EL AHARON: Noira Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wage under FLSA BBVA COMPASS: Lopez Class Action Concluded Following Accord BBVA COMPASS: Still Defends Mexican Government Bonds Antitrust Suit BEACH RESORT SERVICES: Underpays Technicians, Hernandez Says BLUE CROSS: Faces Suit over Denial of Insurance Claims BOAT BOTTOM: Vanderbilt Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA BUBBYS PIE: Fischler Sues Resto for ADA Breach BUILDERTREND SOLUTIONS: Violates ADA, Sullivan Suit Asserts CAC FINANCIAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Eaves Suit Claims CALIFORNIA: Fails to Comply to Inmate Psychiatric Care Timeframes CANNAE HOLDINGS: Otis Suit Remains Stayed Amid Arbitration CARDINAL HEALTH: Faces 50 Opioid-Related Class Suits CATHOLIC CHURCH: 6 Americans File Sexual Abuse Class Action CATHOLIC CHURCH: Philadelphia Man Joins Sexual Abuse Class Action CATHOLIC CHURCH: Westmont Resident Joins Sexual Abuse Suit CENTRAL CREDIT: Biston Files FDCPA Class Action CHEMICAL FINANCIAL: Bid to Drop City of Livonia Suit Pending COMMERCE BACSHARES: Sullivan Files Suit in S.D.N.Y. Under ADA CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Can't Compel Arbitration in Motley TCPA Suit COSTCO WHOLESALE: Settlement in Backer Law's Suit Has Final OK DEMAND PROGRESS: Robinson Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls DITECH FINANCIAL: Can Compel Arbitration in Kincaid Suit DOUBLE DOWN: Court Denies Bid to Compel Arbitration in Benson Suit ECO SCIENCE: Glancy Prongay to Lead in Securities Suit ENERGEN CORP: Faces Diamondback & Sidewinder-Merger Related Suits ET PUBLISHING: Underpays Art Directors, Norte Suit Claims FCNH INC: 10th Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in Nesbitt FLSA Suit FIVE STAR SENIOR: Dominguez Suit Asserts ADA Violation FORD MOTOR: Fails to Disclose Corrosion Defect, Simmons et al. Say FORD MOTOR: Kasper, et al. Sue over Online Hiring Process GENPACT COLLECTIONS: Prendergast Sues over Unwanted Telephone Call GOLDEN KRUST 4: Fails to Pay OT to Cashiers, Samuel Suit Alleges GREEN TREE: All Pending Motions in Kamimura Denied w/o Prejudice GREYHOUND LINES: Illegally Records Phone Calls, Fliegelman Alleges GROUPON INC: Diaz Suit Asserts ADA Violation GURSTEL LAW: Boudreaux Files FDCPA Suit in Wisconsin GURSTEL LAW: Dec. 21 Filing of Borges Deal Prelim Approval Bid HANGER INC: Petitions in City of Pontiac Class Suits Pending HEALTH INSURANCE: Donisi Partly Compelled to Reply to RFPs in Moser HERTZ GLOBAL: 3rd Cir. Affirms Dismissal in Ramirez Class Suit HIGHGATE HOTELS: Filing of 4th Amended Henkel to Add Plaintiffs OKd HOME BOX OFFICE: Burke Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages HPM CORPORATION: Slover Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA INDUSTRIAL ALLIANCE: Connolly Obagi Launches Class Action IOVANCE BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Awaits Initial Approval of Rabkin Accord JPMORGAN CHASE: Settlement in Mansor Suit Has Final Approval JPMORGAN CHASE: Sued over Spoof Orders for Precious Metals Futures JUUL: Faces Vaping Product Deceptive Marketing Class Action KE ZHANG: Seeks Minimum Wage & Overtime Wages under FLSA KONG TECHNOLOGIES: Cy Pres Distribution in Opperman Suit Okayed KRAFT HEINZ: 6 Classes in Vazquez Unpaid Wages Suit Certified L.A. COLLEGE OF MUSIC: Faces Camacho ADA Class Suit LANNETT CO: Faces Pennsylvania Class Action Suit LANNETT CO: Securities Suit over Drug Pricing Ongoing LENDINGCLUB CORP: Pomerantz LLP to Lead in Veal Securities Suit LIFE INSURANCE: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Walker Class Suit LIFETOUCH INC: Court Dismisses Vigeant ERISA Suit with Prejudice MAINE: Dismissal of Class Action Claims in Gladu Suit Recommended MASTERCARD INC: Appeals Court to Hear Antitrust Class Action MCDONALD'S CORP: Ontario Judge Allows Happy Meal Suit to Proceed MERCK & CO: Taha Sues over Zostavax Vaccine MERIDIAN SENIOR: Dominguez Files ADA Class Action MINNESOTA: Court Affirms Ruling on Bids to Compel in Murphy Suit MIYOKOS KITCHEN: Faces Class Action Over Vegan Butter Claims MODIS INC: Brown Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation MOG INTERNATIONAL: Trusty Seeks OT Pay for Direct Care Workers MONEYGRAM INT'L: Jan. 14 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set MONSANTO COMPANY: Lis Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MORRISONS: Sheppard Mullin Discusses Data Leak Ruling MOSAIC FERTILIZER: Fla. App. Reverses Curd Class Certification MUY PIZZA-TEJAS: Scott et al Seek Unpaid Wages for Drivers NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Negligent Over Athletes' Health, Dobson Says NEW GREAT WALL: Underpays Delivery Persons, Chen Suit Claims NEW HAMPSHIRE INSTITUTE: Camacho Suit Alleges ADA Violation NEW YORK: Campbell Seeks Wages & OT for Boiler Makers and Welders ONE BRANDS: Faces Melendez Product Liability Class Suit PALM BEACH HOME: Dominguez Brings Suit v. Home Under ADA PARRENT SMITH: Griffin Sues Over Unauthorized Credit Report Probe PAUL BLANCO'S: Karla Black Sues over Commission Scheme PDR NETWORK: Supreme Court Hears Fax Advertisement Class Action PFIZER INC: Violates Disabilities Act, Nixon Suit Says PHOENIX COMPLETE: Underpays Mechanics, Caba Suit Alleges POINT PARK UNIVERSITY: Camacho Bring Class Suit for ADA Breach QUICKEN LOANS: Court Grants Bids to Dismiss Amended Allen TCPA Suit RAE FRANKS: Thompson Sues over Debt Collection Practices RANDSTAD US: Court Dismisses Lopez Labor Suit Without Prejudice RELADYNE, LLC: Marzec Sues over Use of Biometric Identifiers REO CONTRACTORS: Underpays Project Supervisors, Chavez Alleges RIBBON COMMUNICATIONS: Jan. 7 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set ROBERT BOSCH: Martinez et al. Sue over Defective Bosch CP4 Pump ROWAN COMPANIES: Shareholders File Class Action Over Ensco Merger SANDIA CORP: Proposed Kennicott Case Schedule Revised SANTA CLARA, CA: Settles Disabled Inmates' Discrimination Suit SANTA FE COUNTY, NM: Court Denies Dismissal Bids in Armendariz Suit SAVANNAH COLLEGE: Camacho Files ADA Class Action in NY SCHNEIDER NATIONAL: Settlement in Mendis Suit Has Final Approval SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Bid to Dismiss Raqqa et al. Suit Still Pending SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Bid to Drop Fife Class Suit Still Pending SERVICE EMPLOYEES: Anderson Sues Over Federal Civil Rights Breach SETERUS INC: Sued over Alleged Unlawful Debt Collection Practices SHELTER MUTUAL: Baggett Suit Moved to W.D. Arkansas SUNPOWER CORP: Court Dismisses Jannarone Suit Without Prejudice SWEET HOME: Williams FLSA Suit Settlement Has Final Approval TARGET CORPORATION: Boegeman Suit Moved to S.D. California TEXAS: Williams et al. Allege Improper Treatment of Prisoners TORRENT PHARMA: Valsartan Drugs Contaminated, Robin Roberts Claims ULTA SALON: Ct. Enters Stipulated Protective Order in E. Wise Suit UNIFIED CARING: Schick Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls UNITED STATES: 9th Cir. Won't Hear Immigration Class Action UNITED STATES: Faces Singh Suit in Oregon over Religious Freedom UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Bid to Drop Teamsters Local Suit Still Pending UTZ QUIALITY: Lepiane Files Fraud Class Suit in Calif. VALEANT PHARMA: Timber's Bid for Relief from Consolidation Denied VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Jacobs Files Class Suit in New York VINEYARD VINES: Nixon Says Retailer Breached Disabilities Act WEYERHAEUSER CO: Sued over Defective Joists Used in Construction WIDEOPENWEST INC: Continues to Defend Suits in New York over IPO WILLIAMS-SONOMA INC: Court Narrows Claims in Kutza Suit WINESHOP AT HOME: Diaz Suit Alleges ADA Violation XO GROUP: Faces Driscoll Securities Suit Over WeddingWire Merger YAHOO! INC: Lawyers Submit New Details of $85MM Data Breach Deal YIR, LLC: Vega Sues over Unsolicited Marketing Phone Calls YUBA COUNTY, CA: Court OKs Amended Consent Decree in Hendrick Suit ********* ACCELERATED RECEIVABLES: Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections ---------------------------------------------------------- ROSA M. WILLIAMS-HOPKINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ACCELERATED RECEIVABLES MANAGEMENT, INC.; FRANCINE CLAIR LANDAU; and JOHN DOES 1 to 10, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-15599-KSH-CLW (D.N.J., Nov. 1, 2018) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The case is assigned to Judge Katharine S. Hayden and referred to Magistrate Judge Cathy L. Waldor. Accelerated Receivables Management, Ltd. ("ARM") provides solution and services to healthcare industry. The company offers different services including short and long term outsourcing solutions, comprehensive receivables management, action oriented consulting, flexible funding programs, interim patient accounting and admitting/registration management, onsite training, healthcare information management, claim scanning and document management, electronic claims processing, and practice management. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yongmoon Kim, Esq. KIM LAW FIRM LLC 411 Hackensack Ave Ste 701 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 273-7117 Facsimile: (201) 273-7117 E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com ADT INC: Continues to Defend IPO-Related Class Action Suits ----------------------------------------------------------- ADT Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company continues to defend itself from several class action suits related to its January 2018 initial public offering (IPO). Five substantially similar shareholder class action lawsuits related to the January 2018 initial public offering (IPO) of ADT Inc. common stock were filed in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida in March, April, and May 2018. The actions are entitled Goldstrand Investments Inc. v. ADT Inc., Krebsbach v. ADT Inc., Katz v. ADT Inc., Sweet v. ADT Inc., and Lowinger v. ADT Inc. These cases have been consolidated for discovery and trial and are now entitled In re ADT Inc. Shareholder Litigation. The Lead Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of similarly situated shareholders and assert claims for alleged violations of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended ("Securities Act"). Plaintiffs allege that the ADT Inc. defendants violated the Securities Act because the registration statement and prospectus used to effectuate the IPO were false and misleading in that they allegedly misled investors with respect to litigation involving ADT Inc., ADT Inc.'s efforts to protect its intellectual property, and the competitive pressures faced by ADT Inc. Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint on October 23, 2018. Briefing on the motion is in progress. A similar shareholder class action lawsuit also related to the January 2018 IPO was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida in May 2018. The action is entitled Perdomo v. ADT Inc. In September and October 2018, four substantially similar shareholder derivative complaints were also filed against various ADT Inc. officers, directors and controlling shareholders in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The actions are entitled, Velasco v. Whall; Myung v. Whall; Scheel v. Whall; and Bradel v. Whall. Plaintiffs allege breaches of fiduciary duties as directors, officers, and/or controlling shareholders of ADT Inc., unjust enrichment, and violations of the federal securities laws for alleged misrepresentations regarding competitive pressures in the marketplace, litigation involving ADT Inc. intellectual property, and certain financial and operational metrics. On November 1, 2018, the Velasco action was transferred to the judge presiding over the earlier filed Perdomo action. ADT Inc. provides security and automation solutions for homes and businesses in the United States and Canada. It provides a range of burglary, video, access control, fire and smoke alarm, and medical alert solutions to residential, commercial, and multi-site customers. The company was formerly known as Prime Security Services Parent, Inc. and changed its name to ADT Inc. in September 2017. ADT Inc. was founded in 1874 and is headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida. AE OUTFITTERS: Nixon Sues Clothing Retailer Under ADA ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against AE Outfitters Retail Co. The case is styled as Donald Nixon on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AE Outfitters Retail Co., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06678 (E.D. N.Y., Nov. 21, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. American Eagle Outfitters, Inc., now known as simply American Eagle, is an American clothing and accessories retailer, headquartered in the Southside Works Neighborhood of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. AE Outfitters Retail Co. operates as a subsidiary of American Eagle Outfitters, Inc.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Shalom, Esq. 124-04 Metropolitan Avenue Kew Gardens, NY 11374 Phone: (718) 971-9474 Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com AIG DIRECT: Willis Sues over Unsolicited Telephone Calls -------------------------------------------------------- TROY WILLIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs AIG DIRECT INSURANCE SERVICES, INC., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-at-01709 (E.D. Cal., Nov. 12, 2018), seeks damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendant, in negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff on his cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy and causing him to incur unnecessary and unwanted expenses. According to the complaint, beginning in or around July of 2018, Defendant contacted Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in -6506, in an attempt to solicit Plaintiff to purchase Defendant's services. Defendant used an "automatic telephone dialing system" as defined by 47 U.S.C. sections 227(a)(1) to place its call to Plaintiff seeking to solicit its services. The Defendant contacted or attempted to contact Plaintiff from telephone number (858) 309-3000, confirmed to belong to Defendant. The Defendant's calls constituted calls that were not for emergency purposes as defined by 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1)(A). The Defendant's calls were placed to telephone number assigned to cellular telephone service for which Plaintiff incurs a charge for incoming calls pursuant to 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1), the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. Tom E. Wheeler, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: 323-306-4234 Facsimile: 866-633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@ toddflaw.com abacon@ toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com twheeler@toddflaw.com AKAL SECURITY: Appeals Ruling in Gelber FLSA Suit to 11th Cir. -------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant AKAL Security, Inc., filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Elliott Gelber, et al. v. AKAL Security, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-23170-FAM, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit accuses the Defendant of violating the minimum wage provisions and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mr. Gelber is employed by the Defendant as an air security officer. He is responsible for the supervision of deportees during flights back to their home country. Akal Security Inc. is a New Mexico corporation with its principal place of business in New Mexico. The Company maintains an operations facility in Miami, Florida, where the Plaintiff works. The Defendant is a government contractor. The appellate case is captioned as Elliott Gelber, et al. v. AKAL Security, Inc., Case No. 18-14496, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees ELLIOTT GELBER, and all others similarly situated, RUBEN YERO, SIGFREDO HERNANDEZ, MONICA VILA, FARA DIAZ, JORGE AGULAR, CASSANDRA BAKER, SYLVIA BATISTA, SANDRA AMENEIRO, JEAN VALBRUM, ANGEL LOPEZ, CARLOS TOLENTINO, MAGALIE SANTIAGO, LUIS PAGAN, LAREZO MORERA, RUBEN CATALA, ROSARIO ANEWRYS and REY RIJOS are represented by: Manuel Arteaga-Gomez, Esq. GROSSMAN ROTH, PA 2525 Ponce De Leon Blvd., Suite 1150 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 442-8666 E-mail: aag@grossmanroth.com - and - Matthew Seth Sarelson, Esq. KAPLAN YOUNG & MOLL PARRON 600 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1715 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: 305) 330-6090 E-mail: msarelson@kymplaw.com Defendant-Appellant AKAL SECURITY, INC., is represented by: Jenna Rassif, Esq. Valerie L. Hooker, Esq. Derek H. Sparks, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS, PC 2 S Biscayne Blvd., Suite 3500 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 577-7600 E-mail: jenna.rassif@jacksonlewis.com Valerie.Hooker@jacksonlewis.com derek.sparks@jacksonlewis.com - and - Tony H. McGrath, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS, PC 1 S Pinckney St., Suite 930 Madison, WI 53703 Telephone: (608) 807-5274 E-mail: Tony.McGrath@jacksonlewis.com ALTERYX INC: Suits over Amazon Web Services Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------- Alteryx, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the four putative consumer class action suits filed against the company in connection to the Amazon Web Services or AWS breach have been dismissed with prejudice. On December 19, 2017, the company disclosed that individuals with an Amazon Web Services, or AWS, login could have had access to a third-party marketing dataset that provided consumer marketing information intended to help marketing professionals advertise and sell their products, or the AWS Matter. This dataset is commercially available and provides some location information, contact information and other estimated information that is used for marketing purposes. It does not include names, credit card numbers, social security numbers, bank account information or passwords. Four putative consumer class action lawsuits have been filed against the company in U.S. federal courts relating to the AWS Matter: (1) Kacur v. Alteryx, Inc., Case No. 8:17-cv-2222 (C.D. Cal) (asserting claims for putative national class and Ohio subclass); (2) Jackson v. Alteryx, Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-02021 (D. Or.) (asserting claims for putative Oregon class); (3) Foskaris v. Alteryx, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-03088 (D. Nev.), (asserting claims for putative national class and Nevada subclass); and (4) Ruderman et al. v. Alteryx, Inc., Case No. 8:18-cv-00022 (C.D. Cal.) (asserting claims for putative national class and Florida, New Jersey, and New York subclasses). Three actions were filed on December 20, 2017 (Kacur, Jackson, Foskaris), and the fourth was filed on January 8, 2018 (Ruderman). The plaintiffs in these cases, who purported to represent various classes of individuals whose information was contained within the dataset, claimed to have been harmed or to be facing harm as a result of the exposure of their personal information. The complaints assert claims for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 1681 et seq. and state consumer-protection statutes, as well as claims for common-law negligence. Additional actions alleging similar claims could be brought in the future. The Jackson action was dismissed with prejudice on April 30, 2018. On February 9, 2018, the Ruderman and Kacur actions were consolidated into a single action pending at Case No. 8:17-cv-2222 (C.D. Cal.) On June 5, 2018, the Foskaris action was transferred from the District of Nevada to the Central District of California at Case No. 8:18-cv-00963. On September 19, 2018, the Kacur, Ruderman, and Foskaris actions were dismissed with prejudice. Alteryx, Inc. operates a self-service data analytics software platform that enables organizations to enhance business outcomes and the productivity of their business analysts. The company also provides technical support, instruction, and customer services. Alteryx, Inc. was founded in 1997 and is headquartered in Irvine, California. AMERICAN HONDA: Sued Over Defective 2018 Honda Civic CVT -------------------------------------------------------- SHERYL TENZYK; and LARRY ALLEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.; and HONDA NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-06121-JS-ARL (Nov. 1, 2018) is brought against the Defendants' defective 2018 Honda Civic vehicles equipped with CVT transmissions. The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendants' 2018 Honda Civic vehicles equipped with CVT transmissions ("Class Vehicles") have a common defect such that the drivers are unable to determine whether the Class Vehicles are properly placed in "Park" before exiting the vehicles. The Class Vehicles fail to provide notice to drivers that their Vehicle is out-of-gear, they fail to automatically activate the Electric Parking Brake in certain situations, such as when the driver exits the vehicle or when the driver's door is opened, and they are prone to -- and actually do -- unintentionally roll away, often causing crashes or injuries. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. manufactures and sells Honda automobiles. It sells its products through automobile, motorcycle, and power-equipment dealerships in the United States. The company was founded in 1959 and is based in Torrance, California. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Honda Motor Co., Ltd. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Tina Wolfson, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC Bradley K. King, Esq. 45 Main Street, Suite 528 Brooklyn, NY 11201 Telephone: (917) 336-0171 Facsimile: (917) 336-0177 E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com bking@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Gregory F. Coleman, Esq. GREG COLEMAN LAW PC First Tennessee Plaza 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (865) 247-0080 Facsimile: (865) 522-0049 E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com - and - Daniel K. Bryson, Esq. J. Hunter Bryson, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP 900 W. Morgan St. Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: 919-600-5000 Facsimile: 919-600-5035 E-mail: Dan@wbmllp.com Hunter@wbmllp.com APPLE INC: Grace Appeals N.D. California Ruling to Ninth Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Christina Grace and Ken Potter filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit styled Christina Grace, et al. v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 5:17-cv-00551-LHK, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 25, 2018, Judge Lucy H. Koh (i) granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and (ii) denied the Plaintiffs' motion to strike the report of Apple's technical expert. The Plaintiffs bring the putative class action against Apple for trespass to chattels and violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") on Feb. 2, 2017. Grace sought to represent a class consisting of all owners of Apple iPhone 4 or Apple iPhone 4S devices in the United States who on April 16, 2014, had the iOS6 or earlier operating system on their iPhone 4 or iPhone 4S. The complaint alleged causes of action against Apple for (1) trespass to chattels, and (2) violations of the UCL, each based on Apple's intentional disabling of FaceTime on iOS 6 and earlier operating systems. Judge Koh granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. She certified the class seeking restitution and damages for violation of the UCL and trespass to chattels pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) defined as all owners of non-jailbroken Apple iPhone 4 or Apple iPhone 4S devices in California who on April 16, 2014, had iOS 6 or earlier operating systems on their iPhone 4 or iPhone 4S devices. The appellate case is captioned as Christina Grace, et al. v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 18-80161, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Petitioners CHRISTINA GRACE and KEN POTTER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, are represented by: Jill M. Manning, Esq. Donald Scott Macrae, Esq. Allan Steyer, Esq. STEYER LOWENTHAL BOODROOKAS ALVAREZ & SMITH LLP One California Street, Third Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 421-3400 Facsimile: (415) 421-2234 E-mail: jmanning@steyerlaw.com smacrae@steyerlaw.com asteyer@steyerlaw.com - and - Bruce Lee Simon, Esq. PEARSON, SIMON, WARSHAW & PENNEY, LLP 44 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 433-9000 Facsimile: (415) 433-9008 E-mail: bsimon@pswlaw.com - and - Daniel Leon Warshaw , Esq. PEARSON SIMON WARSHAW & PENNEY, LLP 15165 Ventura Boulevard Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (818) 788-8300 E-mail: dwarshaw@pswlaw.com Intervenor BRIGHTSTAR CORPORATION is represented by: Joseph M. Wahl, Esq. BARNES & THORNBURG LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (424) 239-3741 E-mail: Joseph.Wahl@btlaw.com Intervenor AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES, INC., is represented by: James L. Day, Esq. FARELLA BRAUN & MARTEL LLP 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 1700 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 954-4400 E-mail: jday@fbm.com Defendant-Respondent APPLE, INC., is represented by: Jacob H. Johnston, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 555 California Street, 27th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 439-1443 E-mail: jacob.johnston@kirkland.com - and - Joseph Allen Loy, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 601 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 446-4800 E-mail: joseph.loy@kirkland.com - and - Raghav Krishnapriyan, Esq. Joshua H. Lerner, Esq. Sonal Naresh Mehta, Esq. DURIE TANGRI LLP 217 Leidesdorff Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 362-6666 E-mail: rkrishnapriyan@durietangri.com jlerner@durietangri.com smehta@durietangri.com ARIZONA: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Redgrave Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiff Marcie A. Redgrave filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Marcie Redgrave v. Doug Ducey, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-01247-DLR, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Phoenix. The lawsuit arises from job-related issues. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the class action lawsuit was filed against Doug Ducey, Arizona Governor, and others. The appellate case is captioned as Marcie Redgrave v. Doug Ducey, et al., Case No. 18-17150, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript must be ordered by December 5, 2018; -- Transcript is due on January 4, 2019; -- Appellant Marcie A. Redgrave's opening brief is due on February 13, 2019; -- Appellees Arizona Department of Economic Security, Arizona Division of Developmental Disabilities, Thomas J. Betlach and Doug Ducey's answering brief is due on March 15, 2019; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant MARCIE A. REDGRAVE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Nicholas J. Enoch, Esq. Stanley Lubin, Esq. Kaitlyn Redfield-Ortiz, Esq. LUBIN & ENOCH, P.C. 349 North Fourth Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85003 Telephone: (602) 234-0008 Facsimile: (602) 626-3586 E-mail: nick@lubinandenoch.com stan@lubinandenoch.com kaitlyn@lubinandenoch.com Defendants-Appellees DOUG DUCEY, Governor; ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY; and ARIZONA DIVISION OF DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES are represented by: Mark Ogden, Esq. Cory G. Walker, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 2425 East Camelback Road Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: (602) 474-3601 Facsimile: (602) 957-1801 E-mail: mogden@littler.com cgwalker@littler.com Defendant-Appellee THOMAS J. BETLACH, in his official capacity as Director of the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System, is represented by: Amy Jo Gittler, Esq. Monica Marie Ryden, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 2111 E. Highland Avenue, Suite B-250 Phoenix, AZ 85003 Telephone: (602) 714-7057 Facsimile: (602) 714-7045 E-mail: Amy.Gittler@jacksonlewis.com Monica.Ryden@jacksonlewis.com ATLANTIC CREDIT: Ventura Sues over Debt Collection Practices ------------------------------------------------------------ MAXIMA VENTURA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ATLANTIC CREDIT & FINANCE, INC.; and JOHN DOES 1-25, Case No. 1:18-cv-10131-AT (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 1, 2018) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The case is assigned to Judge Analisa Torres. Atlantic Credit & Finance, Inc. purchases and manages unsecured and consumer-distressed assets. Atlantic Credit & Finance, Inc. was founded in 1996 and is headquartered in Roanoke, Virginia with branch offices in Roanoke and Richmond, Virginia; and Phoenix, Arizona. As of August 6, 2014, Atlantic Credit & Finance, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Encore Capital Group, Inc. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ben A. Kaplan, Esq. CHULSKY KAPLAN LLC 280 Prospect Avenue, Apt. 6G Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (877) 827-3395 Facsimile: (877) 827-3394 E-mail: benkap232@aol.com ATRIUM STAFFING: Violates Disabilities Act, Says Nixon ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Atrium Staffing Services, LTD. The case is styled as Donald Nixon on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Atrium Staffing Services, LTD, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06688 (E.D. N.Y., Nov. 21, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Atrium Staffing Services, Ltd. operates as a staffing and recruitment solutions company in the United States. It offers payroll, outsourcing and independent contractor vetting, and consulting services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Shalom, Esq. 124-04 Metropolitan Avenue Kew Gardens, NY 11374 Phone: (718) 971-9474 Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com AVON: Sued for Allegedly Discriminating Against Pregnant Women -------------------------------------------------------------- Kristina Monllos, writing for AdWeek, reports that a New York law firm has filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of two former Avon employees alleging the beauty company practiced "systematic discrimination" against women "based on pregnancy, maternity and the rights of nursing mothers to pump breast milk at work." The suit, which was filed on Nov. 13 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, takes aim at the company's branding, specifically its claims that it's a "company for women." The suit alleges, "Avon distinguishes itself from mainstream companies based on its 'passionate commitment' to empowering women" and that "because of this branding, women spend millions on Avon products." The suit goes on to allege that "because of this branding, women apply to work at Avon, believing that the company will empower them to succeed and provide women opportunities for advancement." "In the complaint we filed on behalf of our clients, individually and on behalf of a proposed U.S. class of pregnant employees and a New York class of women that were discriminated against because they needed to pump breast milk during work hours, Avon must account for why the company 'for women' allows such discrimination to occur and why the male leaders of Avon insist on silencing women through the use of forced arbitration to handle complaints rather than the transparent court system," said Jeanne M. Christensen -- jchristensen@wigdorlaw.com -- a partner at Wigdor LLP, the law firm handling the suit, in an emailed statement. Wigdor filed the suit on behalf of Caroline Ruiz and Olivera Krstanoska as well as "all other similarly situated female employees." Both New Avon and Avon Products are named as defendants. In March 2016, Avon spun off North American business (now New Avon), which is controlled by the private equity firm Cerberus Capital Management. The suit also notes that while there are two separate entities, the company "continues to brand itself collectively as 'Avon.'" "The Company strongly denies claims of discrimination," said an Avon spokesperson in an email. "It is company policy to not comment on pending litigation. We are very proud of our reputation as 'the company for women' and our strong and ongoing commitment to empowering women since our founding over 130 years ago." The spokesperson continued: "As a preeminent employer of women, with a workforce comprised of more than two-thirds women, we understand the particular needs working mothers have, and we are committed to supporting them before, during, and after maternity leave. Our dedication to women's advancement in the workplace includes ensuring work-life balance, a comprehensive benefits package that provides incremental women's health features, a generous maternity leave and well-equipped mother's rooms." The suit alleges that Ms. Ruiz, who started working for Avon in January 2018, was made aware of alleged "performance issues" on Feb. 2, "only one day after [Ruiz] informed Avon of her pregnancy." The suit also details how Ruiz had recently found out her pregnancy was "high-risk," that she could possibly miscarry and therefore required bed rest. So, she requested to work from home—something the suit alleges was commonplace at Avon—a request her boss denied, according to the suit. On Feb. 5, the suit states, Ruiz ignored her doctor's orders for bed rest and went in to the office, only to be terminated due to "performance deficiencies." "Avon intentionally and recklessly placed [Ruiz's] health and pregnancy in jeopardy by compelling her to travel to the Manhattan office on February 5, 2018, just to be terminated," the suit states. According to the lawsuit, Ms. Krstanoska was "subject to discriminatory hostile working conditions and an unsafe work environment" after she disclosed that she was pregnant. Ms. Krstanoska, who joined Avon in January 2014 as a microbiologist, was exposed to chemicals, the suit states, that "posed a risk for pregnant women and that could impact detrimentally the healthy development of the fetus." In the suit, Ms. Krstanoska alleges that she explained to her department supervisor and co-workers that she should "avoid particular tasks while at work so that she could avoid these chemicals" and that her boss insisted she "continue to work with potentially harmful chemicals." The suit alleges that the workplace was hostile to Ms. Krstanoska during her pregnancy, after she returned from maternity leave, when she was breastfeeding, when she disclosed her second pregnancy and when she requested again not to work with chemicals that could harm her pregnancy. The suit also alleges that Ms. Krstanoska's supervisor confronted her in 2016 when she started documenting her hostile work environment and "started yelling about her efforts." After reporting the incident, Ms. Krstanoska was transferred to a department she "had no experience in" for a position she was "unqualified for" and was "constructively discharged" two weeks later, according to the lawsuit. At least one other pregnant employee who worked as a microbiology lab technician faced similar harassment at Avon, Ms. Krstanoska alleges in the suit. Wigdor did not immediately respond to requests for comment. [GN] B&D&F LLC: Nixon Brings ADA Class Action in E.D.N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against B&D&F, LLC. The case is styled as Donald Nixon on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. B&D&F, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06685 (E.D. N.Y., Nov. 21, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. B&D&F, LLC is a retail consulting and commercial brokerage firm with offices in New York, Los Angeles, and Denver.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Shalom, Esq. 124-04 Metropolitan Avenue Kew Gardens, NY 11374 Phone: (718) 971-9474 Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com BALDOR SPECIALTY: Faces ADA Class Action in New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Baldor Specialty Foods, Inc. The case is styled as Edwin Diaz on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Baldor Specialty Foods, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10928 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 21, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Baldor Specialty Foods, Inc. distributes fresh produce and specialty food in Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions. The company offers fruits, vegetables, organics, fresh cuts, meat and poultry, specialty and grocery, cheese, and dairy products. It serves restaurants, hospitals, schools, and stadiums; and corporate, food service, wholesale, and retail customers.[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 BAT-EL AHARON: Noira Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wage under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------- WALTER NOIRA, on behalf of himself and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, the Plaintiff, vs. BAT-EL AHARON INC. d/b/a TAAM TOV, and ARSEN AHARON, the Defendants, Case 1:18-cv-10625 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 14, 2018), seeks unpaid minimum wage, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff claims that Defendants willfully violated Plaintiff's and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs' rights by failing to pay the lawful minimum wage. With respect to tipped employees, Defendants were not entitled to claim tip credit allowance under the FLSA, because they failed to properly provide notice to tipped employees that Defendants were taking a tip credit, failed to provide proper wage statements informing tipped employees of the amount of tip credit taken for each payment period, and failed to maintain daily records of tips on behalf of tipped employees, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39 th Street, Second Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: 212 465-1188 Facsimile: 212 465-1181 BBVA COMPASS: Lopez Class Action Concluded Following Accord ----------------------------------------------------------- BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the parties in Petra Lopez and Colea Wright, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. BBVA Compass, have reached a settlement and the matter is now concluded. In January 2018, BBVA Compass was named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Petra Lopez and Colea Wright, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. BBVA Compass, challenging BBVA Compass' assessment of certain overdraft fees and ATM fees. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary relief. In August 2018, the parties reached a settlement and the matter is now concluded. BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. operates as the bank holding company for Compass Bank that provides various banking services. It operates in Commercial Banking and Wealth, Retail Banking, Corporate and Investment Banking, and Treasury segments. The company was founded in 1970 and is headquartered in Houston, Texas. BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. is a subsidiary of Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A. BBVA COMPASS: Still Defends Mexican Government Bonds Antitrust Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company and BBVA Securities Inc. continues to defend themselves in a putative class action suit entitled, In re Mexican Government Bonds Antitrust Litigation. In March 2018, the Company and BBVA Securities Inc. (BSI) were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, In re Mexican Government Bonds Antitrust Litigation, alleging that the defendant financial institutions engaged in collusion with respect to the sale of Mexican government bonds. Five substantially similar lawsuits were filed and consolidated with the original lawsuit. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary relief. BBVA Compass said, "The Company believes there are substantial defenses to these claims and intends to defend them vigorously." BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. operates as the bank holding company for Compass Bank that provides various banking services. It operates in Commercial Banking and Wealth, Retail Banking, Corporate and Investment Banking, and Treasury segments. The company was founded in 1970 and is headquartered in Houston, Texas. BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. is a subsidiary of Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A. BEACH RESORT SERVICES: Underpays Technicians, Hernandez Says ------------------------------------------------------------ JOSE CARLOS HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BEACH RESORT SERVICES, INC. d/b/a BRS POOL SPA FOUNTAIN; and MICHAEL J FLORES, Defendants, Case No. 80126171 (Fla. Cir., Miami-Dade Cty., Oct. 31, 2018) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid overtime compensation, minimum wages, interest, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff Hernandez was employed by the Defendants as supervising technician. Beach Resort Services, Inc. d/b/a BRS Pool Spa Fountain specialize in the service of commercial swimming pools which include: municipal, institutional, competition, leisure, activity, water parks, therapy pools, high end residential, condominium and hotel. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Esq. Max L. Horowitz, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com mhorowitz@rgpattorneys.com BLUE CROSS: Faces Suit over Denial of Insurance Claims ------------------------------------------------------ STEVE C.; KELLY W.; and JANE DOE; individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF MASSACHUSETTS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-12278 (D. Mass., Oct. 31, 2018) is an action against the Defendant's denial of payment of claims for inpatient intermediate mental health residential treatment of mental health disorders. The lawsuit alleges violation of the terms of the Company's insurance policies and the self-funded medical benefits plans it administers. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Inc. provides health plans for individuals, families, and businesses. It offers popular health plans, young adult health plans, Medicare plans, health insurance resources, life and disability insurance, federal employee plans, vision insurance plans, and dental insurance plans. The company was formerly known as Blue Cross and changed its name to Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Inc. in 1988. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Inc. was founded in 1937 and is based in Boston, Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brian S. King, Esq. BRIAN S. KING, ATTORNEY AT LAW 336 South 300 East, Suite 200 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Telephone: (801) 532-1739 Facsimile: (801) 532-1936 E-mail: brian@briansking.com - and - Jonathan M. Feigenbaum, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JONATHAN M. FEIGENBAUM 184 High Street, Suite 503 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 357-9700 Facsimile: (617) 227-2843 E-mail: jonathan@erisaattorneys.com - and - Sean K. Collins, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SEAN K. COLLINS 184 High Street, Suite 503 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 320-8485 Facsimile: (617) 227-2843 E-mail: sean@neinsurancelaw.com BOAT BOTTOM: Vanderbilt Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------- VALERIE VANDERBILT, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), the Plaintiff(s), vs. BOAT BOTTOM EXPRESS LIMITED LIABIITY COMPANY, a Florida limited liability company, and JEFFREY PEER, individually, the Defendants, Case 4:18-cv-10261-JLK (S.D. Fla., Nov. 13, 2018), alleges Defendants have engaged in an intentional and unlawful scheme to misclassify Plaintiff, and all others similarly situated, as independent contractors during all time periods pertinent to their employment. According to the complaint, the Defendants have required Plaintiff, and similarly situated individuals, to incur additional taxation, and in doing so, the Defendants have defrauded the federal government. The Defendants have also deprived Plaintiff, and all other employees similarly situated, of federal overtime compensation during certain periods of their employment, the lawsuit says. BBE is a boat restoration service company based in Ramrod Key, Florida, that has been operating in the State of Florida since 2012.[BN] Counsel for Plaintiff: Valerie Vanderbilt, Esq. Jordan Richards, Esq. Melissa Scott, Esq. USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS – JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC 805 East Broward Blvd. Suite 301 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 871-0050 E-mail: jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com melissa@jordanrichadrspllc.com livia@jordanrichardspllc.com jake@jordanrichardspllc.com BUBBYS PIE: Fischler Sues Resto for ADA Breach ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bubbys Pie Co. Inc. The case is styled as Brian Fischler individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bubbys Pie Co. Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10945 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 21, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Bubbys Pie Co. Inc. is a restaurant that offers the classic American food.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq. Lipsky Lowe LLP 630 Third Avenue New York, NY 10017-6705 Phone: (212) 392-4772 Fax: (212) 444-1030 Email: chris@lipskylowe.com BUILDERTREND SOLUTIONS: Violates ADA, Sullivan Suit Asserts ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Buildertrend Solutions, Inc. The case is styled as Phillip Sullivan, Jr. on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Buildertrend Solutions, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10880 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 20, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. BuilderTREND Solutions, Inc. develops cloud based construction management software for homebuilders and remodelers. The company's software, Buildertrend, offers real-time access to construction scheduling, change orders, documents, photos, warranty management, and homebuyer selections.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Lee Litigation Group, PLLC 30 East 39th Street 2nd Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 465-1188 Fax: (212) 465-1181 Email: cklee@leelitigation.com CAC FINANCIAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Eaves Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ KARALEE EAVES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAC FINANCIAL CORP., Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-01074-HE (W.D. Okla., Oct. 31, 2018) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. CAC Financial Corp. provides financial services. The Company offers accounts receivable solutions. CAC Financial serves customers in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sergei Lemberg, Esq. LEMBERG LAW, L.L.C. 43 Danbury Road, 3 rd Floor Wilton, CT 06897 Telephone: (203) 653-2250 Facsimile: (203) 653-3424 CALIFORNIA: Fails to Comply to Inmate Psychiatric Care Timeframes ----------------------------------------------------------------- Helen Christophi, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that suicide rates remain "sky-high" among California prisoners with mental illness, an attorney told a Ninth Circuit panel on Nov. 13, because the state refuses to adhere to its own timeframes for providing them with psychiatric care. All three judges on the panel appeared to disagree with the state's argument that failing to comply 100 percent with timeframes ranging between 24 hours and 30 days for transferring inmates between levels of care doesn't amount to cruel and unusual punishment. California contended in part that the timeframes, formalized under court supervision in 2006 to address previous Eighth Amendment issues, go above and beyond the amendment's minimum requirements -- so failure to comply 100 percent of the time doesn't constitute a violation. But the panel said the state had already been allowed to comply less than 100 percent of the time via court-approved exceptions to the timeframes -- such as delays associated with medical or legal issues -- and that the state itself had deemed any delays outside those exceptions a constitutional violation. "[I]t was concluded with the state's acquiescence that 24 hours was essentially necessary to cure the Eighth Amendment violation that was occurring," U.S. Circuit Judge Paul Watford told Kevin Voth, the state's attorney, on Nov. 13. "As of at least 2017, some substantial number of inmates was taking longer than that, so you were all not in compliance with what the program guide spelled out," Watford continued. "And what was the district court supposed to do other than say, ‘Look, you need to comply with this, I'm serious, we're not playing games here. I recognize that there are going to be situations outside the state's control and we'll work on developing those exceptions, but in all other cases, you do have to do it within 24 hours.' I don't see what's wrong with that." Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Mary Schroeder agreed. "Are you arguing that the court should have said you only have to comply 90 percent? Because that seems rather arbitrary," she said. "It would seem sensible to say, comply with it, and then if there are instances in which there's not compliance, there could be, of course, discussion for whether there should be some kind of sanction." When Judge Voth countered there must be a "current and existing constitutional violation" to grant relief under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Senior U.S. District Judge Edward Korman replied, "And they found that." Judge Korman is sitting by designation from the Eastern District of New York. The case stretches back to 1990, when prisoner Ralph Coleman filed a federal class action on behalf of prisoners with serious mental illness over California's failure to provide timely psychiatric care, according to court documents. Finding "delays everywhere" exacerbating "illness and patient suffering" in violation of the Eighth Amendment, the trial court in 1995 appointed a special master to help the state fix the violation, according to the class. In 2006, the court formally approved a revised plan requiring that prisoners in psychiatric crisis be hospitalized within 24 hours. Transfers to acute inpatient care must be completed within 10 days of a clinician's referral, and to longer-term inpatient care within 30 days. But the delays continued. In March 2017, U.S. District Court Judge Kimberly Mueller of Sacramento found the delays were resulting in patients being held in settings unequipped to provide the emergency care required to stabilize them, according to the class. The following month, Judge Mueller ordered the state to attain 100 percent compliance with transfer timeframes. Class counsel Lisa Ells -- lells@rbgg.com -- countered on Nov. 13 that, despite what the state's attorneys say, Judge Mueller didn't "suddenly" require California to achieve perfect compliance with its transfer timeframes the state has been under court order to comply for more than a decade. Ms. Ells, who is with Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld, described the effect of the delays on prisoners on Nov. 13. Suicide rates "remained sky-high, far above the national average," according to a 2017 report by the California State Auditor, Ms. Ells said, because the state failed to implement its own suicide-prevention policies. A suicide prevention expert's report that same year found prisoners were still being housed in "horrendous, outrageous settings" while awaiting crisis care, Ells added. "There were people strapped to gurneys for three days, who were suicidal, who urinated all over themselves because they were waiting for crisis care. There were people not observed -- as they were required to be by defendants' policies -- who killed themselves," she said. "Defendants like to say those are outlier examples in 2017," she said. "The suicide prevention expert found 40 percent of the institutions he reviewed were not compliant with their suicide prevention policies. That's not an outlier." The panel did not indicate when it will rule. CANNAE HOLDINGS: Otis Suit Remains Stayed Amid Arbitration ---------------------------------------------------------- Cannae Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the case, Otis v. O'Charley's, LLC, remains stayed pending the completion of arbitration proceedings, which have not yet commenced. Cannae Holdings said, "O'Charley's is the defendant in a lawsuit, Otis v. O'Charley's, LLC, filed on July 13, 2016, in U.S. District Court, Central District of Illinois. The lawsuit purports to bring a national class action on behalf of all O'Charley's servers and bartenders under the Fair Labor Standards Act and similar state laws. The complaint alleges that O'Charley's failed to pay plaintiffs the applicable minimum wage and overtime by requiring tipped employees to: (a) spend more than twenty percent of their time performing non-tipped duties, including dishwashing, food preparation, cleaning, maintenance, and other "back of the house" duties; and (b) perform "off the clock" work. Plaintiffs seek damages and declaratory relief. The named plaintiffs and members of the putative class are parties to employment agreements with O'Charley's that provide, inter alia, for individual arbitration of potential claims and disputes. On October 25, 2016, the District Court entered an Order staying all proceedings in the Otis case pending the United States Supreme Court's resolution of certain petitions for certiorari filed in several Circuit Courts of Appeals cases that address the issue of whether agreements between employers and employees to arbitrate disputes on an individual basis are enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act. The Order provides that, if certiorari is granted in any of the Circuit Courts of Appeals cases, the stay of the Otis case will continue until the Supreme Court reaches a final decision on the merits in the cases. On January 13, 2017, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in three of the Circuit Courts of Appeals cases that address the enforceability of arbitration agreements. On May 21, 2018, the Supreme Court ruled on the issue, holding that class-action waivers in employment arbitration agreements are enforceable. The District Court has continued the stay pending the completion of such arbitration proceedings, which have not yet commenced. Cannae Holdings, Inc. engages in the restaurant business. It owns and operates the O'Charley's, Ninety Nine, Village Inn, and Bakers Square restaurants; and food service concepts, as well as its Legendary Baking bakery. The company offers a range of services and software to employers, such as payroll, payroll related tax filing, human resource information systems, employee self-service, time and labor management, employee assistance and work-life programs, and recruitment and applicant screening. Cannae Holdings, Inc. was incorporated in 2017 and is based in Las Vegas, Nevada. CARDINAL HEALTH: Faces 50 Opioid-Related Class Suits ---------------------------------------------------- Cardinal Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company is facing 50 opioid-related class action suits. Pharmaceutical wholesale distributors, including the company, have been named as defendants in over 1,000 lawsuits relating to the distribution of prescription opioid pain medications. These lawsuits have been filed in various federal, state, and other courts by a variety of plaintiffs, primarily counties, municipalities and other political subdivisions from 48 states. Plaintiffs also include state attorneys general, unions and other health and welfare funds, hospital systems and other healthcare providers. Of these lawsuits, 50 are purported class actions. The lawsuits seek equitable relief and monetary damages based on a variety of legal theories including various common law claims, such as negligence, public nuisance, unjust enrichment as well as violations of controlled substance laws and various other statutes. Many also name pharmaceutical manufacturers, retail pharmacy chains and other entities as defendants. The vast majority of these lawsuits were filed in U.S. federal court and have been transferred for consolidated pre-trial proceedings in a Multi-District Litigation proceeding in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The court, among other things, ordered that three lawsuits be set for trial in 2019. In connection with these proceedings, distributors have engaged in preliminary discussions with various parties, including state attorneys general, regarding possible resolution structures. In addition, 39 state attorneys general have formed a multi-state task force to investigate the manufacturing, distribution, dispensing and prescribing practices of opioid medications. Cardinal Health said, "We have received requests related to this multi-state investigation, as well as civil investigative demands, subpoenas or requests for information from these and other state attorneys general offices. We are cooperating with the offices conducting these investigations. We are vigorously defending ourselves in all of these opioid matters. Given the uncertainty surrounding these lawsuits and investigations and their early stages, we are unable to predict their outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible losses." Cardinal Health, Inc. operates as an integrated healthcare services and products company in the United States and internationally. It provides medical products and pharmaceuticals, and solutions that enhance supply chain efficiency for hospitals, healthcare systems, pharmacies, ambulatory surgery centers, clinical laboratories, and physician offices. Cardinal Health, Inc. was founded in 1979 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ohio. CATHOLIC CHURCH: 6 Americans File Sexual Abuse Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Corky Siemaszko, writing for NBC News, reports that six men who claim they were sexually abused as children by members of the Roman Catholic clergy have filed a class-action lawsuit against the Vatican and U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. Claiming to be victims of "endemic, systematic, rampant and pervasive rape and sexual abuse," the six say in a lawsuit filed on Nov. 13 at U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., that the Church protected their alleged abusers and "took extraordinary measures to conceal their wrongful conduct." Instead of going to bat for the victims, the Church "robbed them of their childhood, youth, innocence, virginity, families, jobs, finances, assets -- in short, their lives," the suit states. The victims were all minors when the alleged abuse happened and lived in Iowa, Mississippi, Illinois, California, Pennsylvania and New Jersey when it happened, according to the court papers. The lawsuit was filed by attorneys Mitchell Toups, Richard Coffman, Joe Whatley Jr. and Henry Quillen, all veteran litigators who have handled class action lawsuits for other clerical sexual abuse victims. Both the Conference and The Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See to the United Nations did not return requests for comment from NBC News. [GN] CATHOLIC CHURCH: Philadelphia Man Joins Sexual Abuse Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- A Philadelphia man who alleges he was sexually abused by a priest while he attended Roman Catholic High School back in 1969 has joined a class-action lawsuit against the nation's Catholic bishops and the Vatican, KYW Newsradio's Mark Abrams reports. [GN] CATHOLIC CHURCH: Westmont Resident Joins Sexual Abuse Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Dave Sutor, writing for The Tribune-Democrat, reports that a Westmont resident is one of six named plaintiffs in a federal class action civil suit filed on Nov. 13 against the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Holy See. Shaun Dougherty, an alleged victim of childhood sexual abuse at the hands of a priest within the Roman Catholic Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown, has joined the lawsuit that is about the alleged "endemic, systemic, rampant, and pervasive rape and sexual abuse of Plaintiffs and Class Members" perpetrated by cardinals, bishops, monsignors, priests, sisters, lay leaders and members of church orders, according to the document, obtained late on Nov. 13 by The Tribune-Democrat. Plaintiffs also argue that the alleged abuse and coverup constitutes a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act case, because multiple alleged violations involved the federal mail and wire fraud. In the case, which was brought in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the Holy See is identified in its capacity as a foreign state -- Vatican City -- and as an unincorporated association and head of an international religious organization. There are 14 counts, including conspiracy, assault, gross negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiffs are seeking actual, consequential, compensatory, economic, punitive and RICO treble damages, along with declaratory and injunctive relief and legal fees. "I've waited my entire adult life to do something like this," said Mr. Dougherty, who is one of more than 100 class members in the suit. "This is something that I never thought I'd get the opportunity to do." In 2016, the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General released a report providing details of an alleged decades-long coverup by the Altoona-Johnstown Diocese to protect predator priests. Dougherty believes his abuse was mentioned in that report, albeit with a redacted name. Since then, he has been an outspoken advocate for victims, talking to countless news outlets. Mr. Dougherty said participating in the class action suit "was offered to me through an associate that I know, through an advocate that I know, that I've met over the last couple years because of the publicity and things that I've been getting. It was brought to my attention." The action was filed late in the afternoon, according to Dougherty, who passed along the information to The Tribune-Democrat around 9 p.m. No effort could be made to reach the defendants before press time. [GN] CENTRAL CREDIT: Biston Files FDCPA Class Action ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Central Credit Services LLC. The case is styled as Zalman Biston on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Central Credit Services LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10931 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 21, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Central Credit Services, Inc. operates as an accounts receivable management company. It specializes in the collection of primary, auto, mortgage, commercial, credit card, installment loan, and retail debt, as well as other types of accounts receivables.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Chaim Cohen, Esq. Cohen & Mizrahi LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (929) 575-4175 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: dan@cml.legal CHEMICAL FINANCIAL: Bid to Drop City of Livonia Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ Chemical Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the motion to dismiss filed in City of Livonia Employees' Retirement System v. Chemical Financial Corporation, et. al., Docket No. 1:16-cv-12229, is pending. On June 16, 2016, the same putative class plaintiff that filed the City of Livonia Employees' Retirement System v. Chemical Financial Corporation et. al., Case No. 2016-151641-CB. state court action filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, styled City of Livonia Employees' Retirement System v. Chemical Financial Corporation, et. al., Docket No. 1:16-cv-12229. The plaintiff purports to bring this action "individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated," and requests certification as a class action. The Complaint alleges violations of Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and alleges, among other things, that the Defendants issued materially incomplete and misleading disclosures in the Form S-4 Registration Statement relating to the proposed merger. The Complaint contains requests for relief that include, among other things, that the Court enjoin the proposed transaction unless and until additional information is provided to Talmer Bancorp, Inc.'s (Talmer's) shareholders, declare that the Defendants violated the securities laws in connection with the proposed merger, award compensatory damages, interest, attorneys' and experts' fees, and that the Court grant such other relief as it deems just and proper. Talmer, the Corporation, and the individual defendants all believe that the claims asserted against each of them in this lawsuit are without merit and intend to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. On October 18, 2016, the Federal Court entered a stipulated order staying this action until the Oakland County Circuit Court issues rulings on motions for summary disposition In re Talmer Bancorp Shareholder Litigation, case number 2016-151641-CB. Following the Oakland County Circuit Court's denial of the Motions by KBW and the individual defendants and their ensuing application for leave to appeal that ruling, the Federal Court issued an order extending the stay of this action. On November 13, 2017, the Federal Court issued an Order Directing Plaintiff To Show Cause Why The Stay Should Not Be Lifted. On June 29, 2018, the Court issued an Order Lifting Stay. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on July 27, 2018. In response to the amended complaint, the Defendants filed a Motion To Dismiss on August 24, 2018. A ruling on the Defendant's motion is awaited. Chemical Financial Corporation operates as a financial holding company of Chemical Bank that offers banking and fiduciary products and services to residents and business customers. Chemical Financial Corporation was founded in 1917 and is headquartered in Detroit, Michigan. COMMERCE BACSHARES: Sullivan Files Suit in S.D.N.Y. Under ADA ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Commerce Bacshares, Inc. The case is styled as Phillip Sullivan, Jr. on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Commerce Bacshares, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10881 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 20, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Commerce Bancshares, Inc. operates as the holding company for Commerce Bank that provides retail, mortgage banking, corporate, investment, trust, and asset management products and services to individuals and businesses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Lee Litigation Group, PLLC 30 East 39th Street 2nd Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 465-1188 Fax: (212) 465-1181 Email: cklee@leelitigation.com CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Can't Compel Arbitration in Motley TCPA Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge James Donato of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied ContextLogic's motion to compel arbitration in the case, SHARON MOTLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CONTEXTLOGIC, INC., d/b/a Wish.com, Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-02117-JD (N.D. Cal.). In the putative class action, Motley alleges that the Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by sending unsolicited SMS text messages to her cell phone. ContextLogic operates e-commerce websites including Wish.com, which appears to specialize in a bargain hunting experience for shoppers. Motley registered as a Wish.com user in January 2017. ContextLogic does not contend that the January 2017 interaction created an agreement to arbitrate. Instead, it focuses on a log-in screen Motley used in September 2017 to provide an email address and password. ContextLogic also relies on an "Order History" screen that Motley accessed in October 2017. This screen included a box for a user to check if she wanted to receive SMS updates about my delivery status and deals sent to phone number. As a final element, ContextLogic refers to other log-in screens that it says Motley accessed in March 2018. The parties agree that Wish.com's terms of service contain a clause providing for arbitration of disputes with a class-action waiver, and a choice of law provision designating California law. They also agree that the Federal Arbitration Act governs ContextLogic's motion to compel. The main bone of contention is whether the parties formed an agreement to arbitrate their disputes. Judge Donato finds that an agreement to arbitrate cannot be found on the record. ContextLogic suggests that making the terms of service accessible via a conspicuous hyperlink, without more, was enough to create an agreement. This theory has been definitively rejected in the circuit. In the absence of evidence demonstrating actual or constructive notice and acceptance of the arbitration clause by Motley, ContextLogic's motion must be denied. ContextLogic also puts substantial emphasis on the fact that the "Order History" screens featured a box asking if the user would like to receive text messages from Wish.com. In its view, the imperative mood of the screen language and the presence of the hyperlink were enough to put Motley on notice that she was subject to the terms of service. That again, according to the Judge, goes too far. The "Order History" screen is substantively indistinguishable from the log-in screen, and so faces the same fate under Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble, Inc. If anything, it is even less susceptible to binding Motley to the terms of service because "here" is not referring to the terms of service. Finally, the parties dispute whether Motley in fact checked the box to accept text messages, but that is of no moment for the arbitration motion. If the evidence ultimately shows that Motley agreed to receive the messages, a good argument might be made that she is not well-positioned to bring a TCPA claim. That question, however, is not germane to the issue of whether she agreed to arbitration. Even assuming purely for discussion that she did check the box, it would not establish a meeting of the minds on the arbitration clause. For these reasons, Judge Donato denied ContextLogic's motion to compel arbitration. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 9, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/OG3AYX from Leagle.com. Sharon Motley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by David William Hall, Hedin Hall LLP & Frank S. Hedin -- fhedin@hedinhall.com -- Hedin Hall LLP. Contextlogic,Inc., Defendant, represented by Jeffrey S. Jacobson -- jjacobson@kelleydrye.com -- Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, Lauri Anne Mazzuchetti -- lmazzuchetti@kelleydrye.com -- Kelley Drye Warren LLP, pro hac vice, Sarah E. Diamond -- sdiamond@kelleydrye.com -- Kelley Drye & Warren LLP & Steven Spencer Elg -- selg@kelleydrye.com -- Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, pro hac vice. COSTCO WHOLESALE: Settlement in Backer Law's Suit Has Final OK -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, THE BACKER LAW FIRM, LLC, on behalf of itself and all those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 4:15-CV-00327-SRB (W.D. Mo.), Judge Stephen R. Bough of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri granted the Plaintiff's (i) Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and (ii) Motion for Award of Attorney Fees, Reimbursement of Expenses and Incentive Award. The Parties entered into a September 2018 Settlement Agreement. The Court entered a Sept. 19, 2018 Order preliminarily ordering notice to potential class members, scheduling a Final Approval Hearing and providing those persons identified as members of the class with an opportunity either to exclude themselves from the settlement class or to object to the proposed settlement. It held a Final Approval Hearing on Nov. 13, 2018. Judge Bough contemporaneously issued a Final Judgment that granted final certification of the settlement class and approved the proposed settlement. He finally certified for settlement purposes a class consisting of all persons or entities appearing in the List of Class Members to whom Defendant sent one or more facsimiles promoting its products, services, or memberships between April 2, 2011 and April 2, 2015. For the reasons stated in the Plaintiff's motion and suggestions in support of final settlement approval, the terms and provisions of the Settlement have been entered into in good faith and are fully and finally approved as fair, reasonable and adequate. The parties and the administrator are directed to administer the plan of allocation in accordance with its terms and provisions. The Judge awarded the Class Counsel $99,726.67 in attorneys' fees and $16,584.23 in reimbursed costs, for a total of $116,310.90; and an incentive award in the amount of $5,000 paid to Plaintiff The Backer Law Firm, LLC, which will all be distributed from the Gross Settlement Amount in the manner specified in the Settlement. The Judge is contemporaneously entering the Final Judgment. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 13, 2018 Judgment and Order is available at https://is.gd/b02qao from Leagle.com. The Backer Law Firm, on behalf of itself and all those similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Aristotle N. Rodopoulos -- ari@woodlaw.com -- Wood Law Firm LLC & Noah K. Wood -- noah@woodlaw.com. Costco Wholesale Corporation, Defendant, represented by Rebecca J. Schwartz -- rschwartz@shb.com -- Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP & Todd W. Ruskamp -- truskamp@shb.com -- Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP. DEMAND PROGRESS: Robinson Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls ------------------------------------------------------------ FREDERICK ROBINSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. DEMAND PROGRESS ACTION, INC., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, the Defendant, Case 2:18-cv-09563 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 12, 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, thereby invading Plaintiff' privacy and causing him to incur unnecessary and unwanted expenses. According to the complaint, beginning in or around July of 2018, the Defendant contacted Plaintiff on Plaintiff's home telephone number ending in -6241, in an attempt to solicit Plaintiff to purchase Defendant's services. Defendant used an "automatic telephone dialing system" as defined by 47 U.S.C. section 227(a)(1) to place its call to Plaintiff seeking to solicit its services. The Defendant contacted or attempted to contact Plaintiff from telephone number (888) 250- 3780, confirmed to belong to Defendant. Defendant's calls constituted calls that were not for emergency purposes as defined by 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1)(A). Defendant's calls were placed to telephone number assigned to a cellular telephone service for which Plaintiff incurs a charge for incoming calls pursuant to 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1), the lawsuit says. Demand Progress Action operates as a non-profit organization. The Organization focus on issues of civil liberties, civil rights, and government reform.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. Tom E. Wheeler, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (323) 306-4234 Facsimile: 866-633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@ toddflaw.com abacon@ toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com twheeler@toddflaw.com DITECH FINANCIAL: Can Compel Arbitration in Kincaid Suit -------------------------------------------------------- In the case, LESIA KINCAID, Plaintiff, v. DITECH FINANCIAL LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No. 2:18-CV-85 (N.D. W.Va.), Judge John Preston Bailey of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia in Elkins granted Ditech's Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Dismiss Action, filed on Oct. 2, 2018. Kincaid filed a Class Action Complaint against the Defendant, alleging violations of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act. She alleges that Ditech, while attempting to collect on a debt, used fraudulent, deceptive, or misleading language in its letters to individual. The Plaintiff alleges that Ditech's letter stated the creditor "will not sue you" for the debt owed, instead of the required "cannot sue you" language. Ditech moved to compel the case to arbitration based on an arbitration provision in a contract the Plaintiff entered into for the purchase of a manufactured home. In 1999, the Plaintiff entered into a contract titled as "Retail Installment Contract, Security Agreement, Waive f Trial by Jury and Agreement to Arbitration or Reference or Trial by Judge Alone" with Carrico Mobile Homes, Inc. to purchase a manufactured home. Greenpoint Credit Corp. financed the Plaintiff's purchase. In 2004, Greenpoint assigned its loan servicing rights to certain loans to Green Tree Servicing, LLC, now as Ditech, the Defendant in the case. One of the servicing agreements now assigned to Ditech was the Plaintiff's. The Plaintiff's loan which was previously serviced by Greenpoint is now serviced by Ditech. In collection for a debt owed on the loan, the Plaintiff alleges Ditech violated the law. She filed her claim as a Class Action Complaint to represent a class of multiple unnamed and unknown other people who have been sent letters by Ditech that also contain the "will not sue you" language. Ditech points to the Contract, which Ditech argues requires this dispute to be handled by arbitration. Most relevant to the instant dispute, the Contract contains a section titled "Arbitration of Disputes and Waiver of Jury Trial." Ditech filed the instant motion to compel arbitration, arguing that these provisions require arbitration for the case. The Plaintiff argues that the provisions do not require arbitration of the instant claims. Judge Bailey finds that the Contract reads that any controversy concerning whether an issue is arbitrable will be determined by the arbitrator(s). Determining whether arbitration is required or not depends on whether the case constitutes (1) a single claimant or (2) multiple persons asserting claims from separate transactions. Since it cannot be determined whether arbitration is required without determining that threshold issue and the Contract clearly delegates that determination to an arbitrator, the case will be referred to arbitration. Delegation provisions that move the threshold decisions of arbitrability from the judicial system and into the arbitration arena are enforceable. Therefore, the Judhe holds that the case will be referred to arbitration because (1) there is a question of whether this case constitutes a single claimant case or if it is class of multiple cases and separate transactions; (2) the Contract provides that questions of arbitrability are to be determined by the arbitrator; and (3) the Contract refers to the AAA. The arbitrator is required in order to determine how the case will be categorized and, once that determination is made, whether the case should be handled in arbitration or in the Court. Based on this, Judge Bailey granted Ditech's Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Dismiss Action. He stayed the matter pending arbitration. The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of the Order to all the counsel of record. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 13, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/IixZyD from Leagle.com. Lesia Kincaid, Plaintiff, represented by Steven R. Broadwater, Jr., Hamilton Burgess Young & Pollard, PLLC. Ditech Financial LLC, Defendant, represented by John C. Lynch -- john.lynch@troutman.com -- Troutman Sanders LLP & Jason E. Manning -- jason.manning@troutman.com -- Troutman Sanders LLP. DOUBLE DOWN: Court Denies Bid to Compel Arbitration in Benson Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, ADRIENNE BENSON AND MARY SIMONSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DOUBLE DOWN INTERACTIVE, LLC, a Washington limited liability company, and INTERNATIONAL GAME TECHNOLOGY, a Nevada corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00525-RBL (W.D. Wash.), Judge Ronald B. Leighton of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Tacoma, denied the Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration. The Plaintiffs filed their Complaint against Double Down on April 17, 2018, alleging that Double Down Casino constitutes illegal gambling in violation of RCW Section 4.24.070. Double Down Casino is a game available as a computer or mobile app and allows users to play gambling games with virtual "chips" that may be purchased in the app after users run out of the initial free allotment. Despite the fact that these chips cannot be redeemed for actual money, the Plaintiffs allege that they are nonetheless valuable because they can be used to continue playing. Therefore, the Plaintiffs allege that Double Down's game amounts to gambling as defined by statute and that they are entitled to recover the money they lost playing. Benson played Double Down Casino on Facebook. Simonson played Double Down Casino by downloading it as an iPhone app. The matter is before the Court on the Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration. The underlying dispute is a class action to recover money lost playing electronic gambling games available through different platforms, including Facebook and iPhone. Hyperlinks to Double Down's Terms of Use, which include an arbitration provision, exist at various points from when a user initially accesses the game through the gameplay experience. Double Down argues that these hyperlinks are sufficiently conspicuous to put a reasonable user on inquiry notice that playing the Double Down Casino game entails agreeing to the Terms of Use. Benson and Simonson respond that they were never bound by Double Down's Terms because the hyperlinks were either hidden at the bottom of the window or obscured from view. Furthermore, they argue that none of the hyperlinks were coupled with a notification alerting a user that they were entering a binding contract. Judge Leighton finds that if there is no actual notice, a browsewrap agreement must at least provide a conspicuous link with some accompanying notification alerting a user that they are entering into a contract. In the case, Double Down has not met these requirements for inquiry notice. Neither the initial link on Facebook nor on the mobile app, is coupled with a notification informing a user that downloading or playing Double Down Casino creates a binding agreement. The hyperlinks within the game itself also do not put a user on inquiry notice. The notification does not identify any action by the user that would manifest assent, nor does the reference to "Terms of Service" in the notification even match the "Terms of Use" hyperlink above it. Finally, the Judge finds that the case that Double Down cites in support of his proposition that the "Apple Media Terms and Conditions," somehow bound Simonson to Double Down's Terms did not involve browsewrap and focused on a contract between a user and the owner of the app store (Google), not a user and an app developer. In any case, the issue in the case is not whether a contract of some nature was created when Simonson downloaded the app, but rather whether Simonson agreed to be bound by Double Down's Term of Use. In light of the foregoing, he concludes Simonson did not. For the reasons he stated, Judge Leighton denied Double Down's Motion to Compel Arbitration. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 13, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/ANriUh from Leagle.com. Adrienne Benson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated & Mary Simonson, Plaintiffs, represented by Cecily C. Shiel -- cshiel@tousley.com -- TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS, Janissa Ann Strabuk -- jstrabuk@tousley.com -- TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS, Benjamin H. Richman -- brichman@edelson.com -- EDELSON PC, pro hac vice, Eve-Lynn Rapp -- erapp@edelson.com -- EDELSON PC, pro hac vice, J. Eli Wade-Scott -- ewadescott@edelson.com -- EDELSON PC, pro hac vice, Rafey S. Balabanian -- rbalabanian@edelson.com -- EDELSON PC, pro hac vice & Todd Logan -- tlogan@edelson.com -- EDELSON PC, pro hac vice. Double Down Interactive, LLC, a Washington limited liability company, Defendant, represented by Cyrus E. Ansari -- cyrusansari@dwt.com -- DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE, Jaime Drozd Allen -- jaimeallen@dwt.com -- DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE & Stuart R. Dunwoody -- stuartdunwoody@dwt.com -- DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE. International Game Technology, a Nevada corporation, Defendant, represented by Adam T. Pankratz -- adam.pankratz@ogletree.com -- OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, Bonnie Lau -- bonnie.lau@dentons.com -- DENTONS US LLP, pro hac vice & William M. Gantz -- bill.gantz@dentons.com -- DENTONS US LLP, pro hac vice. ECO SCIENCE: Glancy Prongay to Lead in Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------ In the case, ROBERT STIRES, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. ECO SCIENCE SOLUTIONS, INC.; JEFFREY TAYLOR; and DON LEE TAYLOR, Defendants, DAVID PENHOLLOW, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. ECO SCIENCE SOLUTIONS, INC.; JEFFREY TAYLOR; and DON LEE TAYLOR, Defendants, JIAXIN LU, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. ECO SCIENCE SOLUTIONS, INC.; JEFFREY TAYLOR; DON LEE TAYLOR; and GANNON GIGUIERE, Defendants, Civil Nos. 17-3707 (RMB/KMW), 17-3760 (RMB/KMW), 17-5161 (RMB/KMW) (D. N.J.), Judge Renee Marie Bumb of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, Camden Vicinage, granted Lead Plaintiff Richard Roschke's motion to approve his selection of Glancy, Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") as the lead counsel with Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello, P.C., as the liaison counsel for the proposed class. On Feb. 14, 2018, the Court consolidated the three captioned class action lawsuits, brought on behalf of individuals and entities that acquired Eco Science Solutions securities between Dec. 2, 2016 and May 19, 2017 against Eco Science and the individual Defendants. In the same Feb. 14, 2018 Order and Opinion, the Court granted Roschke's motion to be appointed the Lead Plaintiff, but reserved its decision on the appointment of the lead counsel for the putative class pending additional briefing from Roschke regarding the reasonableness of his selected counsel. On March 2, 2018, Roschke filed supplemental briefing addressing the issue. Judge Bumb has reviewed the resumes of both law firms retained by Roschke and finds that both firms have considerable experience and expertise in securities litigation. Roschke's supplemental brief states that GPM retained Carella as the liaison counsel, among other reasons, for assistance on navigation of the New Jersey court system, generally. The supplemental brief further explains that GPM will rely upon Carella for advice on local rules within the District of New Jersey and to file documents. Given the described division of labor, the Judge finds that the anticipated relationship between the lead and the liaison counsel is appropriate. After reviewing the supplemental briefing and Roschke's declaration, the Judge is satisfied that the Lead Plaintiff's choices were the result of a good faith selection and negotiation process and were arrived at via meaningful arms-length bargaining. Accordingly, she granted Roschke's motion to appoint GPM and Carella as the lead and the liaison counsel, respectively. An accompanying Order will issue. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 7, 2018 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/x5fZ1F from Leagle.com. Robert Faucheux, Movant, represented by LAURENCE M. ROSEN -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, PA. Richard Roschke, Movant, represented by DONALD A. ECKLUND -- DEcklund@carellabyrne.com -- CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. Suzanne Rice, Juzo Mizuno, Fred Torbaty, Ken Shollmier & Steven Glogowski, Movants, represented by JENNIFER SARNELLI -- jsarnelli@gardylaw.com -- GARDY & NOTIS, LLP & JAMES STUART NOTIS -- jnotis@gardylaw.com -- GARDY & NOTIS. ROBERT STIRES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by LAURENCE M. ROSEN, THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, PA. DAVID PENHOLLOW, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff Consolidated, represented by BRUCE DANIEL GREENBERG -- bgreenberg@litedepalma.com -- LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC. JIAXIN LU, INDIVIDUALY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff Consolidated, represented by JAMES E. CECCHI -- JCecchi@carellabyrne.com -- CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.. ENERGEN CORP: Faces Diamondback & Sidewinder-Merger Related Suits ----------------------------------------------------------------- Energen Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company has been named as defendant in two purported class action suits in relation to its merger with Diamondback and Sidewinder Merger Sub Inc. On August 14, 2018, Energen Corporation entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the Merger Agreement) with Diamondback and Sidewinder Merger Sub Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Diamondback (Merger Sub). In connection with the Merger Agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby, two purported class action lawsuits and an individual lawsuit have been filed. Two of the complaints, captioned Melvin Gross v. Energen Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-01711-RDP (filed October 17, 2018) and Shiva Stein v. Energen Corporation, et al., Case 2:18-cv-01746-JHE (filed October 22, 2018), were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. One complaint, captioned Jordan Rosenblatt v. Energen Corporation, et al., Case No. 01-CV-2018-9043232100 (filed October 26, 2018), was filed in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama. The complaints assert claims against Energen and its directors. In general, the complaints allege that the defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act because the joint proxy statement/prospectus with respect to the Merger filed with the SEC allegedly misrepresents or omits material information or assert state law breaches of fiduciary duty based on such alleged misrepresentations or omissions. The complaints generally seek, among other things, injunctive relief preventing the consummation of the Merger, rescission in the event the Merger is consummated, and damages. Energen said, "The defendants believe that the actions are without merit." Energen Corporation, through its subsidiary, Energen Resources Corporation, engages in the exploration, development, and production of oil, natural gas liquids, and natural gas. The company has operations within the Midland Basin, the Delaware Basin, and the Central Basin Platform areas of the Permian Basin in west Texas and New Mexico. The company was founded in 1929 and is headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama. ET PUBLISHING: Underpays Art Directors, Norte Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------- FIDEL NORTE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ET PUBLISHING INTERNATIONAL, LLC, DEFENDANT, Case No. 80115161 (Fla. Cir., Miami-Dade Cty., Oct. 31, 2018) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid overtime compensation, minimum wages, interest, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff Norte was employed by the Defendant as art director for the production department from May 16, 2005 to May 4, 2018. ET Publishing International, LLC, doing business as Televisa Publishing, operates as a publishing company. The Company provides printing of periodicals and magazines. Televisa Publishing serves customers in the State of Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Esq. Max L. Horowitz, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com mhorowitz@rgpattorneys.com FCNH INC: 10th Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in Nesbitt FLSA Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, RHONDA NESBITT, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FCNH, INC.; VIRGINIA MASSAGE THERAPY, INC.; MID-ATLANTIC MASSAGE THERAPY, INC.; STEINER EDUCATION GROUP, INC.; STEINER LEISURE LTD.; SEG CORT LLC, d/b/a Steiner Education Group, Defendants-Appellees, and NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS ASSOCIATION AND ECONOMICS/BUSINESS PROFESSORS (WILLIAM H. KAEMPFER, NADELLE GROSSMAN, PAULA COLE, and MIRIAM CHERRY), Amici Curiae, Case No. 17-1084 (10th Cir.), Judge Paul Joseph Kelly, Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendants. Plaintiff Nesbitt is a former massage therapy student who attended a for-profit vocational school operated by the Defendants-Appellees ("Steiner"). Ms. Nesbitt, on behalf of a class of former students, brought suit claiming the students qualified as employees of Steiner under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and alleging that Steiner violated the FLSA by failing to pay minimum wage. Steiner operated for-profit vocational schools in multiple states. Its schools' curriculum included classroom and clinical education required for one to become licensed as a massage therapist. The clinical component included approximately 100, 50-minute massages, which counted toward the minimum clinical hours necessary for students to acquire their state licenses. The massages were performed at Steiner facilities on members of the public, who paid discounted rates for the massages. Ms. Nesbitt alleges Steiner profited from the clinics with the students as free labor. Rhonda Nesbitt brought her class-action suit under the FLSA in the District of Colorado on April 7, 2014. Steiner moved to compel arbitration of the claims and to prohibit litigation of the issues as a class. The district court denied that motion, and the Court affirmed. On remand, the district court addressed the issue of whether Ms. Nesbitt and the students she seeks to represent qualified as employees under the FLSA. The district court found they did not. The district court determined that the six factors announced in Reich v. Parker Fire Protection District, when considered in their totality, resulted in a finding that the students were not employees of Steiner. The district court came to that conclusion because (1) the students received vocational training from Steiner, (2) the training primarily benefited the students because they were required to complete hours of clinical time for their licenses, (3) the students did not displace regular employees and worked under supervision of Steiner instructors, (4) there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding the profit Steiner made from operating its schools, (5) the students were not entitled to employment upon completion of their training, and (6) the students and Steiner both understood that the students were not entitled to wages during their time spent training. Accordingly, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of Steiner on the question of Ms. Nesbitt's FLSA claim. The appeal followed. On appeal, Ms. Nesbitt first argues that the district court erred when it applied Reich v. Parker Fire Protection District as the governing framework, contending that the court should have applied the test in Marshall v. Regis Educational Corp, where the court held, after looking at the totality of the circumstances, that student resident hall assistants working for a college were not employees under the FLSA. Judge Kelly finds that Regis Educational Corp. is merely another application of the totality of the circumstances test first articulated in Walling v. Portland Terminal Co. and later relied upon in Reich to examine the economic reality of the relationship between the entity providing training and the plaintiffs. Ms. Nesbitt next invites the Court to apply the "primary beneficiary" test set forth by the Second Circuit in Glatt v. Fox Searchlight Pictures, Inc., a case involving unpaid college interns, not a mandatory clinical training program leading to a state-licensed profession. The Judge sees no need to do so given the breadth of the test, which relies on the totality of the circumstances and accounts for the economic reality of the situation. Finally, Ms. Nesbitt argues that even if Reich is the correct test, the district court erred in its application of the Reich factors and its assessment of the totality of the circumstances. The Judge finds that the presence of some supervision when combined with the other factors weighs in favor of finding that the students were trainees. Moreover, there is no need for each and every one of the six factors to point toward the same outcome. He also finds that the hours students spent performing massages as part of their Steiner curriculum allowed them to advance toward their minimum licensing requirements and provided them an obvious benefit. The other factors also weigh in favor of finding that the students were trainees, not employees. Given that background, the Judge holds there can be no doubt the students understood they were entering an educational program that would not entitle them to wages. For the foregoing reasons, he finds that the district court did not err when it found that Ms. Nesbitt and the students she seeks to represent are not employees of Steiner under the FLSA. Accoringly, he affirmed. The motion of the National Employment Lawyers Association et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae is granted. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 9, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/23TsLs from Leagle.com. David H. Miller David H. Miller -- dmiller@sawayalaw.com -- (and Adam Harrison of Sawaya & Miller Law Firm, on the briefs), Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellant. Todd Wozniak David H. Miller -- dmiller@sawayalaw.com -- Sawaya Law Firm of Greenberg, Traurig, L.L.P., Atlanta, Georgia (and Jeffrey M. Lippa -- LippaJ@gtlaw.com -- of Greenberg, Traurig, L.L.P., Denver, Colorado, with him on the brief), for Defendants-Appellees. Scott A. Moss -- mosslawpractice@gmail.com -- of Moss Law Practice, and Hunter A. Swain -- kg@kinggreisen.com -- of King & Greisen, L.L.P., Denver, Colorado, for Amici Curiae. FIVE STAR SENIOR: Dominguez Suit Asserts ADA Violation ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Five Star Senior Living Inc. The case is styled as Yovanny Dominguez on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Five Star Senior Living Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10874 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 20, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Five Star Senior Living Inc. operates and manages senior living communities in the United States. It operates through Senior Living Communities, and Rehabilitation and Wellness segments. Its senior living communities comprise independent living communities, assisted living communities, and skilled nursing facilities (SNFs).[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 FORD MOTOR: Fails to Disclose Corrosion Defect, Simmons et al. Say ------------------------------------------------------------------ CLARENCE SIMMONS, BRANDON MUNGUIA, JORGE ARROYAVE, JOSEPH DABBS, JENNIFER DEWITT, ANNE ERDMAN, MARK JAMES, SHANE JACKSON, MIKE TIERNEY, MARK VAN BUS KIRK, JOHN BUCZYNSKI, ILJA LOPATIK, BRIAN YARBOROUGH, WILLIAM MACSAVENY, RYAN MARSHALL, ALLYSON ROGERS, PETER TULENKO, and GREG LICHTENBERG, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, the Defendant, Case 9:18-cv-81558-DMM (S.D. Fla., Nov. 14, 2018), seek damages, injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief due corrosion defect in class vehicles, as well as Ford's unlawful conduct in concealing the Defect, failing to cure the Defect, and/or failing to adequately compensate Plaintiffs and Class members for the economic harm they have suffered as a result of the Defect. The Plaintiffs brought this action individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated owners and lessees of Ford Mustang-, Ford Expedition-, and Ford Explorer-branded vehicles, model years 2013-2018, with aluminum hoods and panels and sold in the United States, all of which were delivered to consumers by Ford with an identical and inherent defect in the Class Vehicles' design and/or manufacturing process that Ford has acknowledged. The defect, which was latent, but existed at the time that the Class Vehicles left Ford’s possession and control, manifests itself over time, and causes the Class Vehicles' aluminum panels to corrode and the exterior paint on the aluminum body parts to bubble, flake, peel, rust and/or blister. Many Class members with Class Vehicles that have manifested the Corrosion Defect have learned of the futility of making a warranty claim for the Defect, or bringing in their Vehicle for a repair to address the Defect, through online complaints and the experiences of others that have had their warranty claims denied and/or inadequate repairs made to their Vehicles. As a result, many Class members have decided to not present their Class Vehicles to Ford dealerships for warranty claims and/or repairs, a requirement from which Class members are excused in light of the futility of Ford's warranty remedy, the lawsuit says.[BN] Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class Mark. J. Dearman Jason H. Alperstein Eric S. Dwoskin Ricardo J. Marenco ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 750-3000 Facsimile: (561) 750-3364 E-mail: mdearman@rgrdlaw.com jalperstein@rgrdlaw.com edwoskin@rgrdlaw.com rmarenco@rgrdlaw.com - and - Steven G. Calamusa, Esq. Robert. E. Gordon, Esq. Daniel G. Williams, Esq. GORDON & DONER, P.A. 4114 Northlake Boulevard Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Telephone: (561) 799-5070 Facsimile: (561) 799-4050 E-mail: scalamusa@fortheinjured.com rgordon@fortheinjured.com dwilliams@fortheinjured.com - and - James E. Cecchi, Esq. Caroline F. Bartlett, Esq. Michael A. Innes, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 Facsimile: (973) 994-1744 E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com cbartlett@carellabyrne.com minnes@carellabyrne.com FORD MOTOR: Kasper, et al. Sue over Online Hiring Process --------------------------------------------------------- EDWARD KASPER, et al., 3402 Parklane Dr. Parma, OH 44134, the Plaintiffs, vs. FORD MOTOR COMPANY C/O Statutory Agent CT CORPORATION SYSTEM 4400 EASTON COMMONS WAY, Ste. 125 COLUMBUS OH 43219, the Defendant, Case No. CV 18 906893 (Ohio Common Pleas, Cuyahoga Cty.), seeks punitive and compensatory damages to compensate for economic loss, loss of opportunity, stress, and physical sickness damages caused by Ford's failure to provide equal access to its online hiring process in violation to the Ohio Revised Code and the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff suffers from a disability caused by a brain injury. Defendant Ford operates a number of facilities in the State of Ohio, including Cuyahoga County. The only two means of applying for an entry-level job at Defendant Ford is through its website, or through Ohio Means Jobs, a government program. In or around the summer of 2014, Plaintiff Kasper was told that Defendant Ford had job openings in the Cleveland area. The Plaintiff attempted to access http://corporate.ford.comto submit an application online for employment, but he was unable to do so due to his disability. Mr. Kasper's disability makes it extremely difficult for him to fill out an application online because the amount of information contained on the website makes it difficult for him to concentrate and find the information he needs, the lawsuit says. Ford Motor Company is an American multinational automaker headquartered in Dearborn, Michigan, a suburb of Detroit. It was founded by Henry Ford and incorporated on June 16, 1903. The company sells automobiles and commercial vehicles under the Ford brand and most luxury cars under the Lincoln brand.[BN] Attorney for Plaintiffs: Shawn A. Romer, Esq. ROMER LAW FIRM, LLC 2012 W. 25th St, Ste. 716 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 644-3722 Facsimile: (216) 803-6674 E-mail: sromer@romerlawfirm.com - and - Lewis Zipkin, Esq. ZIPKIN WHITING CO., LPA The Zipkin Whiting Building 3637 South Green Road, 2nd Floor Beachwood, OH 44122 Telephone: (216) 514-6400 Facsimile: (216) 514-6406 E-mail: zfwlpa@aol.com GENPACT COLLECTIONS: Prendergast Sues over Unwanted Telephone Call ------------------------------------------------------------------ YENMA PRENDERGAST, on behalf of Herself and other similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. GENPACT COLLECTIONS, LLC and SYNCHRONY BANK, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-07547 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 14, 2018), seeks damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of Defendants in contacting Plaintiff on her cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. These calls are harassing, constitute a nuisance, a trespass to chattels, and are an invasion of privacy, according to the lawsuit. Synchrony is, in part, in the business of offering and servicing a wide range of store-branded credit cards, including the Amazon Credit Card, to consumers throughout the nation. Genpact offers outsourced collection services to financial institutions, including Defendant Synchrony. Synchrony retains Genpact to service certain delinquent accounts that Defendant Synchrony holds or owns, including placing automated calls using an automatic telephone dialing system or artificial or prerecorded voice to consumers who have fallen behind in their payments. Synchrony knows that Genpact places collection calls using an ATDS or artificial or prerecorded voice. Synchrony directs the manner and means by which Genpact places the calls. During the collection calls that Genpact initiates, the operator identifies him or herself as affiliated with the Synchrony Bank collections department. Synchrony ratifies Defendant Genpact's actions by accepting the benefits of Genpact's calls through continuing to use Genpact to service these accounts despite knowledge that it is using this equipment and messages, and accepting payments on the accounts generated by Genpact's telephone solicitation activities. The Defendants make calls using an ATDS or artificial or prerecorded voice to cellular telephones whose owners have not provided prior express written consent to receive such calls. The Plaintiff received such calls without providing any type of prior consent. The Defendant also fails to cease such improper calls even after it has been told not to call the customer using an ATDS and/or artificial or prerecorded voice. The Plaintiff received such calls even after telling Defendant to cease calling her, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Larry P. Smith, Esq. David M. Marco, Esq. SMITH MARCO, P.C. 55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 1200 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 546-6539 Facsimile: (888) 418-1277 E-mail: lsmith@smithmarco.com dmarco@smithmarco.com - and - Alexander H. Burke, Esq. BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC 155 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 9020 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 729-5288 Facsimile: (312) 729-5289 E-mail: ABurke@BurkeLawLLC.com GOLDEN KRUST 4: Fails to Pay OT to Cashiers, Samuel Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- SHARON A. SAMUEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOLDEN KRUST 4, LLC; KEITH A. CLAYBORNE; BERNADETTE P. CLAYBORNE; KISHON A. CLAYBORNE; and KYLE A. CLAYBORNE, Defendants, Case No. 80154475 (Fla. Cir., Miami-Dade Cty., Oct. 31, 2018) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid overtime compensation, minimum wages, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as cashier. Golden Krust 4, LLC is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com GREEN TREE: All Pending Motions in Kamimura Denied w/o Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Andrew P. Gordon of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada denied without prejudice all pending motions in the case, LEE C. KAMIMURA, Plaintiff, v. GREEN TREE SERVICING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00783-APG-CWH (D. Nev.), in light of the parties' notice of settlement and agreement to withdraw all pending motions without prejudice. On Jan. 2, 2019, the parties will file either a motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement or a status report regarding settlement. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 7, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/4igsQd from Leagle.com. Lee C. Kamimura, Plaintiff, represented by David H. Krieger -- info@hainesandkrieger.com -- Haines & Krieger, LLC, Abbas Kazerounian, Kazerouni Law Group, APC & Michael Kind, Kazerouni Law Group, APC. Ditech Financal LLC, formerly known as Green Tree Servicing, LLC, Defendant, represented by Donald H. Cram -- dhc@severson.com -- Severson & Werson, pro hac vice, John B. Sullivan -- dhc@severson.com -- Severson & Werson, Mary C. Kamka -- marykate.kamka@troutman.com -- Severson & Werson, pro hac vice, Laszlo Ladi -- ll@severson.com -- Severson & Werson & Laura R. Jacobsen -- ljacobsen@mcdonaldcarano.com -- McDonald Carano & Wilson. GREYHOUND LINES: Illegally Records Phone Calls, Fliegelman Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ NATALIE FLIEGELMAN, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. GREYHOUND LINES, INC., FIRSTGROUP, AMERICA, INC., and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.: RG18928355 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 13, 2018), alleges that Defendants violated the California's Invasion of Prrvacy Act and California Penal Code by recording phone calls without the consent of all parties, consumer-initiated calls made to Defendant-toll-fre customer service telephone number 1-800-231-2222. According to the complaint, Greyhound is the largest intercity bus company in the United States. Greyhound markets, sells, and provides bus transit services to consumers throughout California and this County, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintif and Proposed Class: Zev B. Zysman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ZEV B. ZYSMAN 5760 Ventura Boulevard, 16th Floor 411 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (818) 783-8836 Facsimile: (818) 783-9985 E-mail: zev@zysmanlawca.com GROUPON INC: Diaz Suit Asserts ADA Violation -------------------------------------------- Edwin Diaz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Groupon, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10935 (S.D. N.Y., November 21, 2018) is a class action under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Groupon, Inc. operates online local commerce marketplaces that connect merchants to consumers by offering goods and services at a discount in North America and internationally.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Cohen & Mizrahi LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West12 Fl. Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (929)575-4175 GURSTEL LAW: Boudreaux Files FDCPA Suit in Wisconsin ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gurstel Law Firm, P.C. The case is styled as Tanya Boudreaux on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Gurstel Law Firm, P.C., Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00957 (W.D. Wis., Nov. 20, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Gurstel Law Firm, P.C. (GLF) is a law firm based in Minnesota that specializes in third-party debt collection.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas J Lyons, Sr., Esq. Lyons Law Firm PA 367 Commerce Ct Vadnais Heights, MN 55127-8506 Phone: (651) 770-9707 Fax: (651) 770-5830 Email: tlyons@lyonslawfirm.com - and - Thomas John Lyons, Jr., Esq. Consumer Justice Center, P.A. 367 Commerce Court Vadnais Heights, MN 55127 Phone: (651) 770-9707 Email: tommy@consumerjusticecenter.com GURSTEL LAW: Dec. 21 Filing of Borges Deal Prelim Approval Bid -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, TOMAS BORGES, JR., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; Plaintiff, v. GURSTEL LAW FIRM, PC, f/k/a Gurstel Chargo, P.A., and CAVALRY SPV I, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 8:18CV344 (D. Neb.), Magistrate Judge Michael D. Nelson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska ordered the parties to file their proposed Settlement Agreement, Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, and any supporting briefing or other documents by Dec. 21, 2018. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 9, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/X07t6G from Leagle.com. Tomas Borges, Jr., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by O. Randolph Bragg -- rand@horwitzlaw.com -- HORWITZ, HORWITZ LAW FIRM, Pamela A. Car -- pacar@cox.net -- CAR, REINBRECHT LAW FIRM & William L. Reinbrecht , CAR, REINBRECHT LAW FIRM. Gurstel Law Firm, PC, formerly known as Gurstel Chargo, P.A. & Cavalry SPV I, LLC, Defendants, represented by Manuel H. Newburger -- mnewburger@bn-lawyers.com -- BARRON, NEWBURGER LAW FIRM. HANGER INC: Petitions in City of Pontiac Class Suits Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ Hanger, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the petition for panel rehearing and a petition for rehearing en banc in the case entitled, City of Pontiac General Employees' Retirement System v. Hanger, et al., are pending. In November 2014, a securities class action complaint, City of Pontiac General Employees' Retirement System v. Hanger, et al., C.A. No. 1:14-cv-01026-SS, was filed against the company in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The complaint named the company and certain of its current and former officers for allegedly making materially false and misleading statements regarding, inter alia, the company's financial statements, RAC audit success rate, the implementation of new financial systems, same-store sales growth, and the adequacy of the company's internal processes and controls. The complaint alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint sought unspecified damages, costs, attorneys' fees, and equitable relief. On April 1, 2016, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss the lawsuit for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and permitted plaintiffs to file an amended complaint. On July 1, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On September 15, 2016, the company and certain of the individual defendants filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit. On January 26, 2017, the court granted the defendants' motions and dismissed with prejudice all claims against all defendants for failure to state a claim. On February 24, 2017, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Appellate briefing was completed on August 18, 2017 and the Court of Appeals held oral argument for the appeal on March 5, 2018. On August 6, 2018, the Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the case against individual defendants Vinit Asar, the company's current President and Chief Executive Officer, and Thomas Kirk, the company's former President and Chief Executive Officer, but reversed the dismissal of the case against George McHenry, the company's former Chief Financial Officer, and Hanger, Inc. On August 20, 2018, Hanger, Inc. and George McHenry filed a petition for panel rehearing and a petition for rehearing en banc with the Court of Appeals. On September 10, 2018 the Court of Appeals asked plaintiffs to file a response to the petition for rehearing en banc, and plaintiffs filed an opposition to the petition for rehearing en banc on September 17, 2018. Both petitions are pending with the Court of Appeals. Hanger said, "We believe the remaining claims are without merit, and intend to continue to vigorously defend against these claims." Hanger, Inc. provides orthotic and prosthetic (O&P) services; and distributes O&P devices and components, manages O&P networks, and provides therapeutic solutions to patients and businesses in acute, post-acute, and clinic settings in the United States. It operates through two segments, Patient Care and Products & Services. The company was formerly known as Hanger Orthopedic Group, Inc. and changed its name to Hanger, Inc. in June 2012. Hanger, Inc. was founded in 1861 and is headquartered in Austin, Texas. HEALTH INSURANCE: Donisi Partly Compelled to Reply to RFPs in Moser ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, KENNETH J. MOSER, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HEALTH INSURANCE INNOVATIONS, INC., a Delaware corporation, et al., Defendants. AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS, Case No. 17cv1127-WQH (KSC) (S.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California granted in part and denied in part the parties' Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery Dispute. The original class action Complaint was filed on June 5, 2017. The Plaintiff then filed a First Amended Complaint on June 7, 2017. The First Amended Complaint includes two causes of action for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). In the first cause of action, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated the TCPA by making multiple, unauthorized calls to his cellular telephone using an automatic dialing system or artificial, pre-recorded voice starting on Jan. 28, 2015. The second cause of action alleges that the Defendants violated the TCPA by making multiple, unauthorized telephone calls to his residential telephone line using an artificial or pre-recorded voice to deliver a message beginning on Jan. 28, 2015. According to the First Amended Complaint, Defendant HII is the principle actor in a scheme to sell short term non-Affordable Care Act compliant medical insurance plans and other low quality insurance related services through fraud and deceit. The scheme allegedly begins when agents under contract to HII make cold calls to consumers using an automatic dialing system and a pre-recorded message. The First Amended Complaint also includes a fairly detailed summary of the calls. The Plaintiff also alleges in the First Amended Complaint that he received 32 autodialed, pre-recorded calls from Defendant Nationwide Health Advisors between April 6, 2017 and May 10, 2017. He believes he has been receiving calls from the Defendants in violation of the TCPA since early 2015, but he has not documented all of the calls, so some of the specific dates and times of calls are unknown without the aid of discovery. On June 27, 2014, in a separate case, the Plaintiff sued Defendants HII and Unified Life Insurance Co., but the action was later settled. The First Amended Complaint also alleges there are a number of outstanding junk call complaints against the the Defendants. The class allegations section of the First Amended Complaint indicates that the Plaintiff plans to seek certification of two sub-classes of Plaintiffs: (1) those who have received unauthorized, auto-dialed calls on their cellular telephones from the Defendants since Jan. 28, 2015; and (2) those who have received unauthorized, auto-dialed calls on the residential telephone lines since Jan. 28, 2015. Before the Court is the parties' Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery Dispute. In the Joint Motion, the Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Defendant Donisi Jax to provide further, substantive responses to certain document requests and interrogatories. Donisi Jax objects to these written discovery requests on various grounds. Defendant Donisi Jax is an insurance agency that contracts with third party lead vendors to develop leads to sell health insurance policies. It vehemently denies that any of its lead vendors are its agents. Donisi Jax's relationship with each and every one of its lead vendors are the result of arms'-length business transactions, and it does not assert any control over the vendors. Indeed, with respect to the lead vendor that transferred the Plaintiff to Donisi Jax, the contract between the parties specifically states that each party will comply with law and Donisi Jax has no right to audit the vendor. Judge Crawford granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's request for an order compelling Donisi Jax to provide further responses to certain interrogatories and document requests. She denied without prejudice the Plaintiff's request for an order compelling Donisi Jax to provide further responses to Interrogatory Nos. 3 and 4. Donisi Jax agreed to produce its agreements with third party lead vendors once a confidentiality Protective Order was entered. The Court recently entered a Protective Order. The Plaintiff may request the Court's assistance once again if Donisi Jax does not produce the agreements with its third party lead vendors that provide live transfer leads and/or does not disclose contact information for these vendors and any associated call centers. She denied the Plaintiff's request for an order compelling Donisi Jax to provide further responses to Document Request Nos. 19 and 20. Under the circumstances presented, the Judge finds that Donisi Jax provided an adequate response to these requests. The Judge granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's request for an order compelling Donisi Jax to provide further responses to Document Request Nos. 10, 11, and 26. She granted the Plaintiff's request to the extent it seeks an order compelling Donisi Jax to produce a document or documents that list the telephone numbers for all leads received from all of its third party live transfer lead vendors during the relevant time period. Donisi Jax must produce the list to plaintiff no later than Nov. 30, 2018. She denied the Plaintiff's request to the extent it seeks an order compelling Donisi Jax to produce any other documents, such as telephone bills, or other documents or reports detailing all of its incoming and outgoing telephone calls during the relevant time period. The Judge denied the Plaintiff's request for an order compelling Donisi Jax to provide a further response to Document Request No. 12 for failure to establish relevance and because it appears it would be overly burdensome and disproportionate to require Donisi Jax to compile the requested information. She granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's request for an order compelling Donisi Jax to provide a further response to Document Request No. 18 She denied without prejudice the Plaintiff's request for an order compelling production of its Do Not Call List. Donisi Jax represented it would produce its Do Not Call List once a Protective Order was entered. The Court recently entered a Protective Order. The Plaintiff may raise this issue again only if Donisi Jax does not produce the Do Not Call List. The Judge granted the Plaintiff's request for an order compelling Donisi Jax to provide a complete response to Document Request No. 18 addressing the existence of any documents setting forth its policies and procedures about the Do Not Call List. Donisi Jax will provide plaintiff with a full and complete response to Document Request No. 18 that complies with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(g) and 34(b)(2)(B) no later than Nov. 30, 2018. Finally, the Judge granted the Plaintiff's request for an order compelling Donisi Jax to provide a full and complete response to Document Request No. 24. She directed Donisi Jax will provide the Plaintiff with a full and complete response to Document Request No. 24 that complies with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(g) and 34(b)(2)(B) no later than Nov. 30, 2018. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 9, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/l2hJMq from Leagle.com. Kenneth J. Moser, individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Reichman -- chrisr@prato-reichman.com -- Prato & Reichman, APC, Jeffrey Braillard Cereghino -- jbc@rocklawcal.com -- Rock Law LLP, Justin M. Prato -- jmprato@gmail.com -- Prato & Reichman, APC & Matt J. Malone, Rock Law LLP. Health Insurance Innovations, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, represented by Anton N. Handal -- tony.handal@gmlaw.com -- Greenspoon Marder LLP, Dariel Jonathan Abrahamy -- dariel.abrahamy@gmlaw.com -- Greenspoon Marder LLP, pro hac vice & Garry W. O'Donnell -- garry.odonnell@gmlaw.com -- Greenspoon Marder, P.A., pro hac vice. National Congress of Employers, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, represented by Barton H. Hegeler -- mail@hegeler-anderson.com -- Hegler & Anderson, Ethan T. Litney, Hegeler & Anderson, A.P.C. & Sarah M. Reddiconto, Hegeler & Anderson, A.P.C. Companion Life Insurance Company, a South Carolina Corporation, Defendant, represented by Chad R. Fuller -- chad.fuller@troutman.com -- Troutman Sanders LLP & Virginia B. Flynn -- virginia.flynn@troutman.com -- Troutman Sanders LLP, pro hac vice. Donisi Jax, Inc., a Florida Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jennifer L. Meeker -- jmeeker@nossaman.com -- Nossaman LLP, Maya Hamouie -- mhamouie@nossaman.com -- Nossaman LLP & Stephen P. Wiman -- swiman@nossaman.com -- Nossaman, LLP. National Congress of Employers, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Counter Claimant, represented by Barton H. Hegeler, Hegler & Anderson, Ethan T. Litney, Hegeler & Anderson, A.P.C. & Sarah M. Reddiconto, Hegeler & Anderson, A.P.C. Kenneth J. Moser, individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Counter Defendant, represented by Christopher Reichman, Prato & Reichman, APC, Jeffrey Braillard Cereghino, Rock Law LLP, Justin M. Prato, Prato & Reichman, APC & Matt J. Malone, Rock Law LLP. HERTZ GLOBAL: 3rd Cir. Affirms Dismissal in Ramirez Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has affirmed the dismissal of the fourth amended complaint in the case, Pedro Ramirez, Jr. v. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., et al., with prejudice. In November 2013, a purported shareholder class action, Pedro Ramirez, Jr. v. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., et al., was commenced in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey naming Old Hertz Holdings (as defined in the Company's 2017 Form 10‑K) and certain of its officers as defendants and alleging violations of the federal securities laws. The complaint alleged that Old Hertz Holdings made material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in its public disclosures during the period from February 25, 2013 through November 4, 2013, in violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint sought an unspecified amount of monetary damages on behalf of the purported class and an award of costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees. In June 2014, Old Hertz Holdings responded to the amended complaint by filing a motion to dismiss. After a hearing in October 2014, the court granted Old Hertz Holdings' motion to dismiss the complaint. The dismissal was without prejudice and plaintiff was granted leave to file a second amended complaint within 30 days of the order. In November 2014, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint which shortened the putative class period such that it was not alleged to have commenced until May 18, 2013 and made allegations that were not substantively very different than the allegations in the prior complaint. In early 2015, this case was assigned to a new federal judge in the District of New Jersey, and Old Hertz Holdings responded to the second amended complaint by filing another motion to dismiss. On July 22, 2015, the court granted Old Hertz Holdings' motion to dismiss without prejudice and ordered that plaintiff could file a third amended complaint on or before August 22, 2015. On August 21, 2015, plaintiff filed a third amended complaint. The third amended complaint included additional allegations, named additional current and former officers as defendants and expanded the putative class period such that it was alleged to span from February 14, 2013 to July 16, 2015. Plaintiffs filed a fourth amended complaint to add a new plaintiff on March 1, 2016. Old Hertz Holdings and the individual defendants moved to dismiss the fourth amended complaint in its entirety with prejudice on March 24, 2016, and plaintiff filed its opposition to same. The court granted Old Hertz Holdings' motion to dismiss with prejudice on April 27, 2017. The plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and filed their Initial Brief in November 2017. Old Hertz Holdings, joined by two of the individual defendants along with a separate brief by one of the individual defendants, filed Opposition Briefs in January 2018. The plaintiffs' Reply Brief was thereafter filed in February of 2018. Oral arguments were held on June 12, 2018. On September 20, 2018, the Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the fourth amended complaint with prejudice. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. operates as an airport general use vehicle rental company. It operates in three segments: U.S. RAC, International RAC, and All Other Operations. The company provides its vehicle rental services under the Hertz, Dollar, and Thrifty brands from approximately 10,200 corporate and franchisee locations in North America, Europe, Latin America, Africa, Asia, Australia, the Caribbean, the Middle East, and New Zealand. The company was founded in 1918 and is headquartered in Estero, Florida. HIGHGATE HOTELS: Filing of 4th Amended Henkel to Add Plaintiffs OKd ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CHELSEA HENKEL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. HIGHGATE HOTELS, LP, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:15-CV-1435 (M.D. Pa.), Judge Robert D. Mariani of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a Fourth Amended Complaint Joining Additional Plaintiffs. On Oct. 4, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion to Amend. Their proposed amendment to the Complaint is the latest in a series of amendments that have been made to their original Complaint. In their Motion to Amend, the Plaintiffs seek to add 31 additional named Plaintiffs to their action and relate their claims back to the date of the filing of the original Complaint on July 14, 2015. The Plaintiffs' action seeks conditional and final class certification for alleged unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), as amended, and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968 ("MWA"), along with Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 class certification for claims of breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and conversion. Many of the additional proposed named Plaintiffs have already provided opt-in consent forms to the action, pursuant to the relevant provision of the FLSA. Defendants Highgate Hotels and Cove Haven, Inc. timely filed a brief in opposition to the Motion to Amend, arguing that they would be unduly prejudiced by the Plaintiffs'undue delay in filing the motion, primarily because they will be afforded no meaningful opportunity to complete extensive investigation and discovery into the 31 additional named Plaintiffs. Shortly after filing their opposition, the Defendants submitted a letter to the Court clarifying that they were objecting to not the adding of the additional Plaintiffs -- most of whom have previously opted into this action months ago -- but the adding of such additional Plaintiffs now with the purpose of relating back their claims to the commencement of the action. The Plaintiffs filed a reply to the Defendants' opposition brief, contending that their request to add additional parties to the action complied with the Defendants' proposed discovery schedule, previously approved by the Court, and that the Defendants had previously received notice that the Plaintiffs were going to add additional named Plaintiffs to the action and that they told the Defendants they wanted the statute of limitations stayed at the latest from the date of the filing of the Answer. In arguing for relation back of the new named Plaintiffs' claims, the Plaintiffs essentially argue for equitable tolling of the statute of limitations for each of the additional Plaintiffs' individual claims. In an Order dated Oct. 16, 2018, the Court ordered that the Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend would not be deemed withdrawn, despite Plaintiffs' failure to submit a brief in support of their Motion to Amend, and explained the Court's reasoning in an accompanying Memorandum Opinion. At that time, the Court deferred ruling on the merits of the Motion to Amend. With respect to the Plaintiffs' proposed amendments to the Complaint, Judge Mariani finds that there is insufficient evidence to find that the Plaintiffs have engaged in undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive, or that one or more of the Defendants will suffer undue prejudice as a result of allowing them to file its Fourth Amended Complaint. Additionally, since the time of the filing of the Motion to Amend, fact discovery has been extended numerous times. This should have provided the Defendants with more than sufficient time to conduct additional discovery with respect to these proposed additional named Plaintiffs. The parties' treatment of the issue of the relation back of the claims of the new named Plaintiffs is not particularly well-developed in their briefs, the Judge adds. Nevertheless, the Court's application of the relevant law to the facts presented indicates that merely adding additional named Plaintiffs, without otherwise changing the claims presented in the Complaint, complies with Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(1)(B), and that the equitable circumstances militate in favor of relating the claims back. Thus, he finds that the claims of the additional named Plaintiffs will relate back to the date of the original Complaint. However, by granting the Plaintiffs leave to file their Fourth Amended Complaint adding 31 additional named Plaintiffs, as in the case of any amendment adding party plaintiffs, the Judge expresses no opinion on whether the claims of those additional Plaintiffs are barred by an applicable statute of limitations or otherwise subject to an applicable affirmative defense in the case. This is particularly the case where the Plaintiffs have pending before the Court a motion to conditionally certify a collective action with respect to their claims under the FLSA in their first and second causes of action and have in the same motion moved for Rule 23 class certification with respect to their fifth cause of action for breach of contract to an express third-party beneficiary, their sixth cause of action for breach of contract to an intended third-party beneficiary, their seventh cause of action for unjust enrichment, and their eighth cause of action for conversion. Further, in that same motion, the Plaintiffs have moved for class certification under Rule 23 for what they term a "Sub-class" for claims included in their third cause of action for unpaid minimum wages and their fourth cause of action for unpaid overtime wages, both alleging violations of the MWA. Because that motion and the various claims encompassed within it has not been briefed by Defendants, the Judge will do no more than grant the Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend, which will add the 31 individuals as identified in the Motion to Amend as party Plaintiffs to the action. A separate order follows. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 9, 2018 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://is.gd/3tus37 from Leagle.com. Chelsea Henkel, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew J. Blit -- mblit@levineblit.com -- Levine & Blit, PLLC & Russell S. Moriarty, LEVINE & BLIT, PLL. Highgate Hotels, LP & Cove Haven Inc., Defendants, represented by David B. Feldman -- david.feldman@ogletree.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart PC, Donald D. Gamburg -- donald.gamburg@ogletree.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Evan B. Citron -- evan.citron@ogletree.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart & William F. Birchfield -- frank.birchfield@ogletree.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, PC. HOME BOX OFFICE: Burke Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------ Gregory Burke, Tony Cruz, Aaron Fernandez, Joseph Gilbert, Rashford Grant, Winston Hamilton, Alphonso Hart, Manuel Henriquez, Christopher Lamar, Oliver Martinez, Leamon Mincey, Luis Sanata Perez, Eliezer Ruiz, Rex Salmon, Ray Seebaran, and Rufus Thomas individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Home Box Office Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10875 (S.D. N.Y., November 20, 2018) was brought by Plaintiffs under the Fair Labor Standards Act against Defendant for its failure to pay overtime to Plaintiffs who were employed by Defendant as Parking Production Assistants. Plaintiffs were non-exempt employees who were paid a shift rate of pay and who do not receive proper overtime compensation of one and a half times their regularly hourly rate for all hours worked beyond 40 per workweek, according to the complaint. The Defendant's regular failure to pay Plaintiffs for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek violates the Fair Labor Standards Act, it adds. Defendant violated these laws by engaging in a systematic scheme of altering Plaintiffs' paychecks in order to deprive them of their statutorily required overtime pay. Plaintiffs were "employees" within the meaning of the FLSA and were employed by Defendant within this judicial district. Defendant is organized under the laws of the state of Delaware and has its principal place of business in New York, New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James Vagnini, Esq. Robert J. Valli, Jr., Esq. Sara Wyn Kane, Esq. Matthew L. Berman, Esq. Valli Kane & Vagnini LLP 600 Old Country Road, Suite 519 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 203-7180 Fax: (516) 706-0248 HPM CORPORATION: Slover Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------- SHAWN SLOVER, Individually and For Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. HPM CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-05180 (E.D. Wash., Nov. 14, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, HPMC failed to pay Slover, and other workers like him, overtime as required by the FLSA, and the Washington's Minimum Wage Act. Instead, HPMC pays Slover, and other workers like him, the same hourly rate for all hours worked, including those in excess of 40 in a workweek. HPMC further failed to pay Slover, and other workers like him, for all rest breaks, meal breaks in violation of Washington Wage Laws ,the lawsuit says. HPMC is a woman-owned business that provides specialized services to federal government clients and their contractors.[BN] Attorney for Shawn Slover, et al.: Nicholas D. Kovarik, Esq. E-mail: nick@pyklawyers.com PISKEL YAHNE KOVARIK, PLLC 522 W. Riverside Ave., Suite 700 Spokane, WA 99201 Telephone: 509 321-5930 Facsimile: 509 321-5935 INDUSTRIAL ALLIANCE: Connolly Obagi Launches Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Connolly Obagi LLP on Nov. 13 announced the commencement of a proposed $15 million Canada-wide Class Action against Industrial Alliance Insurance and Financial Services Inc. ("Industrial Alliance"), together with a claim for $15M in punitive and exemplary damages. The proposed Class Action is brought by Kristy Armour, of Ottawa, Ontario, who was employed by the Federal Government for sixteen (16) years as an FI-4 (Manager, Financial Audit) until her medical retirement on October 29, 2016. The proposed Class Members include all persons employed by the Federal Government, or who were employed by the Federal Government, and who received long term disability ("LTD") benefits from Industrial Alliance under Group Policy No. G-2400 (previously identified as Group Policy No. G68-1400), at any time dating back to November 1, 1968 through to the present date. The claim alleges that Industrial Alliance incorrectly calculated the cost of living increase to which all Class Members were entitled on an annual basis. It is alleged that Industrial Alliance calculated the cost of living increase based on the Class Members' net LTD benefit after the application of deductions rather than against the Class Members' gross LTD benefits prior to the application of deductions. It is also alleged that Industrial Alliance knew that the manner in which it was calculating the cost of living increase, due and owing to the Class Members, was contrary to the terms of the Policy and that it wilfully mislead the Class Members in doing so. If any person is employed by the Federal Government, or formerly employed by the Federal Government, and is in receipt of, or was in receipt of, LTD benefits from Industrial Alliance under the terms of the Policy identified herein, please email info@connollyobagi.com, subject line "INDUSTRIAL ALLIANCE CLASS ACTION", and provide your name, group certificate number, history of employment with the Federal Government and your history of receipt of LTD benefits. For further information: please contact Joseph Y. Obagi at Connolly Obagi LLP (613) 683-2245 or send an e-mail to joseph.obagi@connollyobagi.com, subject line "INDUSTRIAL ALLIANCE CLASS ACTION".[GN] IOVANCE BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Awaits Initial Approval of Rabkin Accord ----------------------------------------------------------------- Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the parties in the case, Jay Rabkin v. Lion Biotechnologies, Inc., et al. lawsuit are awaiting the court's preliminary approval of their settlement. On April 10, 2017, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced settlements with the Company and with other public companies and unrelated parties in the In the Matter of Certain Stock Promotion investigation. The Company's settlement with the SEC is consistent with the company's previous disclosures (including in the company's Annual Report on Form 10-K that the company filed with the SEC on March 9, 2017). On April 14, 2017, a purported shareholder filed a complaint seeking class action status in the United States District Court, Northern District of California for violations of the federal securities laws (Leonard DeSilvio v. Lion Biotechnologies, Inc., et al., case no. 3:17-cv-2086) against our company and three of our former officers and directors. On April 19, 2017, a second class action complaint (Amra Kuc vs. Lion Biotechnologies, Inc., et al., case no. 3:17-cv-2188) was filed in the same court. Both complaints allege, among other things, that the defendants violated the federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading statements, or by failing to make certain disclosures, regarding the actions taken by Manish Singh, the company's former CEO, and the company's former investor relations firm that were the subject of the In the Matter of Certain Stock Promotions investigation. On July 20, 2017, the plaintiff in the Kuc case filed a notice to voluntarily dismiss that case. The court entered an order dismissing the Kuc complaint on July 21, 2017. On July 26, 2017, the court appointed a movant as lead plaintiff. On September 8, 2017, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint (Jay Rabkin v. Lion Biotechnologies, Inc., et al., case no. 3:17-cv-2086) seeking class action status that alleges, among other things, that the defendants violated federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading statements, or by failing to make certain disclosures, regarding the actions taken by Manish Singh and the company's former investor relations firm that were the subject of the In the Matter of Certain Stock Promotions SEC investigation. On February 5, 2018, the court entered an order dismissing two of plaintiff's six claims. As the result of mediation, on September 28, 2018, lead plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for settlement, the cost of which, if approved, is expected to be borne by the company's insurance carrier and would result in no loss to the company. A hearing on preliminary approval of the settlement is set for November 9, 2018. Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc., a clinical-stage biotechnology company, focuses on developing and commercializing cancer immunotherapy products to harness the power of a patient's immune system to eradicate cancer cells. Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc. was founded in 2007 and is headquartered in San Carlos, California. JPMORGAN CHASE: Settlement in Mansor Suit Has Final Approval ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, EDMUND J. MANSOR and ROBERTA M. MANSOR, Plaintiffs, v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Defendant, Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-10544-JGD (D. Mass.), Magistrate Judge Judith G. Dein of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted final approval of the proposed class action settlement set forth in the Settlement Agreement between the parties. On Nov. 13, 2018, the Court held a duly noticed final approval hearing. There were no objections to the parties' request for final approval of the Settlement Agreement, and only one class member opted out. Magistrate Judge Dein finds that (i) the Class Notice was given in the manner ordered by the Court in order to apprise Settlement Class Members of the pendency of the Action; and (ii) the prerequisites for a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b) have been satisfied for settlement purposes for each Settlement Class Member. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, she finally certified the Settlement Class, as identified in the Settlement Agreement, which will consist of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Millennium CDs or whose funds remained in the Millennium accounts at Chase from Sept. 25, 2008 through March 9, 2009, which includes persons whose CDs purportedly rolled over or whose funds were deposited in or remained in the Millennium accounts at Chase. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the Magistrate awarded the Class Counsel Attorneys' Fees and Expenses in the amount of $1,618,750 payable pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement. She also awarded a case contribution award in the amount of $25,000 to Plaintiffs Edmund J. Mansor and Roberta M. Mansor, and a Receiver Fee of $30,000 to the Receiver pursuant to Section II.D of the Settlement Agreement for his contributions as Settlement Administrator. The Action, including all individual claims and class claims presented therein, is dismissed on the merits and with prejudice against the Plaintiffs and all the other Settlement Class Members, without fees or costs to any party except as otherwise provided therein. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 13, 2018 Final Order and Judgment is available at https://is.gd/F8ElME from Leagle.com. Edmund J. Mansor & Roberta M. Mansor, Plaintiffs, represented by Harley S. Tropin -- hst@kttlaw.com -- Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, LLP, pro hac vice, Keith L. Miller, Law Offices of Keith L. Miller, Michael R. Lorigas -- mlorigas@kttlaw.com -- Kozyak, Tropin & Throckmorton, LLP, pro hac vice, Tal J. Lifshitz -- tjl@kttlaw.com -- Kozyak, Tropin & Throckmorton, LLP, pro hac vice, Thomas A. Tucker Ronzetti, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, P.A., pro hac vice & William H. Gagas -- wgagas@kbn-law.com -- Law Office of William H. Gagas. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Defendant, represented by Beth I.Z. Boland -- bboland@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner LLP, Rachel M. Blise -- rblise@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner LLP, pro hac vice, Courtney Worcester , Foley & Lardner LLP, Michael Thompson -- mxthompson@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner LLP, Redi Kasollja, Foley & Lardner LLP & Stephen J. Quinlan, Foley & Lardner LLP. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Interested Party, represented by Peter C. Koch, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. JPMORGAN CHASE: Sued over Spoof Orders for Precious Metals Futures ------------------------------------------------------------------ Casey Sterk and Kevin Maher individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff(s), vs. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., JOHN DMONDS, and JOHN DOES, the Defendants, Case 1:18-cv-10634 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 14, 2018), alleges that Defendants enganged in unlawful and intentional manipulation of gold, silver, platinum, and palladium futures and options contracts (Precious Metals Futures Contracts) which were traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) and the Commodity Exchange, Inc. (COMEX) from at least as early as January 1, 2009 through at least December 31, 2015 in violation of the Commodity Exchange Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants consist of a group of precious metals traders and their employer. On October 9, 2018, Defendant Edmonds pled guilty in the District of Connecticut to one count of conspiracy to defraud the market and manipulate the prices of NYMEX and COMEX Precious Metals Futures Contracts and one count of commodities fraud. The Defendants manipulated the prices of NYMEX and COMEX precious metals futures and options contracts during the Class Period using a technique called "spoofing" whereby Defendants routinely placed electronic orders to buy and sell such futures contracts with the intent to cancel those orders before execution ("spoof orders"). These spoofing orders injected materially false and illegitimate signals of supply and demand into the market and were intended to induce other market participants, such as the Plaintiffs, to trade against Defendants' genuine orders. But for the Defendants' misleading inducements, Plaintiffs and the other market participants otherwise would not have traded. Accordingly, the spoof orders were designed to, and did, artificially move the prices of NYMEX and COMEX precious metals futures and options contracts during the Class Period in a direction that was favorable to Defendants, but unfavorable to Plaintiffs, the lawsuit says.[BN] Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class: Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq. Fred T. Isquith, Jr., Esq. NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C. 1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor New York, NY 10036-8718 Telephone: (917) 438-9102 E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com fisquith@nussbaumpc.com - and - Adam Frankel, Esq. GREENWICH LEGAL ASSOCIATES, LLC 881 Lake Avenue Greenwich, CT 06831 Telephone & Fax: 203 622-6001 E-mail: afrankel@grwlegal.com JUUL: Faces Vaping Product Deceptive Marketing Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Jessica Lipscomb, writing for Miami New Times, reports that for years, Miami resident Sabrina Zampa had no idea her teenage sons were regularly vaping. It was only last August, after discovering her son's Juul, that she learned her kids had been "juuling" since middle school. Her now-16-year-old son says he bought his first Juul products from the company's website and later used Postmates to buy pod replacements — as did her younger son, now age 14. Juul put out a multistep action plan, saying the company would stop posting on Facebook and Instagram, cease sales of flavored pods in stores, and add more intensive age-verification measures on its website. And the Food and Drug Administration has unveiled new rules that will limit sales on the internet and virtually end them in convenience stores. But Tampa attorney John Yanchunis, who is representing Zampa in a class-action lawsuit against Juul, says the changes come too late for teens like Zampa's, who can't stop vaping. "It's a reaction of consequence rather than conscience," Mr. Yanchunis says. "They should have done this from the outset rather than marketing these products to kids." The new lawsuit, filed November 5 in Miami-Dade Circuit Court, accuses the makers of Juul of deceptively marketing "safe, candy-like products to which minors are attracted." The complaint says Zampa's sons and other class members were exposed to toxic levels of nicotine without proper warning, increasing their risk of diseases such as cancer. Juul did not respond to request for comment from New Times; however, the company said in a news release on Nov. 13 it never intended for kids to start vaping. "Our intent was never to have youth use JUUL products," the company stated. "But intent is not enough, the numbers are what matter, and the numbers tell us underage use of e-cigarette products is a problem. We must solve it." According to the Miami lawsuit, Zampa's sons have spent hundreds of dollars on Juuls since they started vaping in middle school. Although they both craved the "cool cucumber" flavor, neither teen knew their Juuls contained nicotine, a highly addictive substance. To this day, the brothers have been unable to quit. Parents across the country have filed suit against Juul with similar allegations. In October, Barbara Yannucci of Saint Lucie sued the company for false advertising after her teenage son became addicted to juuling and started vaping up to 12 times a day. A New York mother also went after Juul this past June after her 15-year-old son became "heavily addicted to nicotine." Mr. Yanchunis, the lawyer in the Miami case, says the company's marketing is a major reason why kids have gotten hooked. "Our interest is representing a class of children who have been enticed, induced, and attracted to these products," he says. "Particularly for a young person, a child, it's much harder to overcome something that is addictive than, say, an adult who may have more maturity and a greater strength of willpower. It's a significant problem." [GN] KE ZHANG: Seeks Minimum Wage & Overtime Wages under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------- Piyou Zhao, the Plaintiffs, vs. KE ZHANG INC. d/b/a YOU JIA, ZOU JIA YONG, INC d/b/a T & T RESTAURANT, Chen Yi Zhu, Li Hui Zhu, Xiang Keng Zhu and Zou Jia Yong, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-06452 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 13, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage; unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL by engaging in a pattern and practice of failing to pay their employees, including Plaintiffs' compensation for all hours worked and overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Xiaoxi Liu, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC. 136-20 38th Ave., Suite 10G Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (718) 353 8588 E-mail: xliu@hanglaw.com KONG TECHNOLOGIES: Cy Pres Distribution in Opperman Suit Okayed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MARC OPPERMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. KONG TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 13-cv-00453-JST (N.D. Cal.), Judge Jon S. Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, authorized the Settlement Administrator KCC to distribute uncashed settlement distributions to the Electronic Frontier Foundation and thereafter to close its files on the matter. All parties to the class action settlement, through their counsel of record, stipulated pursuant to Civil Local Rules 7-11 and 7-12 that pursuant to Section 7.10.4 of the Settlement Agreement approved by the Court, the Settlement Administrator should be authorized at this time to distribute uncashed settlement distributions to the Electronic Frontier Foundation. The settlement payments were made the first week of June 2018. The 90-day period elapsed by the end of the first week of September 2018. Less than a dozen individuals have contacted the class counsel since September 2018 and requested new checks or electronic codes, and those requests have been accommodated by the Settlement Administrator despite being late. The Settlement Administrator's work is done, except for the cy pres distribution, and it desires to close its files before the end of the calendar year to avoid additional tax expense. It reports to the class counsel that 99.64% of the electronic payments and 84.88% of the check payments have been cashed. There is $153,372.35 in unclaimed funds subject to the cy pres provision of the settlement. Therefore the parties stipulated and agreed that the Court should instruct KCC to distribute the remaining uncashed funds to the Electronic Frontier Foundation as provided by the Settlement Agreement approved by the Court on March 27, 2018. Judge Tigar so ordered. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 7, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/nVxogz from Leagle.com. Marc Opperman, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Given -- dmg@phillaw.com -- Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Jeffrey Scott Edwards, Edwards Law, pro hac vice, Nicholas A. Carlin -- nac@phillaw.com -- Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon -- bsc@phillaw.com -- Phillips, Erlewine, Given & Carlin LLP, Carl F. Schwenker, Law Offices of Carl F. Schwenker, pro hac vice, Dirk M. Jordan -- dirk@dirkjordan.com -- Frank H. Busch -- busch@kerrwagstaffe.com -- Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, Ivo Michael Labar -- labar@kerrwagstaffe.com -- Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, James Matthew Wagstaffe -- wagstaffe@kerrwagstaffe.com -- Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP & Michael John von Loewenfeldt -- mvl@kerrwagstaffe.com -- Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP. Judy Long, Alicia Medlock & Scott Medlock, Plaintiffs, represented by David M. Given, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Jeffrey Scott Edwards, Edwards Law, pro hac vice, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon, Phillips, Erlewine, Given & Carlin LLP, Carl F. Schwenker, Law Offices of Carl F. Schwenker, pro hac vice, Dirk M. Jordan, Frank H. Busch, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP & Michael John von Loewenfeldt, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP. Claire Moses, Gentry Hoffman, Steve Dean, Alan Beueshasen, Greg Varner, Rachelle King, Guili Biondi, Jason Green & Nirali Mandaywala, Plaintiffs, represented by David M. Given, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Jeffrey Scott Edwards, Edwards Law, pro hac vice, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon, Phillips, Erlewine, Given & Carlin LLP, Carl F. Schwenker, Law Offices of Carl F. Schwenker, pro hac vice, Dirk M. Jordan, Frank H. Busch, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP & Michael John von Loewenfeldt, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP. Maria Pirozzi, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Given, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Jeffrey Scott Edwards, Edwards Law, pro hac vice, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon, Phillips, Erlewine, Given & Carlin LLP, Carl F. Schwenker, Law Offices of Carl F. Schwenker, pro hac vice, Dirk M. Jordan, Frank H. Busch, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP & Michael John von Loewenfeldt, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP. Oscar Hernandez & Haig Arabian, Plaintiffs, represented by Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon, Phillips, Erlewine, Given & Carlin LLP, Brian Russell Strange, Strange & Butler, David M. Given, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Frank H. Busch, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, John Theodore Ceglia, Strange & Carpenter & Michael John von Loewenfeldt, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP. Francisco Espitia, Plaintiff, represented by Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon, Phillips, Erlewine, Given & Carlin LLP, Brian Russell Strange, Strange & Butler, David M. Given, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Frank H. Busch, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, John Theodore Ceglia, Strange & Carpenter & Michael John von Loewenfeldt, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP. Steven Gutierrez, Plaintiff, represented by Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon, Phillips, Erlewine, Given & Carlin LLP, Brian Russell Strange, Strange & Butler, David M. Given, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Frank H. Busch, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, John Theodore Ceglia, Strange & Carpenter & Michael John von Loewenfeldt, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP. Lauren Carter, Stephanie Cooley, Claire Hodgins & Judy Paul, Plaintiffs, represented by David M. Given , Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Nicholas A. Carlin , Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon , Phillips, Erlewine, Given & Carlin LLP, Daniel Jack Veroff , Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, Frank H. Busch , Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, James Matthew Wagstaffe , Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP & Michael John von Loewenfeldt , Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP. Theda Sandiford, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Given, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Nicholas A. Carlin, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon, Phillips, Erlewine, Given & Carlin LLP, Brian Russell Strange, Strange & Butler, David M. Given, Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin LLP, Frank H. Busch, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, John Theodore Ceglia, Strange & Carpenter & Michael John von Loewenfeldt, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP. Kong Technologies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gregory J. Casas -- casasg@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Jedediah Wakefield, Fenwick & West LLP, Claudia Maria Vetesi -- cvetesi@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP, Harmeet K. Dhillon -- harmeet@dhillonlaw.com -- Dhillon Law Group Inc., James G. Snell, Perkins Coie LLP, Mazda Kersey Antia, Cooley LLP, Michael Henry Page -- mpage@durietangri.com -- Durie Tangri LLP & Tyler Griffin Newby -- tnewby@fenwick.com -- Fenwick & West LLP. Twitter, Inc., Defendant, represented by James G. Snell, Perkins Coie LLP, Lauren Beth Cohen, Perkins Coie LLP, Timothy L. Alger, Greenberg Traurig LLP, Claudia Maria Vetesi, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Harmeet K. Dhillon, Dhillon Law Group Inc., John Randall Tyler, Perkins Coie LLP, Julie Erin Schwartz, Perkins Coie LLP, Mazda Kersey Antia, Cooley LLP, Michael Henry Page, Durie Tangri LLP, Ryan T. Mrazik, Perkins Coie LLP, pro hac vice & Tyler Griffin Newby, Fenwick & West LLP. Apple, Inc., Defendant, represented by Alan D. Albright -- alan.albright@bracewell.com -- Gray Cary Ware & Freidenrich LLP, Clayton Cole James -- clay.james@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP, Jessica Adler Black Livingston -- jessica.livingston@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP, pro hac vice, Jessica S. Ou, Gibson Dunn, Robert B. Hawk -- robert.hawk@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP & Stacy R. Hovan -- stacy.hovan@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP. Yelp! Inc. & Foodspotting, Inc., Defendants, represented by Michael Henry Page, Durie Tangri LLP, Peter D. Kennedy, George & Donaldson, L.L.P., Claudia Maria Vetesi, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Harmeet K. Dhillon, Dhillon Law Group Inc., James G. Snell, Perkins Coie LLP, Mazda Kersey Antia, Cooley LLP & Tyler Griffin Newby, Fenwick & West LLP. Instagram, Inc., Defendant, represented by Lori R. Mason, Cooley LLP, Mazda Kersey Antia, Cooley LLP & Michael G. Rhodes, Cooley LLP. Foursquare Labs, Inc., Defendant, represented by David Frank McDowell -- dmcdowell@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP, Claudia Maria Vetesi, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Harmeet K. Dhillon, Dhillon Law Group Inc., James G. Snell, Perkins Coie LLP, Mazda Kersey Antia, Cooley LLP, Michael Henry Page, Durie Tangri LLP, Molly A. Smolen, Morrison & Foerster LLP & Tyler Griffin Newby, Fenwick & West LLP. Gowalla Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Harmeet K. Dhillon, Dhillon Law Group Inc., Claudia Maria Vetesi, Morrison & Foerster LLP, James G. Snell, Perkins Coie LLP, Krista Lee Baughman, Dhillon Law Group Inc., Mazda Kersey Antia, Cooley LLP, Micah R. Jacobs, Dhillon Law Group, Inc., Michael Henry Page, Durie Tangri LLP, Rachel Kung-Lan Loh, Dhillon Law Group, Inc. & Tyler Griffin Newby, Fenwick & West LLP. Kik Interactive, Inc., Defendant, represented by Lori R. Mason, Cooley LLP, Mazda Kersey Antia, Cooley LLP, Michael G. Rhodes, Cooley LLP, Christopher Brian Durbin, Cooley LLP, Claudia Maria Vetesi, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Erin Elisa Goodsell, Cooley LLP, Harmeet K. Dhillon, Dhillon Law Group Inc., James G. Snell, Perkins Coie LLP, Michael Henry Page, Durie Tangri LLP & Tyler Griffin Newby, Fenwick & West LLP. Instagram, LLC, Defendant, represented by Matthew Dean Brown, Cooley LLP, Mazda Kersey Antia, Cooley LLP, Claudia Maria Vetesi, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Erin Elisa Goodsell, Cooley LLP, Harmeet K. Dhillon, Dhillon Law Group Inc., James G. Snell, Perkins Coie LLP, Michael Henry Page, Durie Tangri LLP & Tyler Griffin Newby, Fenwick & West LLP. KRAFT HEINZ: 6 Classes in Vazquez Unpaid Wages Suit Certified ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ENRIQUE VAZQUEZ, SERGIO ALFONSO LOPEZ, and MARIA VIVEROS, individually and on behalf Assigned to of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. KRAFT HEINZ FOODS COMPANY, a Pennsylvania Corporation, and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 16-CV-02749-WQH (BLM) (S.D. Cal.), Judge William Q. Hayes of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California granted in part and denied in part the named Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. On Aug. 10, 2018, in Courtroom 14B of the Court, the Judge heard argument on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. After having reviewed the pleadings and having heard oral argument, he finds that Plaintiffs Lopez and Vasquez have satisfied the requirements of Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3), and certified the following six classes against Defendant Kraft: a. Class 1a (Unpaid Wages -- Paycode Rule: Automatic 30 Minute Unauthorized Meal Deductions -- Legacy Heinz Locations): All current and former non-exempt production employees of Defendant's Legacy Heinz locations,1 whose timekeeping records reflect a 30 minute deduction of time worked for shifts worked in excess of 6.0 hours where no meal period is reflected in the time punch records, during the time period September 8, 2012 through October 9, 2018. b. Class 1c (Unpaid Wages -- Unauthorized Deductions for Unapproved Hours Worked -- Legacy Heinz Locations): All current and former non-exempt production employees of the Defendant's Legacy Heinz locations whose timekeeping records reflect a deduction of time from the employee's timekeeping records, accompanied by any of the following notations: (i) UnApproved - Late Out; (ii) UnApproved - Late Out - OT; (iii) UnApproved - Early In; or (iv) UnApproved - Early In - OT, during the time period Sept. 8, 2012 through Oct. 9, 2018. c. Class 2a (Meal Period Class -- Paycode Rule: Automatic 30 Minute Unauthorized Meal Deductions -- Legacy Heinz Locations): All current and former non-exempt production employees of Defendant's Legacy Heinz locations, whose timekeeping records reflect a 30 minute deduction of time worked for shifts worked in excess of six hours where no meal period is reflected in the time punch records, during the time period Sept. 8, 2012 through Oct. 9, 2018. d. Class 2c (Meal Period Class -- Late Meal Periods -- San Diego Location): All current and former non-exempt production employees of Defendant's San Diego location whose timekeeping records reflect a meal period commencing after the employee had worked for five hours or more, during the time period Sept. 8, 2012 through Oct. 9, 2018. e. Class 4 (Wage Statement Class): All members of Class 1a, 1c, 2a, and/or 2c, who meet the criteria for class membership for the time period Sept. 8, 2012 through Oct. 9, 2018, and who also received a wage statement from Defendant during this same time period. f. Class 5 (Waiting Time Penalty Class): All members of Class 1a, 1c, 2a, and/or 2c, who have separated their employment from the Defendant during the time period Sept. 8, 2012 through Oct. 9, 2018. The Judge appointed Enrique Vazquez and Sergio Lopez as the Class Representatives; and Paul K. Haines, Sean M. Blakely, and Daniel Brown of Haines Law Group, APC; Michael Singer and Marta Manus of Cohelan, Khoury & Singer; and Sahag Majarian II of the Law Offices of Sahag Majarian II as the Class Counsel. With respect to the proposed classes 1b, 1d, 2b, 3a and 3b, the Judge denied certification as to each of those proposed classes for the reasons set forth in the Court's Order dated Oct. 9, 2018. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 9, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/KkpFgy from Leagle.com. Enrique Vazquez, individually and on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Marta Manus, Cohelan Khoury & Singer, Michael D. Singer -- msinger@ckslaw.com -- Cohelan, Khoury & Singer & Paul K. Haines -- phaines@haineslawgroup.com -- Haines Law Group, APC. Sergio Alfonzo Lopez, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Paul K. Haines, Haines Law Group, APC, Sean M. Blakely, Haines Law Group, APC & Tuvia Korobkin -- tkorobkin@haineslawgroup.com -- Haines Law Group, APC. Maria Viveros, individually and on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Paul K. Haines, Haines Law Group, APC. Kraft Heinz Foods Company, a Pennsylvania Corporation, Defendant, represented by Daniel B. Chammas -- dchammas@venable.com -- Ford & Harrison LLP, Alexandria Marie Witte -- awitte@fordharrison.com -- Ford & Harrison LLP & David Lishian Cheng -- cheng@fordharrison.com -- Ford & Harrison LLP. L.A. COLLEGE OF MUSIC: Faces Camacho ADA Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Los Angeles College of Music. The case is styled as Jason Camacho and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Los Angeles College of Music, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10885 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 20, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Los Angeles College of Music is a for-profit music school in Pasadena, in Los Angeles County, California. It has been accredited by the National Association of Schools of Music since 2003.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com LANNETT CO: Faces Pennsylvania Class Action Suit ------------------------------------------------ Lannett Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company faces a class action suit in the federal court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On October 25, 2018, the Company was served with a class action lawsuit filed in the federal court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging that the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making material misrepresentations and omissions in connection with the renewal of the JSP Distribution Agreement which allegedly resulted in a decline in the market value of the securities of the Company after an announcement was made that Jerome Stevens Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (JSP) would not be renewing the Distribution Agreement with the Company. The Company and the corporate executives named in the complaint deny that they made any material misrepresentations or omissions, or that they violated any securities law. The Company has notified its insurance carrier and requested a defense. The Company and individual defendants intend to move to dismiss the complaint although a deadline has not yet been scheduled for filing the motion. The Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome of this suit at this time. Lannett Company, Inc. develops, manufactures, packages, markets, and distributes generic versions of brand pharmaceutical products in the United States. The company offers solid oral and extended release, topical, liquid, nasal, and oral solution finished dosage forms of drugs that address a range of therapeutic areas, as well as ophthalmic, patch, foam, buccal, sublingual, suspension, soft gel, and injectable dosages. Lannett Company, Inc. was founded in 1942 and is based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. LANNETT CO: Securities Suit over Drug Pricing Ongoing ----------------------------------------------------- Lannett Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company continues to defend a putative class action suit regarding the Company's drug pricing methodologaies and internal controls. In November 2016, putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and two of its officers claiming that the Company damaged the purported class by including in its securities filings false and misleading statements regarding the Company's drug pricing methodologies and internal controls. An amended complaint was filed in May 2017, and the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in September 2017. In December 2017, counsel for the putative class filed a second amended complaint, and the Court denied as moot the Company's motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in February 2018. In July 2018, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. In September 2018, counsel for the putative class filed a third amended complaint. Lannett said, "The Company expects to file a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint in November 2018. The Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome of the suit at this time." Lannett Company, Inc. develops, manufactures, packages, markets, and distributes generic versions of brand pharmaceutical products in the United States. The company offers solid oral and extended release, topical, liquid, nasal, and oral solution finished dosage forms of drugs that address a range of therapeutic areas, as well as ophthalmic, patch, foam, buccal, sublingual, suspension, soft gel, and injectable dosages. Lannett Company, Inc. was founded in 1942 and is based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. LENDINGCLUB CORP: Pomerantz LLP to Lead in Veal Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MATTHEW VEAL, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. LENDINGCLUB CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-02599-BLF (N.D. Cal.), Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, (i) granted XiangHong Ding and Zhenbin Chen ("LendingClub Investor Group")'s motion to appoint the lead Plaintiff and the lead counsel; and (ii) denied Ravi Mallur's motion to appoint the lead Plaintiff and the lead counsel. On May 2, 2018, Veal filed the putative securities class action lawsuit against Defendants LendingClub, Renaud Laplanche, Scott Sanborn, Carrie L. Dolan, Bradley Coleman, and Thomas W. Casey. Veal alleges that, from Feb. 28, 2015 to April 25, 2018, the Defendants issued materially false and misleading statements and concealed material adverse facts regarding LendingClub's business, operational, and financial results. Veal alleges that, as a result of these misrepresentations and omissions, the market price of LendingClub securities was artificially inflated during the Class Period. He alleges that, after the misrepresentations and omissions became apparent, shares of LendingClub fell $.49 per share, or over 15% from its previous closing price to close at $2.77 per share on April 25, 2018, damaging investors. As a result, Veal filed the instant lawsuit for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of all those who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of LendingClub during the Class Period. On May 3, 2018, the Rosen Law Firm, P.A. issued a Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA") notice advising the potential Class members of the claims alleged in the action and the 60-day deadline for the class members to move to be appointed as the lead plaintiff under 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i). On July 2, 2018, Mallur filed a motion seeking appointment as the lead Plaintiff and approval of the Rosen Law Firm, P.A. as the lead counsel for the class. On that same day, the LendingClub Investor Group seek appointment as the lead Plaintiff and approval of Pomerantz LLP as the lead counsel. Each movant opposed the appointment of the other. However, LendingClub Investor Group included with its opposition a joint declaration from its individual members which cured the deficiencies Mallur had identified in his opposition. As such, in reply, Mallur conceded that he should only be appointed in the event the Court does not appoint the LendingClub Investor Group. On Nov. 6, 2018, Mallur submitted a notice of nonopposition to Lending Club Investor Group's lead Plaintiff motion. Judge Labson finds the matter suitable for submission without oral argument and vacated the hearing scheduled for Nov. 15, 2018. However, the case management conference set for that same day remains on calendar. Because Mallur concedes LendingClub Investor Group ("LIG") should be the lead Plaintiff if the Court finds it satisfies the statutory requirements, the Judge analyzes whether LIG satisfies these requirements. She finds that it does. The Judge finds that (i) LIG has met the statutory notice requirements because it filed its motion on July 2, 2018 the last day within the 60-day deadline; (ii) LIG is the prospective lead Plaintiff with the greatest financial stake in the litigation: it has collectively purchased 111,450 shares, retained 62,750 shares, expended net funds of $783,553, and lost a net total of $398,723; and (iii) LIG has made a prima facie showing of typicality and adequacy. And because no other member of the purported Plaintiff class has provided proof that LIG will not fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class or that it is subject to unique defenses that render it incapable of adequately representing the class, the Judge accordingly appointed LIG to serve as the lead plaintiff. No parties have objected to LIG's selection of Pomerantz LLP as the counsel. The Judge has reviewed the firm's resume, and is satisfied that LIG has made a reasonable choice of counsel. Accordingly, she approved LIG's selection of Pomerantz LLP as the lead counsel. For these reasons, Judge Labson granted LIG's motion to appoint the lead Plaintiff and the lead counse; and denied Mallur's motion. LendingClub Investor Group will serve as the lead Plaintiff in the case, and Pomerantz LLP as the lead counsel. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 7, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/s9EN48 from Leagle.com. Matthew Veal, Individually and on bahalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Laurence M. Rosen -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. Marsha Tiller, Plaintiff, represented by Peter B. Fredman -- peter@peterfredmanlaw.com -- Law Office of Peter Fredman. Riccardo Baron, Plaintiff, represented by Avraham Noam Wagner -- avi@thewagnerfirm.com -- The Wagner Firm. LendingClub Investor Group, XiangHong Ding and Zhenbin Chen,collectively LendingClub Investor Group-Lead Plaintiff, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer Pafiti -- jpafiti@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP. LendingClub Corporation, Scott Sanborn, Bradley Coleman & Thomas W. Casey, Defendants, represented by Alexander K. Talarides -- atalarides@orrick.com -- Orrick Herrington and Sutcliffe LLP & James Neil Kramer -- jkramer@orrick.com -- Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP. Renaud Laplanche, Defendant, represented by Robert John Liubicic -- rliubicic@milbank.com -- Milbank Tweed. Carrie L. Dolan, Defendant, represented by Charlene Sachi Shimada -- charlene.shimada@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP. Ravi Mallur, Movant, represented by Laurence M. Rosen, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. & Phillip C. Kim -- pkim@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., pro hac vice. XiangHong Ding & Zhenbin Chen, Movants, represented by Jennifer Pafiti, Pomerantz LLP, Jeremy A. Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Leigh H. Smollar -- lsmollar@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP & Patrick V. Dahlstrom -- pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice. LIFE INSURANCE: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Walker Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Joyce Walker, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit titled Joyce Walker, et al. v. Life Insurance Co. of Southwest, Case No. 2:10-cv-09198-JVS-JDE, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles. The appellate case is captioned as Joyce Walker, et al. v. Life Insurance Co. of Southwest, Case No. 18-80159, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Defendant appealed a court ruling in the lawsuit. That appellate case is entitled Joyce Walker, et al. v. Life Insurance Company of the Southwest, Case No. 18-80093. The Hon. James V. Selna previously granted the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Court adopted this class definition: All persons who purchased a Provider Policy or Paragon Policy from Life Insurance Company of the Southwest that was issued between September 24, 2006 and April 27, 2014, who resided in California at the time the Policy was issued, and who received an illustration on or before the date of policy application. The Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint alleging that LSW's practices in connection with the marketing and sale of two of its life insurance policies, SecurePlus Provider and SecurePlus Paragon, constitute unlawful and unfair business practices under the California Unfair Competition Law based on various violations of California's Illustration Statute.[BN] Plaintiffs-Petitioners JOYCE WALKER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated; KIM BRUCE HOWLETT, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated; MURIEL SPOONER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated; TALINE BEDELIAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; and OSCAR GUEVARA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Brian P. Brosnahan, Esq. Lyn Agre, Esq. Margaret Alexandra Ziemianek, Esq. KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES LLP 1633 Broadway, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 506-1700 E-mail: bbrosnahan@kasowitz.com lagre@kasowitz.com mziemianek@kasowitz.com - and - Craig A. Miller, Esq. MILLER & CALHOON 225 Broadway, Suite 1310 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-9449 E-mail: cmiller@craigmillerlaw.com Defendant-Respondent LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE SOUTHWEST, a Texas corporation, is represented by: Matthew T. Martens, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 663-6291 E-mail: matthew.martens@wilmerhale.com - and - Andrea J. Robinson, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 60 State Street Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 526-6360 E-mail: andrea.robinson@wilmerhale.com - and - Jonathan A. Shapiro, Esq. BAKER BOTTS LLP 101 California Street, Suite 3600 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 291-6200 E-mail: jonathan.shapiro@bakerbotts.com LIFETOUCH INC: Court Dismisses Vigeant ERISA Suit with Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Joan N. Ericksen of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota dismissed with prejudice the case, Deborah Vigeant, Rhonda Wood, Elizabeth Millane, Douglas Eckelbecker, Amanda Eckelbecker, Rodney Uting, and Lawrence Anderson, and all other individuals similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Michael Meek, Paul Harmel, P. Robert Larson, Donald Goldfus, John Anderson, Bruce Nicholson, Bernie Alrich, Ted Koenecke, Glenn Elo, Newport Trust Company, and Lifetouch Inc., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-577(JNE/TNL) (D. Minn.). Lifetouch is a professional photography company focused primarily on school pictures. Until its recent sale to Shutterfly, Lifetouch was 100% owned by its employees through an Employee Stock Ownership Plan ("ESOP") sponsored by Lifetouch. Lifetouch made all contributions to the Plan and the Plan invested primarily in shares of Lifetouch stock. According to the Summary Plan Description, Defendant Lifetouch -- the Plan Administrator -- was responsible for managing the Plan and communicating with Plan participants. Under the terms of the Trust Agreement, Lifetouch's Directors appointed a Trustee, who had exclusive authority to manage the Plan assets in the trust. Defendants Ted Koenecke and Glenn Elo, Lifetouch senior executives, served as the Trustees through May 2017. Lifetouch made cash distributions to ESOP participants upon their retirement. In the event of a distribution, Lifetouch stock was repurchased at the fair market value determined by the Trustees on the June 30th immediately preceding the repurchase date. The Plan required the Trustees to value Lifetouch stock annually. The Trustees appointed and relied on the opinion of an independent appraiser to determine the fair market value. Starting in 2015, Lifetouch struggled financially as new technologies transformed the professional photography industry and consumer tastes. In 2015 and 2016, Lifetouch suffered repeated financial setbacks. Lifetouch closed J.C. Penney and Target brick-and-mortar portrait studio locations. In November 2015, Lifetouch closed an entire production facility in North Carolina and laid off 206 employees. Additionally, several Lifetouch senior executives retired, culminating in the retirement of then-CEO Paul Harmel in July 2016. In A ugust of 2016, the StarTribune, a major Minnesota newspaper, published an article about Lifetouch's struggles to stay relevant, adapt to modern technology, and satisfy consumer needs. During this time, Lifetouch's stock value decreased. Its financial troubles continued. On Jan. 30, 2018, CEO Michael Meek explained in a StarTribune article that Lifetouch had put itself up for sale because growth had slowed, and Lifetouch was not generating enough cash flow to invest in new technologies and other areas of business. That same month, Shutterfly announced it was acquiring Lifetouch for $825 million plus unspecified cash and investments. After receiving a fairness opinion from a third-party financial advisor, Trustee Newport Trust reviewed and approved the sale price. Lifetouch's sale terminated the Plan and commenced the distribution of proceeds to participants. The Plaintiffs brought a class action to recover the hundreds of millions of dollars lost when Lifetouch's stock value declined. Under Section 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), the Plaintiffs claim that this loss resulted from breaches of fiduciary duties by Lifetouch, Lifetouch's Board of Directors, and Lifetouch Trustees directly responsible for managing the ESOP. The Plaintiffs allege two breach of prudence claims. First, they claim that that the Trustees and other senior executives manipulated data provided to the independent appraiser to inflate Lifetouch's stock value in 2015 and 2016. Second, they assert that the Defendants should have investigated the evident discrepancy between the 2015 and 2016 valuations and Lifetouch's financial reality and removed imprudent investments. All Defendants moved to dismiss the claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. They argue that the Plaintiffs fail to plead that Lifetouch's stock was overvalued in 2015 and 2016. First, the Defendants assert that the Plaintiffs do not plead with particularly, under Rule 9(b), that the Trustees fraudulently inflated Lifetouch's stock value. Second, they argue that Lifetouch's stock drop in 2017 does not plausibly suggest that they Defendants overvalued Lifetouch stock in 2015 and 2016. Subsequently, the Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the action against Defendant Newport Trust, a Lifetouch Trustee, pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A) (i). Therefore, only the claims against Lifetouch, the Board of Directors, and Trustees Ted Koenecke and Glenn Elo remain. Judge Ericksen finds that the Plaintiffs fail to plead fraudulent stock inflation with particularity, and do not plausibly plead an imprudent investment claim under Tibble v. Edison Int'l. The annual valuation of Lifetouch is inconsistent with the Plaintiffs' assertion that the Defendants conducted absolutely no monitoring of the Plan's investment in the face of changed financial circumstances. Moreover, Lifetouch's stock was not so risky as to make the company stock an imprudent investment. The financial hardship described in the Complaint does not amount to the financial collapse described in Morrison v. MoneyGram Int'l, Inc. and In re ADC Telecommunications, Inc., ERISA Litig. Although Lifetouch faced financial setbacks, the company was valued at and sold for over $800 million in 2018. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs fail to state an imprudent investment claim. The Defendants argue that the Court should dismiss the Plaintiffs' monitoring claim because it is derivative of the Plaintiffs' prudence claim. The Judge agrees. He finds that the Plaintiffs' failure to plausibly allege any breach by the Trustees precludes the monitoring claim. Therefore, he dismissed the Plaintiffs' failure to monitor claim. The Plaintiffs also fail to allege self-dealing for the following reasons. First, they did not plausibly allege that senior executives manipulated the financial data. Second, the Trustees relied on an independent appraiser to evaluate the stock value. Third, it is not surprising, nor suggestive of malfeasance that senior executives would depart a company experiencing financial hardship. There is no inference of wrongdoing from actions that one would expect. Moreover, the Plaintiffs' loyalty claim largely repeats the allegations of their prudence claim. Because the Judge found the artificial inflation claim implausible, he also concludes that the Plaintiffs' derivative loyalty claim fails. Thus, he dismissed the duty of loyalty claim. Finally, because the Plaintiffs' proposed amendment would not cure the Plaintiffs' failure to state a claim, the Judge dismissed the action with prejudice. Based on the foregoing, Judge Ericksen granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss and dismissed the case with prejudice. Defendant Newport Trusts' motion to dismiss is denied as moot. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 7, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/frlmYJ from Leagle.com. Deborah Vigeant, and all other individuals similarly situated, Douglas Eckelbecker, and all other individuals similarly situated, Amanda Eckelbecker, and all other individuals similarly situated, Rhonda Wood, and all other individuals similarly situated, Lawrence Anderson, and all other individuals similarly situated, Elizabeth Millane, and all other individuals similarly situated & Rodney Uting, and all other individuals similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Douglas J. Nill -- dnill@farmlaw.com -- Douglas J. Nill, P.L.L.C., Edward H. Glenn, Jr., Zamansky LLC, pro hac vice, Jacob H. Zamansky -- jake@zamansky.com -- Zamansky LLC, pro hac vice, Justin Sauerwald, Zamansky LLC, pro hac vice & Samuel E. Bonderoff, Zamansky LLC, pro hac vice. Michael Meek, P. Robert Larson, Donald Goldfus, John Anderson, Bruce Nicholson & Bernie Alrich, Defendants, represented by Andrew J. Holly -- holly.andrew@dorsey.com -- Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Nicholas J. Bullard -- bullard.nick@dorsey.com -- Dorsey & Whitney LLP & Stephen P. Lucke -- lucke.steve@dorsey.com -- Dorsey & Whitney LLP. Paul Harmel, Defendant, represented by Andrew J. Holly, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Lars Golumbic, Groom Law Group, Chtd., pro hac vice, Nicholas J. Bullard, Dorsey & Whitney LLP & Stephen P. Lucke, Dorsey & Whitney LLP. Ted Koenecke & Glenn Elo, Defendants, represented by Andrew J. Holly, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Nicholas J. Bullard, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Stephen P. Lucke, Dorsey & Whitney LLP & Theodore M. Becker, Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, pro hac vice. Lifetouch, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew J. Holly, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Cardelle B. Spangler -- cspangler@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn LLP, pro hac vice, Heather Lehman Kriz -- hkriz@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn LLP, pro hac vice, Nicholas J. Bullard, Dorsey & Whitney LLP & Stephen P. Lucke, Dorsey & Whitney LLP. MAINE: Dismissal of Class Action Claims in Gladu Suit Recommended ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, NICHOLAS A. GLADU, Plaintiff v. JOSEPH FITZPATRICK, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00274-GZS (D. Me), Magistrate Judge John C. Nivison of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine recommended that the Court dismisses all claims except the claim identified as actionable in the original recommended. In the action, the Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the Maine Department of Corrections at the Maine State Prison, alleges the Defendants violated his constitutional rights following an incident in February 2018. He also attempts to assert a class action on behalf of others who are similarly situated. In response to a Recommended Decision After Review of Complaint Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1915(e), 1915A, the Plaintiff filed a motion to amend with proposed supplemental pleadings in an apparent effort to address the shortcomings identified in the recommended decision. Because the Plaintiff can amend his complaint, in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), once as a matter of course within 21 days of service of the complaint, and because the complaint has not yet been served, the Magistrate granted the motion to amend. The Plaintiff alleges that on Feb. 11, 2018, he received two heavy applications of pepper spray when he refused to cuff up for a cell extraction, and that he was subsequently denied access to a shower for three days after he was placed in Emergency Observation Status ("EOS"). More particularly, he alleges Defendant Manning, identified as a sergeant at the Maine State Prison, not only denied his request for a shower for a period of three days, even though he reported to the Defendant that his skin was burning from head-to-toe, but also denied him access to other means of decontamination in his cell. Upon review of Plaintiff's complaint, Magistrate Judge Nivison concluded that the Plaintiff had alleged an actionable claim against Defendant Manning. He also determined that the Plaintiff's claim against the supervisory officers failed because the Plaintiff merely alleged in conclusory fashion that Defendant Manning was following a policy or practice. Under the circumstances, the Plaintiff's supplemental filing lacks any basis to deviate from the ordinary rule that an officer's mere denial of a grievance does not establish that the officer is liable for the underlying deprivation. The Plaintiff seeks to assert a class action on behalf of all male prisoners at MSP who were or will be exposed to chemical agents and then deprived of meaningful opportunity to decontaminate by means of a shower and clean change of clothing. The Magistrate finds that the Plaintiff's supplemental pleading does not alter the fact that the Plaintiff, a pro se litigant, cannot assert a claim on behalf of other individuals. Based on the foregoing analysis, the Magistrate Judge granted Plaintiff's motion to amend. In addition, after review of the amended pleadings in accordance with 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2) and 28 U.S.C. Sections 1915A(a), for the reasons set forth and in the original recommended decision, he reiterated the recommendation in the original recommended decision. Specifically, he recommended that the Court dismisses the Plaintiff's class action allegations; dismissed the Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Fitzpatrick, Thornell, Liberty, Ross, Cassese, and Burns; and permits the Plaintiff, based on the alleged denial of means by which to decontaminate from the application of pepper spray, to proceed on a claim under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 against Defendant Manning. A party may file objections to those specified portions of the Magistrate Judge's report or proposed findings or recommended decisions entered within 14 days of being served with a copy thereof. Failure to file a timely objection will constitute a waiver of the right to de novo review by the district court and to appeal the district court's order. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 9, 2018 Supplemental Recomended Decision is available at https://is.gd/9mDUIn from Leagle.com. NICHOLAS A GLADU, and Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, pro se. MASTERCARD INC: Appeals Court to Hear Antitrust Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Paige Long, writing for Law360, reports that an English appeals court ruled on Nov. 13 that it could weigh whether a £14 billion ($18.1 billion) consumer antitrust suit against MasterCard Inc. can proceed as a class action. [GN] MCDONALD'S CORP: Ontario Judge Allows Happy Meal Suit to Proceed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jacob Serebrin, writing for Montreal Gazette, reports that a Quebec Superior Court judge has authorized a class-action lawsuit against McDonald's that claims the fast food restaurant illegally advertises to children. Under Quebec's Consumer Protection Act, "no person may make use of commercial advertising directed at persons under 13 years of age." The lawsuit claims that displays inside McDonald's restaurants showing Happy Meal toys violate this law. "The authorization is, of course, preliminary, but the judge basically found that we made an arguable case that the displays when you walk into McDonald's directly incite children to buy either toys individually or Happy Meals," said Joey Zukran, the lawyer who filed the suit. Authorization -- similar to a process called certification in other provinces -- allows a lawsuit to be filed on behalf of a group, or class Anyone who purchased a toy or a Happy Meal for a child under 13 who was present with them at a Quebec McDonald's while an "advertising campaign directed at children" was happening in the restaurant since Nov. 15, 2013 is now part of the class. "What we're seeking are three things, the first thing and I would even consider this probably the most important thing is an injunctive relief, which means that we want the court to order McDonald's to stop using the prohibited practice, which is the displays both in the drive-throughs and in the restaurants," Mr. Zukran said. The lawsuit also seeks reimbursement for individual toys that were purchased as well as a portion of sales of Happy Meals with toys sold to children under 13. "The third thing we're asking are punitive damages for what we consider to be a blatant violation of Quebec consumer protection law for over 25 years," Mr. Zukran said. "This violation is a serious one, it's a public health issue, which is why it's so important to us and it's been ongoing and intentional." The value of the damages being sought have not yet be determined and, after application for authorization, there could be hundreds of thousands or even millions of people in the class. A spokesperson for McDonald's said the company has received the ruling "and plans to examine it carefully." "We are aware of our obligations under Quebec's advertising laws and reiterate that we do not believe this class action has merit," said Adam Grachnik, an external communications manager at McDonald's Corporate Relations. McDonalds argued against authorizing the suit, saying it only advertises Happy Meal toys inside restaurants and drive-through lanes in Quebec. It said Happy Meal boxes in the province don't have any reference to toys, nor does the company's French-language Canadian website, according to the judge's ruling. McDonald's also said, according to the ruling, that it continues to abide by a voluntary agreement relating to advertisements aimed at children that it signed with the Office de la protection du consommateur in 1985. There are some exceptions to the ban on advertising aimed at children, according to the ruling. For example, there can be some advertising aimed at children in store windows, but those advertisements can't directly incite a child to buy something, or to encourage someone else to buy something for them. McDonald's argued that any in-store advertising falls within those exemptions. The next step will be for judge to hold a hearing to determine how class members will be notified. "As far as we're concerned, we're preparing for a trial," Mr. Zukran said. [GN] MERCK & CO: Taha Sues over Zostavax Vaccine ------------------------------------------- Fatema Taha, Plaintiff, vs. MERCK & CO., INC., MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP., the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-06203 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 2, 2018), alleges that Merck failed to warn the Plaintiffs and other consumers of the defective condition of Zostavax, as manufactured and/or supplied by Merck. According to the complaint, on or about October 6, 2015, the Plaintiff was treated by Dr. Rachelle Brilliant at a healthcare facility located in 101 Jordan Rd No. 104, Troy, New York 12180 for shingles. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with shingles and/or other zoster-related injuries after and despite being inoculated with the Zostavax vaccine, and suffered serious physical, emotional, and economic damages as a result of Plaintiff's injuries. As a direct and proximate result of the Zostavax vaccine, Plaintiff has and will continue suffer ongoing injuries, including but not limited to mental and physical pain and suffering; extensive medical care and treatment for these injuries; significant medical and related expenses as a result of these injuries, including but not limited to medical losses and costs include care for hospitalization, physician care, monitoring, treatment, medications, and supplies; diminished capacity for the enjoyment of life; a diminished quality of life; increased risk of premature death, aggravation of preexisting conditions and activation of latent conditions; and other losses and damages; and will continue to suffer such losses, and damages in the future. The lawsuit contends that the Zostavax vaccine was defective due to inadequate warnings or instructions because Defendants knew or should have known that the product created significant risks of serious bodily harm to consumers an d they failed to adequately warn consumers and/or their healthcare providers of such risks. Defendants failed to provide adequate warnings to healthcare providers and users, including Plaintiff and Plaintiff's healthcare providers, of the increased risk of developing severe and permanent injuries, including, but not limited to, the risk of contracting shingles and suffering from zoster-related injuries associated with Zostavax, the lawsuit says. Merck developed, tested, designed, set specifications for, licensed, manufactured, prepared, compounded, assembled, packaged, processed, labeled, marketed, promoted, distributed, and/or sold the Zostavax vaccine to be administered to patients throughout the United States, including New Jersey.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Debra J. Humphrey, Esq. MARC J. BERN & PARTNERS LLP 60 E. 42 nd St., Suite 950 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: 212.702.5000 Facsimile: 212.818.0164 E-mail: dhumphrey@bernllp.com MERIDIAN SENIOR: Dominguez Files ADA Class Action ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Meridian Senior Living, LLC. The case is styled as Yovanny Dominguez on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Meridian Senior Living, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10873 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 20, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Meridian Senior Living, LLC operates assisted living facilities for age qualified residents throughout the United States. It offers independent living, assisted living, and memory care services.[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 MINNESOTA: Court Affirms Ruling on Bids to Compel in Murphy Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Tenner Murphy, by his guardians Kay and Richard Murphy; Marrie Bottelson; Dionne Swanson; and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Emily Johnson Piper in her Capacity as Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Services, Defendant, Civil No. 16-2623 (DWF/BRT) (D. Minn.), Judge Donovan W. Frank of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota affirmed Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson's Order and Opinion on Defendant's Motions to Compel. Magistrate Judge Thorson's Aug. 29, 2018 Order addressed two Motions to Compel filed by the Defendant. The combined motions raised seven issues: (1) deposition of a witness regarding interrogatory responses; (2) discovery related to supplemental needs trusts; (3) disclosure of documents; (4) spoliation sanctions; (5) striking of errata answers; (6) sanctions for failure to comply with previous order; and (7) removal of confidential designations. The Defendant objects to the Order as it relates to all issues. Magistrate Judge Thorson first addressed Defendant's request to depose an additional witness on Plaintiffs' interrogatory answers to Nos. 5, 17, 20, and 22-26 related to the Plaintiffs' requested relief. Magistrate Judge Thorson ultimately denied the Defendant's request to depose an additional witness on the Plaintiff's answers to Interrogatory Nos. 5, 17, 20, and 22-26. The Defendant argues that Magistrate Judge's Order is contrary to law because it violates Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33 by not allowing Defendant access to the identities of persons answering the interrogatories. Judge Frank finds that Magistrate Judge Thorson thoroughly reviewed the depositions at issue, properly concluded that there is no abuse of Rule 33's verification procedures, and correctly denied the Defendant's request to depose additional witnesses in respect to Interrogatory Nos. 5, 17, 20, and 22-26. Magistrate Judge Thorson next considered the Defendant's argument that the Plaintiffs improperly withheld documents related to Tenner Murphy's supplemental needs trust by invoking a common interest privilege without an actual common legal interest. She found that the Plaintiffs properly invoked the privilege because the "common interest" in the documents at issue was to create a special needs trust to benefit Tenner Murphy to secure his well-being in light of his disability. The Defendant argues that Magistrate Judge Thorson's interpretation of the common interest doctrine is overly broad. Judge Frank disagrees and finds that Magistrate Judge Thorson correctly applied the "common interest doctrine" as it has been interpreted in the Eighth Circuit. He finds that the Magistrate Judge did not act contrary to law when she denied the Defendant access to documents about Tenner Murphy's special needs trusts. Magistrate Judge Thorson then considered the Defendant's argument that the Plaintiffs asserted improper work product and attorney-client privilege objections with respect to questions about documents that the Plaintiffs' witnesses reviewed prior to their depositions. She found that the Plaintiffs' counsel properly asserted a work product objection because the selection and compilation of documents by the counsel in preparation for pre-trial discovery falls within the highly protected category of opinion work product, and defendants failed to lay foundation for the disclosure of the materials pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 612. The Judge finds that the Magistrate Judge correctly applied the work product privilege as interpreted by the Eighth Circuit. It is inconsequential that the Defendant did not specifically ask who prepared the documents; the selection process was implicated and the work product privilege applies. The Defendant had the opportunity to receive the information by laying a proper foundation in accordance with Fed. R. Evid. 612. The Magistrate Judge did not act contrary to law when she declined to overrule the Plaintiffs' work product objection. Magistrate Judge Thorson then considered the Defendant's request to strike a subset of substantive changes made by the Plaintiffs Bottelson and Swanson in Rule 30 errata sheets. She found that the Plaintiffs provided sufficient justification to permit the errata sheet changes. She preserved both the original depositions and errata sheets for use as impeachment at trial. She also granted the Defendant two additional hours of deposition with each witness to ask about the challenged changes to the errata sheets. The Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs' explanation does not provide the sufficient justification necessary to permit the changes. The Judge disagrees. He finds that the Magistrate's application of the "sufficient justification" standard is consistent with other courts in the district that have recognized that forgetfulness and confusion are sufficient reasons for changing deposition testimony. Further, he finds that the Magistrate granted the Defendant an appropriate remedy by allowing two additional deposition hours. He affirms Magistrate Judge Thorson's decision to permit the challenged errata sheets. Next, Magistrate Judge Thorson considered the Defendant's request to sanction the Plaintiffs for willful violation of a previous order regarding a supplemental response to Interrogatory No. 22. She denied the Defendant's request. The Defendant argues that the Magistrate's decision is contrary to law because the Plaintiffs committed a willful violation by being purposefully unresponsive to Interrogatory No. 22. The Judge finds that the Magistrate properly evaluated the Plaintiffs' response and correctly concluded that their collective answer to Interrogatory No. 22 is not a sanctionable offense because they did not willfully or otherwise violate her previous order. Finally, Magistrate Judge Thorson considered the Defendant's request to remove the Plaintiff's confidential designations on 268 documents in three categories: (1) financial; (2) medical; and (3) documents that are marked confidential for no reason discernable to the Defendants. She denied relief as to the first two categories because the Defendant previously stipulated to permit Confidential designations on documents within the scope of protection afforded by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 and the Plaintiffs satisfied their burden of proving that the documents at issue fell within the scope. The Defendant argues that Magistrate Judge Thorson addressed only part of her motion; specifically, that it challenged the Plaintiffs' confidentiality designations relating to both documents produced in discovery and depositions of Named Plaintiffs Bottelson, Swanson, Richard Murphy, and Kay Murphy. It asks the Court to consider its challenges to the Plaintiffs' deposition confidentiality designations de novo or to remand them to the Magistrate for further consideration because she failed to address them. The Judge finds that Magistrate Judge Thorson addressed the Defendant's challenge by expressly stating that the Defendant's motion to remove confidentiality designations to the extent the Court found documents non-confidential was granted, but that the motion was otherwise denied. The Defendant's challenge to confidential designations on the depositions is encompassed in the totality of otherwise denied. Further, a separate analysis for the depositions would be redundant, as the same logic applies. Finally, her ruling is without prejudice; the Defendant will have the opportunity to renew challenges to designations in relation to future court filings. Judge Frank concludes that Magistrate Judge Thorson's Order is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. Giving proper deference to the Magistrate Judge's Aug. 29, 2018 Order and for the reasons stated, he denied Defendant's appeal and affirmed Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson's August 29, 2018 Order in all respects. Accordingly, he overruled the Defendant's appeal of the Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson's Order and Opinion on Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel and Defendant's Motion to Compel. He affirmed the Magistrate's Aug. 29, 2018 Order and Opinion on the Defendant's Motions to Compel consistent with his Order. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 9, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/iDAJSC from Leagle.com. Tenner Murphy, by his guardians Kay and Richard Murphy and on behalf of others similarly situated, Marrie Bottelson, and on behalf of others similarly situated & Dionne Swanson, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Eren Ernest Sutherland, Mid-Minnesota Legal Aid Minnesota Disability Law Center, Joseph W. Anthony -- janthony@anthonyostlund.com -- Anthony Ostlund Baer & Louwagie PA, Justin M. Page, Mid-Minnesota Legal Aid/Disability Law Center, Justin H. Perl -- jperl@mylegalaid.org --, Mid-Minnesota Legal Aid, Peter McElligott -- pmcelligott@anthonyostland.com -- Anthony Ostlund Baer & Louwagie PA, Steven M. Pincus -- spincus@anthonyostlund.com -- Anthony Ostlund Baer & Louwagie PA, Steven C. Schmidt, Mid-Minnesota Legal Aid Minnesota Disability Law Center & Steven Andrew Smith, Nichols Kaster, PLLP. Emily Johnson Piper, in her Capacity as Commissioner of the The Minnesota Department of Human Services, Defendant, represented by Aaron Winter -- aaron.winter@ag.state.mn.us -- Minnesota Attorney General's Office, Brandon L. Boese, Office of the Minnesota Attorney General, Janine Wetzel Kimble -- janine.kimble@ag.state.mn.us -- Minnesota Office of Attorney General & Scott H. Ikeda -- scott.ikeda@ag.state.mn.us -- Minnesota Attorney General's Office. ARRM, Amicus, represented by Pari McGarraugh -- pmcgarraugh@fredlaw.com -- Fredrikson & Byron & Samuel D. Orbovich -- sorbovich@fredlaw.com -- Fredrikson & Byron, PA. MIYOKOS KITCHEN: Faces Class Action Over Vegan Butter Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Susan Bird, writing for care2, reports that these days, if you presume to call your vegan product "milk" or "meat," prepare to do battle. The producers of the animal versions of those products are putting a target on your back. The latest company in the crosshairs? Miyoko's Kitchen. Miyoko's Kitchen offers up artisanal vegan cheeses and vegan butter. And this vegan butter isn't your typical palm-oil-based butter substitute. Rather, the ingredients include coconut oil, sunflower oil and cultured cashews to recreate a realistic non-dairy butter. It spreads and melts like the real thing. Fans of Miyoko Kitchen's products rave about them. Happy consumers have turned the company into a plant-based success story. But, all of a sudden, someone filed a class action lawsuit in late October 2018 to challenge Miyoko's Kitchen's marketing approach. Unlike other lawsuits against plant-based alternative foods, this lawsuit doesn't allege that consumers will be confused between "real" butter and vegan butter. Instead, it argues that consumers are being misled because they would expect that Miyoko's products "are nutritionally equivalent to butter or margarine, when they are inferior -- lacking vitamin A, D, E and calcium.'" The complaint alleges that Miyoko's products "bask in dairy's 'halo' by using familiar terms to invoke positive traits -- including the significant levels of various nutrients typically associated with real dairy foods." Really, dairy's "halo"? I'm fairly confident few of us buying vegan butter think of the dairy industry as deserving of angelic descriptors. It's cruel and heartless in myriad ways -- and that's why so many of us are turning to plant-based alternatives. The real assertion here is that Miyoko's dared to use the word "butter" on its packaging when its product doesn't have all the attributes of dairy butter. "It is false and misleading for the Products to not be labeled as an imitation (whether of butter or margarine) in a manner as prominent as it promotes its equivalence to butter," the complaint alleges. So the beef -- if you'll pardon the expression -- is that the word "vegan" isn't big enough on the packaging? You mean the packaging that says right on its face that it's "vegan butter"? The package that's stocked in the grocery cold case with all the other non-dairy plant-based products so vegans can find them? The one that's significantly more expensive than dairy butter? The one that plant-based eaters specifically seek out because it's vegan and it's really good? That one? In fact, Miyoko's Kitchen has gone through a series of package redesigns as its product grew in popularity. Where the packaging once said "Melts, browns, bakes and spreads like butter," now it says "Melts, browns, bakes, and spreads phenomenally." The words "Made from Plants" now appear prominently on the box. The words "cultured vegan" are now in larger font above the word "butter." A vegan logo now appears on the front as well. All these updates apparently took place before the lawsuit was filed on October 30, 2018. Why did the product call itself butter in the first place? That's easy, says company founder Miyoko Schinner. She told Food Navigator: "We really believe that the landscape of dairy is changing rapidly and innovation is driving that change. We're trying to revolutionize how we make dairy products by making them from plants, and we believe that is going to become the new norm." We want to really drive the conversation about what exactly constitutes a 'dairy' product in the future. There may come a time when all dairy products come from plants and at that point, you could ask are they really 'dairy free' or are they the new dairy?" This lawsuit will be a tough sell. Food regulations permit products to be called by an "appropriately descriptive term," attorney Bill Acevedo told Food Navigator. Indeed, we've already seen a lawsuit pertaining to WhiteWave Foods products, the maker of Silk plant-based milks. The federal district court in that case held that names like soy milk, almond milk and coconut milk "clearly convey the basic nature and content of the beverages, while clearly distinguishing them from milk that is derived from dairy cows." Are a group of "concerned" consumers truly behind this class action lawsuit against Miyoko's Kitchen, or is this Big Dairy once again, taking a different tack? No one buys vegan butter expecting it to be nutritionally equivalent. They buy it because they want a plant-based butter that tastes good and functions similarly to butter in cooking and baking. Those worried about nutrition read nutrition labels and make decisions accordingly. Just stop it with these ridiculous lawsuits. Plant-based alternatives are here to stay. [GN] MODIS INC: Brown Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation ------------------------------------------------------- Stanley Brown, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Modis Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-3089-C (N.D. Tex., November 20, 2018) is a collective action seeking to recover overtime compensation and all other available remedies under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Plaintiff typically worked at least 50 hours per week, often more. Yet Plaintiff (and other similarly situated employees) did not receive any additional compensation for the hours worked above forty in a week, and thus Defendant denied their workers overtime pay in violation of federal law, says the complaint. The Defendant willfully committed widespread violations of the FLSA by failing to pay these employees for overtime hours worked in excess of forty hours per week at a rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay, adds the complaint. Plaintiff is an individual who was formerly employed by Defendant. Modis is a foreign corporation organized under the laws of Florida. Modis maintains its headquarters and principal place of business in Florida. Modis is a citizen of Florida. Modis may be served through its registered agent for service of process, CT Corporation System, 1999 Bryan St., Ste. 900, Dallas, TX 75201-3136, or where found.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Borsellino, Esq. Borsellino, P.C. 1020 Macon St., Suite 15 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Phone: (817) 908-9861 Facsimile: (817) 394-2412 Email: josh@dfwcounsel.com MOG INTERNATIONAL: Trusty Seeks OT Pay for Direct Care Workers -------------------------------------------------------------- Asmyra A. Trusty, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MOG International, LLC, Olayemi B. Olukanni, and Nurat O. Olukanni, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-04912-CDJ (E.D. Pa., Nov. 13, 2018), seeks to recover overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law, and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968. According to complaint, MOG employs at least 50 Direct Care Workers in Pennsylvania. During the last three years, MOG has required these DCWs to work in excess of 40 hours per week without paying time and a half for overtime. Because the DCWs were not properly paid overtime for more than 80 hours in any given two week pay period, MOG received unpaid labor from its DCWs each day, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Larry A. Weisberg, Esq. Derrek W. Cummings, Esq. Stephen T. Mahan, Esq. MCARTHY WEISBERG CUMMINGS, P.C. 2704 Commerce Drive, Suite B Hsrrisburg PA 17110 Telephone: (717) 238 5707 Facsimile: (717) 233 8133 E-mail: lweisberg@mcfirm.com dcummings@mcfirm.com smahan@mcfirm.com MONEYGRAM INT'L: Jan. 14 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set ----------------------------------------------------------- Kaskela Law LLC on Nov. 14 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against MoneyGram International, Inc. (NASDAQ: MGI) ("MoneyGram" or the "Company") on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between February 11, 2014 and November 8, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"). IMPORTANT DEADLINE: Investors who purchased MoneyGram's common stock during the Class Period may, no later than January 14, 2019, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the investor class. For additional information, or to learn how to participate in this action, please visit http://kaskelalaw.com/case/moneygram-international-inc/. As detailed in the shareholder class action complaint, on November 8, 2018, the FTC issued a press release entitled "MoneyGram Agrees to Pay $125 Million to Settle Allegations that the Company Violated the FTC's 2009 Order and Breached a 2012 DOJ Deferred Prosecution Agreement." According to the press release, "[t]he FTC alleges that MoneyGram was aware for years of the high levels of fraud and suspicious activities involving certain agents, including large chain agents. . . At the same time, MoneyGram also often failed to promptly conduct the required reviews or to suspend or terminate agents, particularly those from larger locations with high levels of fraud." Following this news, shares of MoneyGram's common stock fell $2.20 per share, or nearly 50% in value, to close at $2.27 per share on November 9, 2018, on heavy trading volume. Among other things, the class action complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and misleading statements during the Class Period, and failed to disclose to investors that: (i) MoneyGram was aware for years of high levels of fraud involving its money transfer system; (ii) MoneyGram failed to implement appropriate anti-fraud countermeasures, in part, because doing so would adversely impact its revenue; and (iii) this misconduct would draw scrutiny from the FTC, which had an agreed-upon order requiring MoneyGram to implement a comprehensive anti-fraud program. The complaint further alleges that, as a result of the foregoing, investors purchased MoneyGram's common stock at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period and suffered investment losses as a result of defendants' conduct. MoneyGram investors who suffered a financial loss in excess of $100,000 are encouraged to contact Kaskela Law LLC (D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.) at (888) 715-1740, or via email at skaskela@kaskelalaw.com, for additional information about this action and their legal rights and recovery options. Additional information about this action may also be found at http://kaskelalaw.com/case/moneygram-international-inc/. Kaskela Law LLC -- http://www.kaskelalaw.com-- exclusively represents investors in securities fraud, corporate governance, and other stockholder actions. [GN] MONSANTO COMPANY: Lis Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup --------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM LIS, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-01920 (E.D. Mo., Nov. 13, 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 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 Plaintiffs' 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: Kirk J. Goza, Esq. GOZA & HONNOLD LLC 9500 Nall Ave., Suite 400 Overland Park, KS 66207-2950 Telephone: (913) 451-3433 Facsimile: (913) 839-0567 E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com MORRISONS: Sheppard Mullin Discusses Data Leak Ruling ----------------------------------------------------- Shanna M. Pearce, Esq. -- spearce@sheppardmullin.com -- of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, reports that UK supermarket chain Morrisons has been held vicariously liable for the acts of a malicious employee in the UK's first data leak class action. The issue began in 2014, when a disgruntled Morrison's internal IT auditor posted to a public file-sharing website the payroll data of nearly 100,000 employees (including names, addresses, dates of birth, national insurance numbers and bank details). The employee was found criminally liable in 2015 and jailed for eight years. A class action of 5,500 employees filed claims against Morrisons alleging breaches of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA). Although Morrisons acted swiftly and responsibly after the leak, and was found not to be primarily liable, the court of appeals has nonetheless now affirmed the lower court ruling that Morrisons is vicariously liable for the unlawful acts of its employee carried out in the course of his employment. Putting it Into Practice: Though sound policies and practices can reduce companies' risk, choosing the right employees and carefully restricting access to sensitive data are also important. [GN] MOSAIC FERTILIZER: Fla. App. Reverses Curd Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MOSAIC FERTILIZER, LLC, Appellant, v. HOWARD CURD, FLOYD DEFOREST, SCOTT MOBLEY, GARY BRUCE, DAVID LAGGNER, BRYAN IBASFALEAN, PHILIP JOHNSON, and ANGELO LOGRANDE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Appellees, Case No. 2D17-2302 (Fla. Dist. App.), Judge Stevan T. Northcutt of the District Court of Appeal of Florida for the Second District reversed the nonfinal order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with his Opinion. Curd and other commercial fishermen sued Mosaic following a pollutant spill into Tampa Bay. The fishermen alleged that Mosaic owned or operated a phosphogypsum storage area near Archie Creek in Hillsborough County. Within the storage area was a pond containing the pollutant-rich wastewater from a phosphate plant. Although dikes enclosed the wastewater pond, the fishermen alleged that in the summer of 2004 the Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection warned Mosaic that the pond was dangerously close to exceeding safe storage levels. In September 2004 Hurricane Frances swept across Florida, and on Sept. 5, 2004, the dike gave way, spilling wastewater into Tampa Bay. In their lawsuit, the fishermen claimed that the spilled pollutants resulted in a loss of underwater plant life, fish, bait fish, crabs, and other marine life. Though the fishermen did not claim ownership of the damaged marine life, they claimed that the spill resulted in damage to the reputation of the fishery products the fishermen are able to catch and attempt to sell. The circuit court allowed the fishermen to proceed on their claim, but ultimately it dismissed the claim as unauthorized by the economic loss rule. The Court affirmed and certified questions of great public importance; the Florida Supreme Court quashed the Court's opinion and held that the economic loss rule did not bar the fishermen from pursuing both a common law negligence claim as well as a statutory cause of action under section 376.313(3), Florida Statutes (2004). The supreme court concluded that section 376.313(3) provides private causes of action to any person who can demonstrate damages as defined under the statute, and that the discharge of the pollutants constituted a tortious invasion that interfered with the special interest of the commercial fishermen to use those public waters to earn their livelihood. On remand, the fishermen filed their fifth amended complaint and made an initial attempt to certify a class of commercial fishermen. However, they later opted to forgo class certification and instead moved to intervene or join the putative class members and proceed on a nonclass basis. The circuit court denied the motion to intervene. The fishermen appealed, and the Court affirmed without opinion. Again before the trial court, the fishermen moved for class certification. They defined the putative class members as those persons engaged in the commercial catch and sale of fish, bait fish, shrimp, crabs, and other living sea creatures in the Tampa Bay and who have lost income and continue to suffer damages because of the pollution, contamination, and discharge of hazardous substances by the defendant, Mosaic. The circuit court held a hearing on the motion for certification. After the first day of hearings, the circuit court entered an order requiring further proceedings for class certification determinations. On the second day of hearings, Mosaic tendered the testimony of seven expert witnesses without objection. After the two days of hearings, the circuit court entered an order bifurcating the case into liability and damages phases and cited to Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc. The court defined the liability phase as extending up to and including determination of the geographic scope of potentially harmful effects of the spill. The order suggested that after all liability issues were resolved the court would consider decertification for the determination of individual damages. The court also granted the fishermen's motion for class certification only as to the liability phase. It found that the fishermen had met their burden under rule 1.220(a) and that the liability issues are common questions which predominate the individual damages issues. Mosaic appealed the order bifurcating the case and certifying the class. Judge Northcutt finds that the fishermen failed to carry their burden of positing any reasonable methodology for proving classwide claims. The circuit court sua sponte amended the putative class to include any holders of commercial fishing licenses who claim to have been damaged by the Mosaic spill. The fishermen therefore had the burden of proving -- beyond mere "supposition" -- some methodology for generalized proof by which the class representative would necessarily prove the cases of all other commercial fishing license holders who claim to have been damaged by the spill. The fishermen's support for class certification amounted only to the testimony of Curd and Nipper. Taken as a whole, it is not possible to view Curd's and Nippers' testimony as plausibly putting forth a reasonable methodology for proving classwide claims. The circuit court therefore abused its discretion because there was no competent, substantial evidence supporting its proof-based inquiry into and ultimate determination of rule 1.220(b)(3)'s predominance requirement. Moreover, the Judge finds that although the circuit court bifurcated the case into a liability and damages phases in the vein of Engle, this bifurcation does not change his decision. First, it is not necessarily clear that Engle prospectively authorized bifurcation as a means of meeting rule 1.220(b)(3)'s requirements. Even assuming that Engle authorized the circuit court to use rule 1.220(d)(4)(A) to certify classwide liability issues, the fishermen did not present a reasonable methodology for proving those issues classwide. Accordingly, Judge Northcutt reversed the order on appeal and remanded for further proceedings consistent with his Opinion. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 9, 2018 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/guVM8U from Leagle.com. David B. Weinstein and Kimberly Mello -- mellok@gtlaw.com -- of Greenberg Traurig, P.A., Tampa, and Andrew J. Patch of Greenberg Traurig, P.A., Tampa (withdrew after briefing), for Appellant. Andra T. Dreyfus -- attorneys@dreyfuspa.com -- and Casey C. Harrison of Dreyfus Harrison, P.A., Clearwater, and F. Wallace Pope, Jr. -- WALLYP@JPFIRM.COM -- of Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns, LLP, Clearwater, for Appellees. MUY PIZZA-TEJAS: Scott et al Seek Unpaid Wages for Drivers ---------------------------------------------------------- ERNEST SCOTT, JAMES GRIGGS, AND EVAN MONACELLI, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the PLAINTIFFS, vs. MUY PIZZA-TEJAS, LLC, MUY PIZZA SOUTHEAST, LLC AND MUY PIZZA MINNESOTA, LLC, the DEFENDANTS, Case No. 5:18-cv-01187-OLG (W.D. Tex. Nov. 14, 2018), seeks to recover minimum wage compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants operate Pizza Hut stores in Texas, Florida, Virginia and Minnesota, among other states. Mr. Scott was employed by Defendants as a delivery driver in Houston, Texas beginning in 2013 and is currently still employed by Defendants. Mr. James Griggs was employed by Defendants as a delivery driver in Ruckersville, Virginia from January 2015 through October 2016. Mr. Evan Monacelli was employed by Defendants as a delivery driver in Cloquet, Minnesota from October 2015 through August 2018. For at least three years prior to the filing of this complaint, Defendants willfully committed violations of the FLSA by failing to pay minimum wage to their hourly delivery drivers, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorney for Plaintiffs: Douglas B. Welmaker, Esq. MORELAND VERRETT, PC 2901 Bee Cave Rd, Box L Austin, TX 78746 Telephone: (512) 782-0567 Facsimile: (512) 782-0605 E-mail: doug@morelandlaw.com NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Negligent Over Athletes' Health, Dobson Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- James Dobson and Bruce Swinton Jr., Plaintiffs, v. The National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-03661-TWP-DLP (S.D. Ind., November 21, 2018) is an original class complaint against Defendant for failing to warn players of the long-term risks associated with repeated concussive and sub-concussive hits, failing to educate players on head injury prevention, failing to timely implement rules of play that would limit head injuries, failing to timely implement return to play rules after concussions occurred, and failing to cover the cost of post-collegiate medical care necessary as a result of the Defendant's bad acts. The complaint says despite the NCAA's and member conferences' assumption of this responsibility for player safety, Defendant was negligent and failed to carry out this duty in that they failed to implement and enforce regulations that would properly protect student-athletes from the risks associated with concussions and/or manage those risks to properly respond to the medically proven fact that repetitive concussions would lead to brain injuries in many football players, including Plaintiffs and the Class. The complaint asserts that Defendant failed to meet their legal responsibility to safeguard student-athletes, despite being aware that the NCAA and its member conferences have a "legal obligation to use reasonable care to protect athletes from foreseeable harm in any formal school sponsored activity". Defendant engaged in a long-established pattern of negligence and inaction with respect to concussions and concussion related maladies sustained by its student-athletes, all the while profiting immensely from those same student-athletes, says the complaint. National Collegiate Athletic Association is an unincorporated association that acts as the governing body of college sports with its principal office located at 700 West Washington Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46206. Plaintiffs and Class Representatives James Dobson and Bruce Swinton, Jr. are former NCAA athletes who played football at University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff from 1993 to 1995 and 1994 to 1996, respectively.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Vincent P. Circelli, Esq. George Parker Young, Esq. Kelli L. Walter, Esq. CIRCELLI,WALTER &YOUNG, PLLC Tindall Square Warehouse 500 E. 4th Street, Suite 250 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Phone: (817) 697-4942 Email: gpy@cwylaw.com vinny@cwylaw.com kelli@cwylaw.com NEW GREAT WALL: Underpays Delivery Persons, Chen Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ JIAN CHEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEW GREAT WALL 2, INC. D/B/A NEW GREAT WALL KITCHEN; and JOHN DOE, Defendants, Case No. 7:18-cv-10075 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 31, 2018) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid overtime compensation, prejudgment interest, maximum liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff Chen was employed by the Defendants as delivery person. New Great Wall 2, Inc. d/b/a New Great Wall Kitchen is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Tannenbaum, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC. 136-20 38th Ave., Suite 10G Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (718) 353-8588 E-mail: dtannenbaum@hanglaw.com NEW HAMPSHIRE INSTITUTE: Camacho Suit Alleges ADA Violation ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against New Hampshire Institute of Art. The case is styled as Jason Camacho and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. New Hampshire Institute of Art, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10886 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 20, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The New Hampshire Institute of Art is a private, non-profit college of creative arts located in Manchester, New Hampshire, in the United States. NHIA is accredited by the National Association of Schools of Art and Design and the New England Association of Schools and Colleges.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com NEW YORK: Campbell Seeks Wages & OT for Boiler Makers and Welders ----------------------------------------------------------------- LANGE CAMPBELL, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs NEW YORK BOILER, INC., RICHARD BERGER and DONALD BERGER, the Defendants, Case No. 160513/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nov. 13, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid prevailing wages, supplemental benefits, as well as overtime compensation which the Plaintiff is statutorily and contractually entitled to receive for their services performed at the Public Works Projects, pursuant to New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the action is brought on behalf of the Named Plaintiff and members of a putative class consisting of each and every other person who performed construction trade work for NY Boiler on the sites of the Public Works Projects, in such trades which include but are not limited to Boiler Maker and Welder. The Plaintiff performed various types of construction-related improvement work, including but not limited to boiler construction, repairs, maintenance, metal work, tube rolling and cutting, tube bending, and other construction work at the Public Works Project. The Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and members of the putative class the prevailing rates of wages and supplements to which Plaintiffs are entitled. The Defendant also failed to pay Plaintiff at a rate of time and one-half of their hourly regular rate of pay when they performed work in excess of 40 hours in a seven day work week, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Putative Class: Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP 40 Broad Street, Seventh Floor New York, New York 10004 Telephone: (212) 943-9080 Facsimile: (212) 943-9082 ONE BRANDS: Faces Melendez Product Liability Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against One Brands, LLC. The case is styled as Jose Melendez individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. One Brands, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06650 (E.D. N.Y., Nov. 20, 2018). The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury: Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability. ONE Brands sells protein bars called ONE Bars that claims to be packed with 20 grams of protein and only ONE gram of sugar per serving.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer I. Sheehan, Esq. Sheehan & Associates, P.C. 891 Northern Blvd, Suite 201 Great Neck, NY 11021 Phone: (516) 303-0552 Fax: (516) 234-7800 Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com PALM BEACH HOME: Dominguez Brings Suit v. Home Under ADA -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Palm Beach Home For Adults, LLC. The case is styled as Yovanny Dominguez on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Palm Beach Home For Adults, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10876 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 20, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Palm Beach Home For Adults is located in Brooklyn at 2900 Bragg Street and classified as a large Assisted Living facility. The Palm Beach Home For Adults provides Assisted Living services for each of its residents and if needed, assists them with bathing, grooming, meal preparation, dressing and much more.[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 PARRENT SMITH: Griffin Sues Over Unauthorized Credit Report Probe ----------------------------------------------------------------- John Griffin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Parent Smith Investigations, Nichols J. Smith, Joanne Parrent, and Does 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-07092 (N.D. Cal., November 21, 2018) brings this action to challenge the actions of Defendants with regard to Defendants' wrongful use of Plaintiff's and the putative Class's credit reports for no permissible purpose that caused damages. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and alleges that Defendants have a systemic policy and practice of obtaining credit reports of consumers that are the subject of their "private investigations", without authorization, consent, or any permissible purpose. The complaint says the Defendants improperly requested Plaintiff's credit report without any permissible purpose. Defendants were not extending credit to Plaintiff or employing Plaintiff. Instead, Defendants were conducting an adverse and unauthorized investigation of Plaintiff when they obtained his credit report, says the complaint. Plaintiff is a natural person who is a "consumer". Parrent Smith Investigations is a company located in Los Angeles, California who conducts business in California. Nichols J. Smith is a person who resides in Los Angeles, California who conducts business in California. Joanne Parrent is a person who resides in Los Angeles, California who conducts business in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. Thomas E. Wheeler, 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 abacon@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com twheeler@toddflaw.com PAUL BLANCO'S: Karla Black Sues over Commission Scheme ------------------------------------------------------ KARLA BLACK, an individual, on behalf of herself, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. PAUL BLANCO'S GOOD CAR COMPANY OAKLAND, a California Corporation; PAUL BLANCO'S GOOD CAR COMPANY AUTO GROUP, a California Corporation; and Does 1 through 50, Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. RG 18928257 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 13, 2018) alleges that the Defendant failed to compensate the Plaintiff and Class for all their missed meal breaks and unpaid rest periods. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was employed by Defendant in California and paid on a draw vs. commission compensation scheme from November 2017 to June 2018, and was at all times during her employment with Defendant entitled to be paid minium wages and entitled to the legally required off-duty meal periods. The Plaintiff was also required to be paid for her rest periods as Defendant paid Plaintiff only commissions wage for certain pay periods. The Defendant did not separately compensate Plaintiff for her rest periods, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq. Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq. Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq. BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP Website: www.bamlawca.com 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858) 551-1223 Facsimile: (858) 551-1232 PDR NETWORK: Supreme Court Hears Fax Advertisement Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Barbara Leonard, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that poised to settle a jurisdictional issue that has bedeviled it for years, the Supreme Court took up a case on Nov. 13 involving a publisher that was sued for faxing an advertisement to a West Virginia chiropractic office. As the petitioner PDR Network LLC told the court in its bid for certiorari, a divided panel of the Fourth Circuit ruled in the the decision below that "the District Court lacked the jurisdiction to independently interpret the statutory term 'advertisement' and apply it to the single fax in question." "That decision contravenes basic judicial providence to say what the law is, directly conflicts with decisions of other circuits, and warrants this court's review," PDR's petition continues. Represented by attorneys at Blank Rome in Philadelphia, PDR explains in the petition that its fax in 2013 was promoting a copy of the Physicians' Desk Reference, a guide that has kept health care providers apprised for over 70 years on drug labeling and prescribing information. When the company Carlton & Harris Chiropractic received PDR's fax, however, it brought a federal class action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991. A federal judge dismissed the case, finding that Carlton & Harris had not stated a valid claim under the TCPA, but in February 2018 the Fourth Circuit reversed. Whereas the lower court here had employed a Chevron analysis, named for precedent that says courts are empowered to independently assess whether a statutory term is "unambiguous," the Fourth Circuit said that the Hobbs Act controlled. This would mean that the lower court was obligated to apply the interpretations of the TCPA by the Federal Communications Commission. PDR argued in its petition that the Hobbs Act is intended "to prevent disjointed attacks on agency orders via a challenge to the order's 'validity.'" "The practical consequence of the Fourth Circuit's decision in this case, however, is to unjustifiably expand the Hobbs Act to strip all courts of jurisdiction to apply federal statutes and interpret agency guidance," the petition continues. "In so ruling, the Fourth Circuit deepened a split of authority among circuit courts as to the reach of the Hobbs Act, as well as the appropriateness of engaging in a Chevron analysis to decide issues of statutory interpretation. "Certiorari is warranted to resolve the jurisdictional issues presented, as well as equally important questions concerning the TCPA's scope raised by the Fourth Circuit's rulings on the law." Per its custom, the Supreme Court did not issue any comment in its order taking up the case. PDR's was the one of two cases granted certiorari this morning in an order list containing dozens of denied petitions. The other case involves Virginia Republicans who want to preserve state legislative districts that were struck down as racially discriminatory. Blank Rome attorney Jeffrey Neal Rosenthal -- dneal@blankrome.com -- has not returned an email seeking comment. Glenn Hara -- ghara@andersonwanca.com -- of the firm Anderson + Wanca in Rolling Meadows, Illinois, represents Carlton & Harris. Mr. Hara declined to comment. [GN] PFIZER INC: Violates Disabilities Act, Nixon Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pfizer, Inc. The case is styled as Donald Nixon on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Pfizer, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06631 (E.D. N.Y., Nov. 20, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Pfizer Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells healthcare products worldwide. It operates in two segments, Pfizer Innovative Health (IH) and Pfizer Essential Health (EH).[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Shalom, Esq. 124-04 Metropolitan Avenue Kew Gardens, NY 11374 Phone: (718) 971-9474 Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com PHOENIX COMPLETE: Underpays Mechanics, Caba Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------- NELSON S. CABA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PHOENIX COMPLETE AUTO CARE, INC.; SUNDAY'S RESORT LLC; ORLANDO SUNNY, INC., MIAMI SUNNY, INC.; YONG QING LIU and LILI ZHENG, Defendants, Case No. 80137745 (Fla. Cir., Miami-Dade Cty., Oct. 31, 2018) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid overtime compensation, minimum wages, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff Caba was employed by the Defendants as mechanic. Phoenix Complete Auto Care, Inc. is a Florida corporation which offers automotive products and services, including the diagnosis, maintenance, and repair of ignition, fuel, computerized engine control, cooling, emissions control, engine drive train, electrical, air conditioning, oil and other fluid, and brake systems. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rainier Regueiro, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC Comeau Building 319 Clematis Street, Suite 606 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: (561) 225-1970 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: rregueiro@rgpattorney.com POINT PARK UNIVERSITY: Camacho Bring Class Suit for ADA Breach --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Point Park University. The case is styled as Jason Camacho and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Point Park University, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10887 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 20, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Point Park University is a liberal arts university in downtown Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Formerly known as Point Park College, the school name was revised in 2004 to reflect the number of graduate programs being offered.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com QUICKEN LOANS: Court Grants Bids to Dismiss Amended Allen TCPA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MICHAEL ALLEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. QUICKEN LOANS INC. AND NAVISTONE, INC., Defendants, Civil Action No. 17-12352 (ES) (MAH) (D. N.J.), Judge Esther Salas of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted the Defendants' motions to dismiss the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. Allen filed the instant lawsuit on Feb. 9, 2018. At the heart of the controversy is Quicken's and NaviStone's implementation and execution of a JavaScript code on a web server whose domain points to "www.quickenloans.com." Allen alleges that on June 20, 2017, gizmodo.com, a technology news website, published an article describing how NaviStone's Code works to unmask anonymous website visitors. He states that he visited and interacted with Quicken's Website on several occasions within the 6 months prior to filing of the lawsuit, but did not purchase any of Quicken's services or products. Quicken's Website provides visitors with information about its products and services related to mortgages, and offers prospective customers the ability to apply for a mortgage, or to calculate refinancing terms. Quicken's Website provides this functionality through an on-line form. NaviStone is a marketing company and data broker that offers the Code to e-commerce companies such as Quicken to help them identify who visits their websites. NaviStone does this by maintaining a database containing the names and mailing addresses of various U.S. consumers. NaviStone attempts to identify live-time website visitors by matching their internet protocol addresses, and other personally identifiable information ("PII") they provide, to information on NaviStone's databases. The task of identifying visitors is handled by NaviStone's Code, which runs in the background of websites and can intercept the electronic communications of visitors, such as their keystrokes and mouse clicks. Allen alleges that because NaviStone has partnered with hundreds of e-commerce websites, it can identify and track consumers across those partner websites. He alleges that Quicken, one of NaviStone's voluntary partners, embeds the NaviStone Code onto its website to scan visitors' computers for files that can be used to identify who they are, intercept their electronic communications, and obtain their de-anonymized PII. The Amended Complaint further alleges that NaviStone's Code is concealed through dummy domains in an attempt to obfuscate the wiretap codes, and that the Code loads simultaneously with Quicken's Website. Thus, NaviStone -- and the partnering website -- can intercept the communication in real time even if a user doesn't hit submit. In addition, Allen alleges that the NaviStone Code intercepts information that a visitor types into a webform, such as when a visitor enters the balance of his or her mortgage, the total value of his or her home in an attempt to model hypothetical financing options. Because NaviStone's wiretaps are deployed on hundreds of e-commerce websites, and because NaviStone maintains and correlates its back-end database of User Data and PII across these hundreds of websites, NaviStone can identify website visitors. Allen alleges that the security and privacy policy maintained on Quicken's Website is false and/or misleading, because Quicken does in fact share visitor's information with NaviStone for NaviStone's marketing purposes and promotional use. Further, he alleges that when the Defendants implemented the wiretaps they intended to commit tortious acts including disclosures of the intercepted information which violated Quicken's Privacy Policy, violated the Stored Communications Act, violated the confidentiality provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, and several New Jersey privacy torts. He seeks to represent a nationwide class of persons affected by the Defendants' alleged practices, and also seeks to represent a New Jersey subclass. The Amended Complaint alleges that the Defendants' practices violated: (Count I) 18 U.S.C. Section 2511(1)(a) of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act by intentionally intercepting, endeavoring to intercept, and procuring another to intercept electronic communications; (Count II) 18 U.S.C. Section 2511(1)(c) by intentionally disclosing electronic communications intercepted in violation of Section 2511(1)(a); (Count III) 18 U.S.C. Section 2511(1)(d) by intentionally using or endeavoring to use the contents of electronic communications intercepted in violation of Section 2511(1)(a); (Count IV) 18 U.S.C. Section 2511(1)(a) by intentionally procuring another to intercept or endeavor to intercept electronic communications; (Count V) 18 U.S.C. Section 2512 by creating wiretap codes, possessing wiretaps, by advertising them, and by distributing them; (Count VI) the Stored Communications Act by intentionally accessing stored files without authorization or by exceeding authorization; and (Count VII) the New Jersey common-law tort of intrusion upon seclusion by intentionally intruding on the Plaintiff's solitude or seclusion in a highly offensive manner. The Defendants move motions to dismiss the Amended Complaint. Judge Salas granted the Defendants' motions to dismiss. Counts I through VI of Allen's Amended Complaint are dismissed with prejudice. Count VII is dismissed without prejudice. As to Count VII, the Judge finds that the allegations fail to sufficiently state the amount Allen reasonably seeks for the intrusion upon seclusion claim -- or the loss any putative New Jersey class member -- in a way that would permit the Court to estimate the total amount of the controversy. Consequently, the Amended Complaint does not properly plead the amount in controversy requirement under CAFA. The Judge, however, is not ready to completely dismiss the case because it appears that Allen might be able to allege sufficient facts for the Court to exercise original jurisdiction over his intrusion upon seclusion claim. Therefore, he denied NaviStone's request and dismissed Count VII without prejudice. Allen may file a final amended complaint within 20 days, but failure to do so will constitute dismissal of the entire action with prejudice. An appropriate Order accompanies the Opinion. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 9, 2018 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/y4zrid from Leagle.com. MICHAEL ALLEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by FREDERICK JOHN KLORCZYK, III -- fklorczyk@bursor.com -- BURSOR & FISHER PA. QUICKEN LOANS INC., Defendant, represented by JEFFREY DEAN VANACORE -- JVanacore@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie LLP. NAVISTONE, INC., Defendant, represented by JAMIE P. CLARE -- jclare@coleschotz.com -- COLE SCHOTZ. RAE FRANKS: Thompson Sues over Debt Collection Practices -------------------------------------------------------- CALVINA THOMPSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED., the Plaintiff, vs. RAE FRANKS, ESQUIRE, P.A., the Defendants, Case No. 9:18-cv-81546-DMM (S.D. Cal., Nov. 12, 2018), seeks redress for unlawful conduct of Defendant in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant has dispatched thousands of unlawful collection letters to United States consumers, whereby each such letter contains identical violations of the FDCPA. The Collection Letter violates the FDCPA by failing to sufficiently inform the least sophisticated consumer of the rights and/or protections he or she enjoys under sections 1692g(a)(3)-(5), as the information/disclosure proffered in the Collection Letter is devoid of entire swaths of mandatory information, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744 Fort Lauderdale, FL lorida Telephone: 954-907-1136 Facsimile: 855-529-9540 E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com RANDSTAD US: Court Dismisses Lopez Labor Suit Without Prejudice --------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Beth Labson Freeman granted the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the case captioned JOSE MARTINEZ LOPEZ, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. RANDSTAD US, L.P., et al., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-01003-BLF (N.D. Cal.) without prejudice. Plaintiffs Jose Martinez Lopez, Fernando Lara, and Elisabeth Lopez brought claims on behalf of themselves and a putative class of others similarly situated against their employer, Defendant Randstad US, L.P. for violations of various California wage-and-hour laws. The Defendant filed renoticed motions to compel arbitration and to strike Plaintiffs' amendment to the complaint. The Court heard oral argument on the motions on Oct. 25, 2018. This case began in state court with Mr. Freddy J. Robledo, the former lead plaintiff in this action, and a former employee of Defendant. Mr. Robledo filed an action against Defendant in the Superior Court of California, County of Monterey for wage-and-hour violations under California's Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA") on January 7, 2015. Defendant moved to compel arbitration of Mr. Robledo's claims based on an arbitration agreement between Mr. Robledo and Defendant. The state court denied the motion because the arbitration provision included a class action waiver, and the California Supreme Court has held that arbitration agreements compelling the waiver of representative claims under PAGA cannot be waived. Like Mr. Robledo, Plaintiffs are former employees of Defendant. Each Plaintiff executed an arbitration agreement with Defendant containing the same language, in relevant part, as Mr. Robledo's agreement. On Feb. 29, 2016, Mr. Robledo filed the present action in state court. On Jan. 24, 2017, he amended his complaint to add Plaintiffs as named plaintiffs. The FAC alleges five California state-law causes of action: (1) failure to pay reporting-time pay; (2) failure and refusal to pay agreed wages; (3) failure to pay wages timely; (4) failure to pay all wages upon termination; and (5) unfair business practices. On Feb. 27, 2017, Defendant removed the case to this Court. On March 2, 2017, at Plaintiffs' request, Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd dismissed Mr. Robledo from the case. Defendant then filed the instant motion to compel arbitration, and filed the instant motion to strike. A district court faced with a petition to enforce an arbitration clause engages in a limited two-part inquiry: first, it determines whether the arbitration agreement is valid, and second, it determines whether the agreement encompasses the claims at issue. A district court does not consider challenges to the contract as a whole, but rather only specific challenges to the validity of the arbitration clause itself. Plaintiffs' opposition challenged the validity of the arbitration agreement and its application to the claims at issue on only two fronts. First, Plaintiffs spent the bulk of their brief arguing that the class action waiver provision in the agreement is invalid under the Ninth Circuit's decision in Morris v. Ernst & Young, LLP. At oral argument, Plaintiffs conceded that the Supreme Court's decision in Epic Systems, which overturned the Ninth Circuit Morris decision, forecloses this argument. Second, Plaintiffs argued that the arbitration agreements are unenforceable on their "own terms." According to Plaintiff, the state court decision holding Mr. Robledo's arbitration agreement unenforceable triggered the "poison pill" provision of Plaintiffs' agreements. Because the state court held that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable as to Mr. Robledo's representative claims under PAGA, this decision satisfies the provision in Plaintiffs' identical agreement that states that each agreement "is void if it is determined that [the signatory] cannot waive the right to participate in or receive money from any class, collective, or representative proceeding. The Court holds that the argument is without merit. The state court found Mr. Robledo's agreement unenforceable as to his PAGA claims. Mr. Robledo is no longer a party to this case, and Plaintiffs do not bring any PAGA claims. That Mr. Robledo's agreement is invalid as to his PAGA claims does not dictate that Plaintiffs' independently executed agreements are void here as to non-PAGA claims. Though Plaintiffs' agreements have the same class action waiver language that caused the state court to invalidate Mr. Robledo's agreement, this does not mean that the state court made any determination as to these plaintiffs and these agreements. Had these Plaintiffs brought a PAGA claim in this Court, the Court would have had to independently determine the validity of the agreements because these Plaintiffs were not parties in the state court action. The state court decision interpreting the language would not somehow bind this Court in interpreting the same language in an independent (albeit identical) provision. But Plaintiffs did not even bring a PAGA claim here. Plaintiffs would have the Court speculate about the types of claims that might have triggered the poison pill language in the agreements, but that would be little more than an improper parlor game, which the Court declines to engage in where, as here, all of the asserted claims are clearly covered by the arbitration agreement and not themselves void. Thus, the Court finds that the state court's decision that Mr. Robledo's agreement did not bind him to arbitration of his PAGA claims does not somehow void Plaintiffs' agreements here, where no PAGA claim has been asserted. Because Plaintiffs do not challenge the validity and enforceability of these agreements on any other grounds, the Court grants Defendant's motion to compel arbitration. Defendant's Motion to Strike is terminated as moot. There being no remaining claims outside of arbitration, the entire action is dismissed without prejudice to filing a later action to confirm or vacate the arbitration award. A copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 20, 2018 is available at https://bit.ly/2E0SKjZ from Leagle.com. Jose Martinez Lopez, Fernando Lara & Elisabeth Lopez, Plaintiffs, represented by Bernard James Fitzpatrick, Fitzpatrick & Swanston & Charles Swanston, Fitzpatrick & Swanston Attorneys at Law. Randstad US, L.P., Defendant, represented by Andrew More McNaught -- amcnaught@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Elizabeth Jarvis MacGregor -- emacgregor@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP & Michael Anderson Wahlander -- mwahlander@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP. RELADYNE, LLC: Marzec Sues over Use of Biometric Identifiers ------------------------------------------------------------ MICHAEL MARZEC, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. RELADYNE, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2018CH14101 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook County, Nov. 13, 2018), seeks to stop Defendant's capture, collection, use and storage of individuals' biometric identifiers and/or biometric information in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, and to obtain redress for all persons injured by Defendant's conduct. Choosing to shun more traditional timekeeping methods, Defendant has instead implemented an invasive program that relies on the capture, collection, storage and use of its workers' fingerprints, while disregarding the applicable Illinois statute and the privacy interests it protects. BIPA expressly obligates Defendant to obtain an executed, written release from an individual, as a condition of employment, in order to capture, collect and store an individual's biometric identifiers, especially a fingerprint, and biometric information derived from it. BIPA further obligates Defendant to inform its employees in writing that a biometric identifier or biometric information is being collected or stored; to tell its employees in writing for how long it will store their biometric information and any purposes for which biometric information is being captured, collected, and used; and to make available a written policy disclosing when it will permanently destroy such information. Despite the requirements under BIPA, Defendant's practice violates its employees' statutorily protected privacy rights under BIPA. Furthermore, Defendant's failure to provide a written policy regarding its schedule and guidelines for the retention and permanent destruction of its workforces' biometric information violates section 15(a) of BIPA, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Frank Castiglione, Esq. KasifKhowaja, Esq. THE KHOWAJA LAW FIRM, LLC 70 East Lake Street, Suite 1220 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 356-3200 Facsimile: (312) 386-5800 E-mail: fcastiglione@khowajalaw.com kasif@khowajalaw.com - and - James X. Bormes, Esq. Catherine P. Sons, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES, P.C. 8 South Michigan A venue, Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 201-0575 Facsimile: (312) 332-0600 E-mail: jxbormes@bormeslaw.com cpsons@bormeslaw.com REO CONTRACTORS: Underpays Project Supervisors, Chavez Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- PABLO CHAVEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REO CONTRACTORS, INC.; KINDALE PITTMAN; HOLLY KIRK; GREGORY B. STESSEL; and VICKI STESSEL, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-02895-K (N.D. Tex., Oct. 31, 2018) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff Chavez was employed by the Defendants as project supervisor. REO Contractors, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Texas. The Company provides rehab services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Derek Braziel, Esq. Travis Gasper, Esq. LEE & BRAZIEL, L.L.P. 1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 749-1400 Facsimile: (214) 749-1010 E-mail: jdbraziel@l-b-law.com gasper@l-b-law.com RIBBON COMMUNICATIONS: Jan. 7 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC on Nov. 14 notified investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Ribbon Communications, Inc. f/k/a Sonus Networks, Inc. ("Ribbon" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: RBBN) and certain of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired Ribbon securities between January 8, 2015 through March 24, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site: bgandg.com/rbbn. This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Sonus would fall materially short of its $74 million revenue forecast; (2) defendants knew that unrealistic revenue and profitability forecasts remained aspirational and largely unreachable, a fact that senior sales personnel regularly communicated to defendants; (3) a number of 2015 sales had been "pulled forward" to buoy sales numbers in Q4 2014, at management's direction; (4) the "backlog" of sales expected to be recognized in early 2015 was significantly lower than usual; and (5) as a result, defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site: bgandg.com/rbbn or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in Ribbon you have until January 7, 2019 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities arbitration. [GN] ROBERT BOSCH: Martinez et al. Sue over Defective Bosch CP4 Pump --------------------------------------------------------------- RIGER MARTINEZ; BRETT NEIVILLER; NELSON RODRIGUEZ, JR.; BRADLEY DAVID LETTSOME; JOSEPH MAY; CHRIS BELLEFLEUR; ANDRES MARTES SIERRA; DANIEL PATRICK SELF; ALAN SCAGLIARINI; AMY NORMAN; DAVID AULITA; CARL ALBERT RICHARDS, III; PATTI M. RICHARDS; and CHRISTOPHER OWEN CLARK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ROBERT BOSCH GMBH; ROBERT BOSCH LLC; GENERAL MOTORS LLC; FORD MOTOR COMPANY FCA US LLC, F/K/A CHRYSLER GROUP; FIAT CHRYSLER AUTOMOBILES, N.V.; FCA NORTH AMERICA HOLDINGS, LLC; VM MOTORI S.P.A.; and VM NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 9:18-cv-81500-RLR (S.D. Fla., Nov. 1, 2018) alleges violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that Bosch and several vehicle manufacturers are well known for cheating environmental agencies in order to meet emissions criteria. But in this case, Bosch and the Vehicle Manufacturer Defendants conspired to cheat the consumers. They promised consumers the continued reliability of their diesel engines, but with increased fuel efficiency and power at greater fuel efficiency. However, this came with a hidden and catastrophic cost that was secretly passed on to consumers. The key was the Bosch CP4 high pressure fuel injection pump, which unbeknownst to consumers is a ticking time bomb when used in American vehicles. Bosch's CP4 pump was never compatible with American fuel standards. The CP4 pump does not meet the specifications for U.S. diesel fuel in terms of lubrication or water content, and it struggles to lift a volume of fuel sufficient to lubricate itself. As a result, the pump is forced to run dry and destroy itself as air bubbles allow metal to rub against metal. The pump secretly deposits metal shavings throughout the fuel injection system and the engine until it suddenly and catastrophically fails without warning, further contaminating the fuel delivery system with larger pieces of metal. This often occurs around 100,000 miles, but sometimes occurs soon after purchase. The Vehicle Manufacturer Defendants claim the failures are caused by fuel contamination, which is not covered under their warranties. Consumers are left with repair bills that range from $8,000.00 to $20,000.00 per vehicle. Some victims of the Vehicle Manufacturers Defendants' deception are American businesses who own several vehicles and have suffered multiple failures. Others have spent several hundred or several thousand dollars attempting to prevent or mitigate these failures. Plaintiffs and all members of the proposed classes paid a premium for these diesel vehicles, and were harmed by being sold vehicles with a defective fuel injection pump that is substandard for American fuel. Robert Bosch GmbH provides technology and services worldwide. It operates through Mobility Solutions, Industrial Technology, Consumer Goods, and Energy and Building Technology segments. The company was formerly known as Workshop for Precision Mechanics and Electrical Engineering and changed its name to Robert Bosch GmbH in 1937. Robert Bosch GmbH was founded in 1886 and is headquartered in Stuttgart, Germany. Robert Bosch GmbH is a subsidiary of Robert Bosch Stiftung Gmbh. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew Parker Felix, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 North Orange Ave., Ste. 1600 Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 418-2081 Facsimile: (407) 245-3392 E-mail: Andrew@forthepeople.com - and - Robert C. Hilliard, Esq. HILLIARD MARTINEZ GONZALES LLP 719 S. Shoreline Blvd. Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 882-1612 Facsimile: (361) 882-3015 E-mail: bobh@hmglawfirm.com ROWAN COMPANIES: Shareholders File Class Action Over Ensco Merger ----------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that Rowan Companies shareholders brought a federal class action to protest the merger of the oil and gas driller with Ensco in an all-stock deal that will leave Ensco shareholders with 61 percent and Rowan shareholders with 39 percent of the combined company, whose estimated value will be $12 billion. SANDIA CORP: Proposed Kennicott Case Schedule Revised ----------------------------------------------------- District Judge James O. Browning issued a memorandum that the Court will not, at this time, decide the Defendant's motion to dismiss the case captioned LISA A. KENNICOTT, LISA A. GARCIA, SUE C. PHELPS, and JUDI DOOLITTLE, on behalf of themselves and a class of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SANDIA CORPORATION d/b/a SANDIA NATIONAL LABORATORIES, Defendant, No. CIV 17-0188 JB\GJF (D.N.M.) because the Court will address the motion to dismiss after the class certification hearing. The Court will amend the Joint Proposed Case Schedule and require Sandia Labs to complete electronically stored information (ESI) production on Jan. 15, 2019. The Plaintiffs must submit their motion for class certification and expert reports by March 25, 2019. The Court recognizes that condensing the case schedule to accommodate a July 1, 2019, class certification hearing challenges both parties. The parties have expressed their concerns about shortened deadlines: Sandia Labs worries about completing ESI production; the Plaintiffs have concerns about completing discovery, litigating discovery issues, and preparing the class certification motion and expert reports,; and both proposed case schedules reflect attempts to maximize the parties' time to respond to class certification and expert briefings. The Court concludes that the revised case schedule will best address its and the parties' concerns. The revised case schedule allows Sandia Labs slightly over six weeks and time after the holidays to complete its ESI production. The Court is disinclined to grant Sandia Labs additional time for ESI production, because the Court hesitates to reduce the time between the ESI production's completion and the pre-class certification discovery, class certification motion, and expert reports deadlines to a degree that would disallow the Court and the parties time for litigation, which the Plaintiffs have indicated they will seek, about the discovery. The Court's experience with Sandia Labs' discovery production has not been the best, and the Court fears it better build in time for and anticipate forthcoming discovery disputes. As the July 1, 2019, class certification hearing deadline responds to the Court's scheduling needs and the Court wants to address discovery litigation before the class certification hearing, the Court's schedule reflects an attempt to leave time for the Court and the parties to address the discovery litigation without interfering with the class certification deadline. Sandia Labs can always withdraw the MTD to relieve pressure on its ESI production; if Sandia Labs withdraws its MTD, the Court has no need to set aside the case schedule to which the parties previously agreed. As long as Sandia Labs insists on keeping its MTD on file, the Court must rule on it before the six-month deadline, and the Court thinks it would be best to rule on it with the Plaintiffs' upcoming class certification motion. The March deadline for the class certification motion and expert reports allows the Plaintiffs over two months for discovery and preparation for the motion and reports. The initial stipulated time between the ESI production completion, and the class certification motion and expert reports deadline was similarly just over two months. The revised case schedule will also reduce Sandia Labs' response time and the Plaintiffs' reply time proportionately, by forty percent, giving Sandia Labs forty-five days to respond to the Plaintiffs' class certification motion and expert reports, and the Plaintiffs thirty days to reply to Sandia Labs' responses. Fairness demands that the parties face equal reductions in their response and reply times. A copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated Nov. 20, 2018 is available at https://bit.ly/2FJv7y3 from Leagle.com. Lisa A. Kennicott, Lisa A. Garcia & Sue C. Phelps, on behalf of themselves and a class of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Anne Brackett Shaver -- ashaver@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Gretchen Mary Elsner, Elsner Law & Policy, LLC, Kelly Maureen Dermody -- kdermody@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Rachel Bien, Outten & Golden LLP, pro hac vice, Adam T. Klein, Outten & Golden LLP, pro hac vice, Cheryl-Lyn Bentley, Outten & Golden LLP, pro hac vice, David Lopez , Outten & Golden LLP, pro hac vice, Lin Yee Chan, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Michael Ian Levin-Gesundheit -- mlevin@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP & Tiseme Gabriella Zegeye -- tzegeye@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP. Sandia Corporation, doing business as Sandia National Laboratories, Defendant, represented by Cindy Jean Lovato-Farmer, Sandia National Laboratories, Justin E. Poore, Sandia Corporation, Scott D. Gordon, Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, P.A., Grace E. Speights -- grace.speights@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey L. Lowry, Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, P.A., Krissy A. Katzenstein -- krissy.katzenstein@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, pro hac vice, Michael S. Burkhardt -- michael.burkhardt@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, pro hac vice, Paola Viviana Jaime , Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, P.A. & Theresa W. Parrish -- tparrish@rodey.com -- Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, P.A. SANTA CLARA, CA: Settles Disabled Inmates' Discrimination Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Bay City News Service reports that Santa Clara County on Nov. 13 settled a November 2016 class action lawsuit alleging discrimination against inmates with disabilities in three county jails. Though the county denied violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act alleged in the lawsuit, it has agreed to make infrastructure improvements at Main Jail North, Elmwood Jail, and the New Jail project to be constructed at the old Main Jail South. If a court approves the terms of the settlement, the county will also pay $1.1 million in attorneys fees and $2.2 million for compliance monitoring to the nonprofit Disability Rights Advocates and the law firm Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit will not receive any damages. "The monetary value doesn't really apply here," attorney Lisa Ells said. "It's not a case where we were suing for money, we were suing for change." The county has already committed $100 million to modify architecture and infrastructure at the jails, such as cracked sidewalks that prevent inmates from commuting to classes while using wheelchairs, or providing access to bathrooms in different areas of the jail that are ADA-compatible. Though the negotiations were difficult, Ells said the county worked diligently to address the problems outlined in the lawsuit. The law firm Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld has brought similar lawsuits against Monterey and Yuba counties, as well as the state jail system. "They're complicated problems and I credit [Santa Clara] County. From the start, they understood they were real problems that needed to be worked on and discussed," Ellis said. Modifications will include ADA-accessible examination rooms, mirrors, telephones, showers, exercise equipment, beds and entry ramps to jail facilities. "For years now, the Sheriff's Office has been partnering with other County departments to prioritize construction efforts leading to continued improved accessibility for inmates in our Jails," Sheriff Laurie Smith said in a statement. [GN] SANTA FE COUNTY, NM: Court Denies Dismissal Bids in Armendariz Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, GABRIEL ARMENDARIZ ERIC DION COLEMAN, JACOB GOMEZ, TONY LOVATO, MATTHEW J. LUCERO, EDWARD R. MANZANARES, JOE MARTINEZ, CHRISTOPHER MAVIS, PHILLIP TALACHY, FELIPE J. TRUJILLO, JOSEPH VIGIL, and JAMES M. WHEELER, on their own behalf and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. SANTA FE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, MARK GALLEGOS, in his individual and official capacity, and INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL COATINGS, LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-00339 WJ/LF (D N.M.), Judge William P. Johnson of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico denied (i) the Motion to Dismiss Claims of Plaintiff Wheeler or, Alternatively, for an Order to Show Cause why Claims Should Not be Dismissed and/or Other Sanctions Imposed, filed on July 6, 2018 by Defendants Santa Fe County Board of Commissioners and Mark Gallegos; (ii) the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Claims of Felipe Trujillo or, Alternatively, for an Order to Show Cause Why Claims Should Not Be Dismissed and/or Other Sanctions Be Imposed, filed July 13, 2018; and (iii) the Defendants' Expedited Motion to Dismiss Claims of Matthew Lucero or, Alternatively, for Order to Show Cause Why Claims Should Not Be Dismissed and/or Other Sanctions Be Imposed, filed July 23, 2018. The case is a putative class action arising from the Defendants' renovation of the shower facilities at the Santa Fe Adult Correctional Facility in 2014 when the Plaintiffs and the class members were inmates at the ACF. The Plaintiffs allege that they were exposed to dust, debris, and hazardous chemicals, which caused them injury. Seven of the original 12 Plaintiffs in the lawsuit remain incarcerated, but according to the Defendants, of the five Plaintiffs who are no longer incarcerated, each has failed in one respect or another to participate in significant discovery matters in the litigation. All the three motions filed by the Defendants differ slightly in the factual scenario but are similar in that they all request sanctions against these the Plaintiffs for failing to cooperate with the discovery process. This similarity allows the Court to address all three together. Plaintiffs Wheeler, Trujillo and Lucero did not show for their scheduled depositions. Plaintiff Wheeler, who is not incarcerated, was scheduled to appear for his deposition on July 6, 2018. According to the response, Mr. Wheeler's car had a flat tire on the morning of the deposition and he was unable to fix it in time to get to the deposition. He has answered other discovery requests in this case, and met with his attorneys beforehand to prepare for his deposition. The counsel for the Plaintiffs offered to reschedule Mr. Wheeler's deposition and to pay the reasonable costs and fees incurred by the County Defendants and Defendant Industrial Commercial Coatings, LLC ("ICC") as a result of Mr. Wheeler's non-appearance in exchange for withdrawal of the instant motion. However, the County Defendants refused to enter into such an agreement with respect to Mr. Wheeler. Plaintiff Trujillo is currently incarcerated, but was released from the detention facility for his July 11, 2018 deposition to take place at defense counsel's office. In the late afternoon of July 10, 2018, the Plaintiffs' counsel served a notice of non-appearance for Mr. Trujillo, with no explanation as to why he would not show up. The Plaintiffs proposed a reasonable resolution of the issue, just as they had with Plaintiff Wheeler: to reschedule Mr. Trujillo's deposition and to pay the reasonable costs and fees incurred by the County Defendants and ICC as a result of Mr. Trujillo's non-appearance in exchange for withdrawal of the instant motion. The Defendants rejected this offer as well. Plaintiff Lucero's deposition was scheduled for July 23, 2018, but he did not appear, although counsel for the Defendants showed up for the deposition. Mr. Lucero claims that he was sick and that he informed his attorneys at 5:50 a.m. on the morning of his deposition that he would be unable to attend. However, this information was not relayed to the counsel for the Defendants anytime between 5:50 a.m. and the 9:00 a.m. start of the deposition -- instead, the Plaintiffs' counsel arrived a half-hour late and only then informed the defense counsel that Mr. Lucero was ill and would not be showing up for his deposition. Mr. Talachy also did not show up for his deposition. However, the Defendants have not filed a similar motion to dismiss with respect to Mr. Talachy for the simple reason that they accepted the Plaintiffs' proposed resolution of Mr. Talachy's non-appearance for his scheduled June 4, 2018 deposition, which was as follows: (i) after Mr. Talachy missed his deposition, Plaintiffs rescheduled the deposition; (ii) the Defendants deposed Mr. Talachy on July 17, 2018; (iii) the Plaintiffs voluntarily paid reasonable fees and costs; and (iv) the County Defendants withdrew their motion to dismiss Mr. Talachy's claims. Judge Johnson finds the sanctions unwarranted at this time under either Rule 37(d), the Court's local rules or Ehrenhaus. Thus far, there appears to be no purposeful evasion of discovery obligations on the part of the Plaintiffs or their counsel, although subsequent occurrences of the same conduct would indicate a pattern that may well warrant sanctions, including dismissal of claims. Also, the judge finds that the Plaintiffs do not explain why defense counsel were not advised of the non-appearances when the Plaintiffs' counsel first became aware themselves, and this failure could be viewed as a lack of respect for the opposing counsel's time. The Defendants seek orders dismissing with prejudice the claims of Plaintiffs Wheeler, Trujillo and Lucero, which the Judge has found to be unwarranted at this time. He finds the Defendants' other requests are unfounded, given the circumstances. The Defendants request an award of the fees and costs incurred in preparing for and appearing for the three depositions --which is exactly what Plaintiffs timely offered Defendants in order to resolve the issue and avoid court intervention, and which was rejected. Had County Defendants accepted these offers, the three depositions could have already been rescheduled and the Defendants would by now probably have the information they now still seek, all without the Court's involvement. The parties are in the case for the long haul, and the Judge fully expects that other disagreements will arise. For the missed depositions: the counsel should reconvene and reschedule them; procedures should be set in place so that the Plaintiffs can immediately apprise their counsel of emergencies preventing their deposition appearances and the Plaintiffs' counsel can pass this information to the defense counsel quickly and efficiently, including the reason for a plaintiff's inability to attend a deposition. For other disputes that may occur, the Judge suggests to both parties (clients as well as attorneys) that the Court's time and resources are better spent on the merits of their case. For future squabbles that make their way into court indicating a lack of interest or responsibility, or a refusal to resolve the matter in good faith, the Judge will consider whether an Order to Show Cause should be directed to all concerned so that subsequent unnecessary judicial intervention is kept to a bare minimum. For these reasons, Judge Johnson denied the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss as to Plaintiffs Wheeler, Trujillo and Lucero. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 9, 2018 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/XpnziD from Leagle.com. Gabriel Armendariz, Eric Dion Coleman, Jacob Gomez, Tony Lovato, Matthew J. Lucero, Edward R. Manzanares, Christopher Mavis, Philip Talachy, Felipe J. Trujillo, Joseph Vigil & James M. Wheeler, on their own behalf and on similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, represented by Mark H. Donatelli -- mhd@rothsteinlaw.com -- Rothstein Law Firm, John C. Bienvenu -- jbienvenu@rothsteinlaw.com -- Bienvenu Law Office, Kristina Martinez, Coberly and Martinez, LLLP & Paul M. Linnenburger -- plinnenburger@rothsteinlaw.com -- Rothstein Donatelli LLP. Santa Fe County Board of Commissioners & Mark Gallegos, in his individual capacity, Defendants, represented by Alisa Wigley-Delara -- awd@conklinfirm.com -- Conklin, Woodcock & Ziegler, PC, Christa M. Hazlett -- cmh@conklinfirm.com -- Conklin, Woodcock & Ziegler. P.C., Jennifer A. Noya -- jennifer.noya@modrall.com -- Modrall Sperling Roehl Harris & Sisk PA, Tiffany L. Roach Martin -- tiffany.martin@modrall.com -- Modrall, Sperling, Roehl, Harris & Sisk, PA & Alex Cameron Walker -- alex.walker@modrall.com -- Modrall, Sperling, Roehl, Harris & Sisk, P.A. Industrial Commercial Coatings, LLC, Defendant, represented by Judd C. West, West Law Firm, PLLC, Carrie A. Snow, West Law Firm, PLLC, John D. Sear -- john.sear@bowmanandbrooke.com -- Bowman and Brooke LLP, pro hac vice & Richard G. Morgan -- rick.morgan@bowmanandbrooke.com -- Bowman and Brooke, LLP, pro hac vice. SAVANNAH COLLEGE: Camacho Files ADA Class Action in NY ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Savannah College of Art and Design, Inc. The case is styled as Jason Camacho and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Savannah College of Art and Design, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10884 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 20, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Savannah College of Art and Design is a private, nonprofit, accredited university with locations in Savannah, Georgia; Atlanta, Georgia; Hong Kong; and Lacoste, France.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com SCHNEIDER NATIONAL: Settlement in Mendis Suit Has Final Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MENDIS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SCHNEIDER NATIONAL CARRIERS, INC., Defendant, Case No. C15-0144-JCC (W.D. Wash.), Judge John C. Coughenour of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, granted the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for final approval of class settlement and for attorney fees and costs. The class action lawsuit is brought by Plaintiffs Mendis, Michael Feola, Andrea Arbaugh, and Edward Ash against the Defendant, alleging that the Defendant willfully failed to pay the Plaintiffs and a certified Class of employee drivers for wage and hour abuses in violation of Washington law. The Defendant denies any and all wrongdoing and denies any liability to the Plaintiffs or the members of the Class. On July 30, 2018, the Court granted preliminary approval of a settlement agreement. Judge Coughenour, upon Notice having been given as required in the order granting preliminary approval of class action settlement, and having considered the proposed Settlement Agreement, as well as all papers filed, finds (i) that the Settlement was entered into in good faith as the result of arm's-length negotiations between experienced attorneys, (ii) that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and (iii) that the Settlement satisfies the standards and applicable requirements for final approval of this class action Settlement under Washington law and the provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. There are no objections to the Settlement. Upon entry of the Order, the compensation to the participating members of the Settlement Class will be effected pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement. In addition to any recovery that the Plaintiffs may receive under the Settlement, and in recognition of their efforts on behalf of the Settlement Class, the Judge approved the payment of service awards to Plaintiff Mendis in the amount of $15,000, and to Plaintiffs Feola, Arbaugh, and Ash in the amount of $10,000 each. He also approved payment (i) not to exceed $21,500 to the Settlement Administrator for their fees and costs in administering the Settlement; (ii) of attorney fees to the class counsel in the sum of $1,437,500; and (iii) of $120,000 to the class counsel to reimburse them for litigation costs and expenses they incurred. The Judge dismissed action with prejudice as to all Settlement Class Members except those who have timely and properly excluded themselves from the Settlement Class. Therefore, the Clerk is ordered to enter the final approval of the class settlement and the dismissal with prejudice. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 13, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/DptHPP from Leagle.com. Balapuwaduge Mendis, On his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Michael Feola, on their own behalf and on the behalf of all others similarly situated, Andrea Arbaugh, on her own behalf and on the behalf of all others similarly situated & Edward Ash, On his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Erika L. Nusser -- enusser@tmdwlaw.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC, Greg Alan Wolk, REKHI & WOLK, P.S., Hardeep S. Rekhi -- hardeep@rekhiwolk.com -- REKHI & WOLK, P.S. & Toby James Marshall -- tmarshall@tmdwlaw.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC. Schneider National Carriers Inc, a Nevada Corporation, Defendant, represented by Douglas Edward Smith -- desmith@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON, Joel H. Spitz -- jspitz@mcguirewoods.com -- MCGUIRE WOODS, pro hac vice, Kellie Anne Tabor -- ktabor@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON, Matthew C. Kane -- mkane@mcguirewoods.com -- MCGUIREWOODS LLP, pro hac vice & Michael R. Phillips -- mphillips@mcguirewoods.com -- MCGUIRE WOODS, pro hac vice. SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Bid to Dismiss Raqqa et al. Suit Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Scientific Games Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the defendants' motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit by Raqqa, Inc. Pittsburg Liquors, Inc., Omdev, Inc., Om Riya, Inc., E and B Liquors, Inc., Michael Cairo, and Jason Van Lente, is still pending. On May 4, 2018, plaintiffs Raqqa, Inc. Pittsburg Liquors, Inc., Omdev, Inc., Om Riya, Inc., E and B Liquors, Inc., Michael Cairo, and Jason Van Lente (collectively, "plaintiffs") filed a putative class action complaint against Northstar Lottery Group LLC, IGT Global Solutions Corporation, and Scientific Games International, Inc. (collectively, "defendants"), in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. In their complaint, plaintiffs seek to represent two putative classes of persons: (1) all persons who were or are parties to a contract to sell at retail Illinois Lottery instant game tickets at any time between July 1, 2011 and the present; and (2) all natural persons who purchased one or more Illinois Lottery instant game tickets at any time between July 1, 2011 and the present. The complaint alleges that Northstar Lottery Group LLC discontinued certain Illinois Lottery instant game tickets before all grand prizes were awarded, and further alleges that those discontinuations caused economic harm to lottery players, and to lottery retailers who receive commissions on winning tickets. The complaint asserts claims for alleged tortious interference with contract, alleged tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, alleged common law fraud, alleged violation of Illinois' Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, alleged unjust enrichment and alleged civil conspiracy. The complaint seeks unspecified money damages and the award of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs. On June 18, 2018, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice. Scientific Games said, "Due to the very early nature of this litigation, we are currently unable to determine the likelihood of an outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible loss." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Scientific Games Corporation develops technology-based products and services, and related content for the gaming, lottery, and interactive gaming industries worldwide. Scientific Games Corporation was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in Las Vegas, Nevada. SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Bid to Drop Fife Class Suit Still Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- Scientific Games Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company's motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit by Sheryl Fife is still pending. On April 17, 2018, plaintiff Sheryl Fife filed a putative class action complaint against Scientific Games Corporation (SGC) in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. In her complaint, plaintiff seeks to represent a putative class of all persons in the State of Washington who purchased and allegedly lost virtual coins playing SGC's online social casino games, including but not limited to Jackpot Party(R) Social Casino and Gold Fish(R) Casino. The complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of Washington's Recovery of Money Lost at Gambling Act, Washington's consumer protection statute, and for unjust enrichment, and seeks unspecified money damages (including treble damages as appropriate), the award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, and injunctive and/or declaratory relief. On July 2, 2018, SGC filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint with prejudice. Scientific Games said, "Due to the very early nature of this litigation, we are currently unable to determine the likelihood of an outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible loss." Scientific Games Corporation develops technology-based products and services, and related content for the gaming, lottery, and interactive gaming industries worldwide. Scientific Games Corporation was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in Las Vegas, Nevada. SERVICE EMPLOYEES: Anderson Sues Over Federal Civil Rights Breach ----------------------------------------------------------------- Loriann Anderson, Kerrin Fiscus, Kenneth Hill, Rene Layton, Michael Miller, Bernard Perkins, Dennis Richey, Kathie Simmons, Kent Wiles and Melinda Wiltse, as individuals and representatives of the respective requested classes, Plaintiffs, v. Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 503, Oregon Public Employees Union (OPEU); Oregon AFSCME 75, labor organizations; Katy Coba, in her official capacity as Director of the Oregon Department of Administrative Services; Jackson County, Lane County, Marion County, Wallowa County, City of Portland, political subdivisions of the State of Oregon; Western Oregon University, a public higher educational institution; Northwest Senior & Disability Services, a local intergovernmental agency, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-02013-HZ (D. Ore. November 20, 2018) is an action that arises under the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1871 to redress the deprivation, under color of state law, of rights, privileges, and immunities secured to Plaintiffs and class members by the Constitution of the United States, particularly the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Defendants maintain and enforce policies, provisions and requirements under which, after Plaintiffs and other employees in the proposed classes have notified their respective Defendant union and public employer of their resignation from union membership and revocation of their prior dues deduction authorizations, forced fees to continue to be collected from Plaintiffs and other employees in the proposed classes, and the dues deduction checkoff and/or maintenance of membership provisions of the respective collective bargaining agreements, until a specified small window period that occurs months or years in the future. The Defendants' actions and dues deduction revocation restrictions violate the employees' exercise of their First Amendment right not to pay moneys to a union without their affirmative consent and knowing waiver of First Amendment rights, says the complaint. Plaintiff Loriann Anderson resides and works in Polk County, Oregon as a public employee of Defendant Western Oregon University. Plaintiff Kerrin Fiscus resides and works in Marion County, Oregon as a public employee of the State of Oregon's Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision, a partner of the Oregon Department of Corrections. Plaintiff Kenneth Hill resides in Polk County, Oregon and works in Marion County, Oregon as a public employee of the State of Oregon's Military Department. Plaintiff Rene Layton resides and works in Wallowa County, Oregon as a public employee of Defendant Wallowa County's District Attorney's Office. Plaintiff Michael Miller resides in Canyon County, Idaho, and works Malheur County, Oregon as a public employee of the State of Oregon's Department of Corrections. Plaintiff Bernard Perkins resides and works in Lane County, Oregon as a public employee of Defendant Lane County, Oregon. Plaintiff Dennis Richey resides and works in Jackson County, Oregon as a public employee of Jackson County, Oregon. Plaintiff Kathie Simmons resides in Washington County, Oregon, and works in Multnomah County, Oregon as a public employee of the City of Portland. Plaintiff Kent Wiles resides in Linn County, Oregon, and works in Marion County, Oregon as a public employee of the NorthWest Senior & Disability Services. Plaintiff Melinda Wiltse resides and works in Marion County, Oregon as a public employee of Marion County, Oregon. Service Employees International Union Local 503, Oregon Public Employees Union, whose Portland office is located at 6401 SE Foster Road, Portland, Oregon 97206, is a state-wide labor union, affiliated with various other SEIU locals, that enters into numerous collective bargaining agreements with public employers throughout Oregon, including the State of Oregon. Oregon AFSCME 75, whose Portland office is located at 6025 E Burnside Street, Portland, Oregon 97215, is a state-wide labor union, affiliated with various AFSCME locals, that enters into numerous collective bargaining agreements with public employers throughout Oregon, including the State of Oregon. Katy Coba is the Director of the Oregon Department of Administrative Services. Western Oregon University, whose office is located at 345 Monmouth Ave N, Monmouth, Oregon 97361, is a public higher educational institution. Wallowa County, whose office is located at 101 South River Street Enterprise, Oregon 97828, is a political subdivision in the State of Oregon and collectively bargains with Wallowa County Courts. Lane County, whose office is located at 125 East 8th Avenue, Eugene, Oregon 97401, is a political subdivision in the State of Oregon. Jackson County, whose office is located at 10 South Oakdale Avenue, Medford, Oregon 97501, is a political subdivision in the State of Oregon. City of Portland, whose office is located at 1221 Southwest 4th Avenue, Room 110, Portland, Oregon 97204, is a political subdivision in the State of Oregon. NorthWest Senior & Disability Services, whose Salem office is located at 3410 Cherry Ave Northeast, Salem, Oregon 97301, is a local intergovernmental entity. Marion County, whose office is located at 555 Court Street Northeast, Suite 5232, Salem, Oregon 97301, is a political subdivision in the State of Oregon.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jill O. Gibson, Esq. 121 SW Morrison St, 11th Floor Portland, OR 97204 Phone: 503-686-0486 Fax: 866-511-2585 Email: jill@gibsonlawfirm.org - and - Milton L. Chappell, Esq. 8001 Braddock Rd, Suite 600 Springfield, VA 22151 Phone: 703-770-3329 Email: mlc@nrtw.org - and - James G. Abernathy, Esq. Rebekah C. Millard, Esq. PO Box 552 Olympia, WA 98507 Phone: 360-956-3482 Email: JAbernathy@freedomfoundation.com RMillard@freedomfoundation.com SETERUS INC: Sued over Alleged Unlawful Debt Collection Practices ----------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL SPEHR, on Behalf of Himself and Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SETERUS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-01922 (E.D. Mo., Nov. 13, 2018), seeks redress from Seterus's systematic use of misleading, deceptive, unfair and unlawful debt collection practices to collect upon residential consumer mortgage loans. The lawsuit alleges that Seterus sends homeowners form letters (Missouri Final Letters) stating that the borrowers are in default of their mortgages and that their failure to immediately make a full and complete payment of all arrearages will result in acceleration of their loan and commencement of foreclosure proceedings. In truth, however, it has been and continues to be Seterus's policy and practice not to accelerate loans, or to initiate foreclosure proceedings, in instances where there is an arrearage, so long as the borrower makes a partial payment sufficient to bring the arrearage within a set parameter. Accordingly, each of the Missouri Final Letters sent by Seterus falsely and misleadingly suggests that Seterus will accelerate the loan or commence foreclosure proceedings absent full payment, in contradiction to Seterus's actual policy not to accelerate a loan or commence foreclosure proceedings so long as any payment sufficient to bring the loan less than 45 days delinquent is made prior to the expiration date set forth in the Missouri Final Letters. The Missouri Final Letters sent by Seterus to Plaintiff and others similarly situated contain false and misleading threats of acceleration and foreclosure designed to intimidate borrowers into making payments to Seterus that are beyond their means and beyond what is necessary to avoid acceleration and save their homes from foreclosure, the lawsuit says.[BN] Counsel for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class: Mitchell Breit, Esq. SIMMONS HANLY CONROY 112 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016-7416 Telephone: (212) 784-6400 Facsimile: (212) 213-5949 E-mail: mbreit@simmonsfirm.com - and - Scott C. Harris, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON, LLP 900 W Morgan St Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 600-5000 Facsimile: (919) 600-5035 E-mail: scott@wbmllp.com pat@wbmllp.com - and - Edward H. Maginnis, Esq. MAGINNIS LAW PLLC 4801 Glenwood Ave, Suite 310 Raleigh, NC 27612 Telephone: (919) 526-0450 Facsimile: (919) 882-8763 E-mail: emaginnis@maginnislaw.com SHELTER MUTUAL: Baggett Suit Moved to W.D. Arkansas --------------------------------------------------- Judge Billy Roy Wilson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, granted the Defendant's Motion to Transfer the case, SAMUEL BAGGETT, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons and entities, Plaintiff, v. SHELTER MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:18-CV-00739-BRW (E.D. Ark.), to the Western District of Arkansas, Fort Smith Division. Plaintiff Batter, a resident of North Little Rock, Arkansas, alleges that Shelter has a policy and practice to reduce the Med Pay benefits in an amount equivalent to the sum paid by other insurance, such as health insurance, maintained by an insured, which is in violation of Arkansas Code Annotated Section 23-89-202 and Rule 21, Section 3 M of the Arkansas Insurance Commission. On Sept. 6, 2018, Mr. Baggett filed an amended complaint, which added class action allegations. On May 7, 2018, Donald Whitaker filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint in the Circuit Court for Logan County, Arkansas. That complaint alleges that Shelteras a common policy and general business practice reduces its automobile medical benefit payments owed to its insured based on payments by health insurance carriers, which is in violation of Arkansas Law and the rules of the Arkansas Insurance Commission. Judge Wilson finds that the complaint in the instant case and in Whitaker v. Shelter Mutual Insurance Company, involve the same claims, the same relief, and the same defendant. Additionally, both want certification of the same class of Arkansas residents. Although there are two different named Plaintiffs, the proposed scope of their respective classes substantially overlap. It is undisputed that the Whitaker case was filed first and was the first to include class allegations. Additionally, already pending in that case is a motion for certification and a response. The outcome of that motion directly affects the instant case. There are no compelling circumstances that would excuse the first-to-file rule in the case. Accordingly, to preserve judicial resources and avoid conflicting rulings, transfer is appropriate in the case. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 7, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/0cpckW from Leagle.com. Samuel Baggett, On Behalf of Himself and all Similarly Situated Persons and Entities, Plaintiff, represented by David S. Mitchell -- DavidMitchell@DavidMitchellLaw.com -- David S. Mitchell, P.A., Kenneth Jerald Mitchell -- rustymitchell@taylorkinglaw.com -- Taylor King & Associates, P.A. & Marcus Neil Bozeman -- mbozeman@thrashlawfirmpa.com -- Thrash Law Firm. Shelter Mutual Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by James Melton Sayes -- msayes@msslawfirm.com -- Matthews, Sanders & Sayes & Sarah E. Greenwood -- sarah.greenwood@mrmblaw.com -- Munson, Rowlett, Moore & Boone, P.A.. SUNPOWER CORP: Court Dismisses Jannarone Suit Without Prejudice --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Michael A. Shipp of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case, JEFFREY JANNARONE, Plaintiff, v. SUNPOWER CORPORATION, Defendant, Civil Action No. 18-9612 (MAS) (TJB) (D. N.J.). The Plaintiff initiated the putative class action suit in New Jersey Superior Court, Monmouth County, Law Division. In May 2018, the Defendant removed the matter to the Court under diversity jurisdiction. The Plaintiff asserts four individual claims: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (3) unjust enrichment; and 4) common law fraud; and two class claims: violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act; and violations of the New Jersey Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act. The Plaintiff entered into a with GeoGenix, LLC, an installer of solar power equipment, which stated GeoGenix would furnish and install a complete solar electric power system at the Plaintiff's property located in Wall, New Jersey. The Defendant was the manufacturer of the System, which was accompanied by a warranty. The System began to malfunction almost immediately after installation. Namely, it failed to produce the requisite minimum power output, and as a result, the Plaintiff was required to pay an alternative source for energy which should have been produced by the System in order to make up for the shortfall in the kW production of the system. The Plaintiff also lost credits, and thus compensation, available under the New Jersey Solar Renewable Energy Certificate Program. The Plaintiff requested that the Defendant repair or replace the System, but even after the Defendant attempted to make repairs, the System continued to malfunction. The Plaintiff acknowledges the Defendant was not a party to the Contract, but argues the Defendant assumed liability for all acts and omissions arising out of the Contract by furnishing the System to be installed, furnishing the warranty documents for the System, and undertaking all repairs and maintenance for the System. As such, he argues GeoGenix was the agent acting on behalf of its principal, the Defendant, and the Defendant is GeoGenix's successor in interest. The Plaintiff also contends that the Defendant breached its obligations under the Warranty because, among other things, the Defendant repeatedly ignored his complaints regarding the efficacy of the System and each and every time Defendant attempted to repair the defective System, the repair was either ineffective, or the System shortly began to function sub-optimally again. The matter comes before the Court upon the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, to which the Plaintiff opposed. The Defendant argues the Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because he did not adequately plead facts to support his agency or successor-in-interest counts. The Defendant therefore argues that because the Plaintiff cannot establish the Defendant had any relation to GeoGenix -- the party with whom the Plaintiff entered into the Contract -- the Plaintiff's contract-related claims must fail. It further argues it satisfactorily performed under the Warranty, and therefore those claims must also fail. Judge Shipp finds that the Plaintiff failed to adequately plead facts demonstrating GeoGenix was the Defendant's agent or that the Defendant is GeoGenix's successor-in-interest. Further, the Plaintiff's pleadings regarding the Warranty are ambiguous. The Judge, accordingly, granted without prejudice the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. The Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within 21 days of entry of the Memorandum Opinion. The Court will enter an Order consistent with Judge Shipp's Memorandum Opinion. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 7, 2018 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://is.gd/E2xIVs from Leagle.com. JEFFREY JANNARONE, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by ANTHONY JOSEPH D'ARTIGLIO -- ajd@ansellgrimm.com -- ANSELL GRIMM & AARON, P.C. SUNPOWER CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by DERRICK R. FREIJOMIL -- dfreijomil@riker.com -- RIKER DANZIG. SWEET HOME: Williams FLSA Suit Settlement Has Final Approval ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, TINA WILLIAMS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SWEET HOME HEALTH CARE, LLC, et al., Defendants (E.D. Pa.), Judge Berle M. Schiller of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted the Plaintiffs' Uncontested Motion for Final Approval of Collective and Class Action Settlement and Attorneys' Fees, Costs, Administrative Fees and Class Representatives Service Fees. He awarded attorneys' fees in the amount of $541,667; costs in the amount of $49,868.05; claims administration expenses not to exceed $22,000; and class representative service fees in the amount of $6,000 to each Harris and Williams. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 9, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/tgBucO from Leagle.com. TINA WILLIAMS & LAWRENCE G. HARRIS, Plaintiffs, represented by STEVEN E. ANGSTREICH -- sangstreich@weirpartners.com -- WEIR & PARTNERS & AMY R. BRANDT -- abrandt@weirpartners.com -- WEIR & PARTNERS LLP. SWEET HOME HEALTHCARE LLC, SWEET HOME PRIMARY CARE LLC, TEKIA EMERSON & DARRYL EZELL, Defendants, represented by ALIZA R. KARETNICK -- akaretnick@duanemorris.com -- DUANE MORRIS LLP, SEAN ZABANEH -- SSZabaneh@duanemorris.com -- DUANE MORRIS LLP, ALYSSA KOVACH -- AWKovach@duanemorris.com -- Duane Morris LLP & CHRISTOPHER DRAKE DURHAM -- cddurham@duanemorris.com -- DUANE MORRIS LLP. TARGET CORPORATION: Boegeman Suit Moved to S.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Boegeman, Individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, vs. Target Corporation and Does 1-10, Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 00046303-CU-MC-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (San Diego) on Nov. 14, 2018. The Southern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-02606-BEN-NLS to the proceeding. The lawsuit alleges consumer credit law violation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Roger T. Benitez. Target Corporation is the second-largest department store retailer in the United States, behind Walmart, and is a component of the S&P 500 Index. Attorneys for Plaintiff: Yana A. Hart, Esq. HYDE & SWIGART, ESQ. 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 233-7770 Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 E-mail: yana@westcoastlitigation.com Attorneys for Target Corporation: Ashley Marie Brettingen, Esq. HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP 11601 Wilshire Boulevard, 8th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 909-8000 Facsimile: (310) 909-8001 E-mail: abrettingen@hinshawlaw.com TEXAS: Williams et al. Allege Improper Treatment of Prisoners ------------------------------------------------------------- TOBY LYNN WILLIAMS; HENRY J. HARRIS; and EDWARD L. JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BRYAN COLLIER, in his official capacity Executive Director of Texas Department of Criminal Justice; NORRIS JACKSON, in his official capacity as Warden; and TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, Defendants, Case No. 6:18-cv-00567-RWS-JDL (E.D. Tex., Oct. 31, 2018) seeks to enjoin the Defendants' dangerous practice of treating prisoners. According to the complaint, since 2011 at least twelve prisoners have died from heat stroke because of sweltering temperatures inside buildings where the Texas Department of Criminal Justice houses inmates. Hundreds more have suffered heat-related illnesses, many of whom were among the elderly and disable inmates housed at George John Beto Unit. Despite this conditions, the Defendants has done nothing to lower the temperatures inside the housing areas at the Beto Unit. This inflicts needless suffering on prisoners, and exposes them to serious risk of harm. The Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) is a department of the government of the U.S. state of Texas. The TDCJ is responsible for statewide criminal justice for adult offenders, including managing offenders in state prisons, state jails and private correctional facilities, funding and certain oversight of community supervision, and supervision of offenders released from prison on parole or mandatory supervision. [BN] The Plaintiffs appear pro se. TORRENT PHARMA: Valsartan Drugs Contaminated, Robin Roberts Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ ROBIN ROBERTS, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. TORRENT PHARMA, INC.; TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED; HUAHAI U.S. INC.; and ZHEJIANG HUAHAI PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD., the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-16075 (D.N.J., Nov. 12, 2018), alleges that Defendants willfully ignored warnings signs regarding the operating standards at the Zhejiang Huahai Pharmaceuticals manufacturing plant in China, and continued to allow ZHP to manufacture their Valsartan products for sale to consumers in the United States even after Defendants knew or should have known that their Valsartan products manufactured by ZHP contained or likely contained NDMA and/or other impurities. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and hundreds of thousands of other Valsartan consumers who paid for Defendants' generic Valsartan that was adulterated through its contamination with International Agency for Research on Cancer- and Environmental Protection Agency-listed probable human carcinogen known as N-nitrosodimethylamine. The Defendants represented and warranted to consumers that their generic Valsartan products were therapeutically equivalent to and otherwise the same as brand Diovan (TM), were otherwise fit for their ordinary uses, and were otherwise manufactured and distributed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. According to the complaint, the adulterated Valsartan drugs were introduced into the American market at least as far back as 2015 for Defendants to profit from their sale to American consumers, such as Plaintiff and Class Members. However, evidence now suggests that the contamination dates back at least as far as 2012. Plaintiff and Class Members paid for all or part of their Valsartan prescriptions that were illegally introduced into the market by Defendants and which were not fit for their ordinary use. Defendants have been unjustly enriched through the sale of these adulterated drugs since at least 2012. Defendants' conduct also constitutes actionable common law fraud, consumer fraud, and other violations of state law, the lawsuit says. Torrent Pharma is the flagship company of the Torrent Group. Based in the Indian city of Ahmedabad. It was promoted by U.N. Mehta, initially as Trinity Laboratories Ltd, and was later renamed Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd.[BN] Counsel for Plaintiff and the Class: Ruben Honik, Esq. David J. Stanoch, Esq. GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C. 1835 Market Street, Suite 2900 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: 215-965-9177 Facsimile: 215-985-4169 E-mail: rhonik@golombhonik.com dstanoch@golombhonik.com - and - Allan Kanner, Esq. Conlee S. Whiteley, Esq. Layne Hilton, Esq. KANNER & WHITELEY, LLC 701 Camp Street New Orleans, LA 70115 Telephone: 504-524-5777 Facsimile: 504-524-5763 E-mail: a.kanner@kanner-law.com c.whiteley@kanner-law.com l.hilton@kanner-law.com - and - Michael L. Slack, Esq. John R. Davis, Esq. SLACK DAVIS SANGER, LLP 2705 Bee Cave Road, Suite 220 Austin, TX 78746 Telephone: 512-795-8686 Facsimile: 512-795-8787 E-mail: mslack@slackdavis.com jdavis@slackdavis.com ULTA SALON: Ct. Enters Stipulated Protective Order in E. Wise Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, Fresno Division, has entered a Stipulated Protective Order in the case, ELIZABETH WISE, an individual, Plaintiff, v. ULTA SALON, COSMETICS & FRAGRANCE, INC.; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants. JULIE ZEPEDA, Plaintiff, v. ULTA SALON, COSMETICS & FRAGRANCE, INC., Defendant, Lead Case No. 1:17-CV-00853-DAD-EPG, Member Case No. 1:18-cv-00750-DAD-BAM (E.D. Cal.). The parties agree that during the course of discovery it may be necessary to disclose certain confidential information relating to the subject matter of the action. They agree that certain categories of such information should be treated as confidential, protected from disclosure outside the litigation, and used only for purposes of prosecuting or defending the action and any appeals. They jointly request entry of the Protective Order to limit the disclosure, dissemination, and use of certain identified categories of confidential information. The parties assert in support of their request that protection of the identified categories of confidential information is necessary because litigation of the matter may seek discovery of private information concerning parties and non-parties, including but not limited to: financial information regarding the parties; personnel information regarding the Plaintiff, as well as personnel information of other employees and former employees of the Defendant; and confidential or proprietary information related to the business and operation of the Defendant. They agree that a protective order is necessary for these categories of information to protect third-party's confidential financial data, the Defendant's confidential business information, and the Plaintiff's personal financial data. Further, the parties agree that due to the complexity of the lawsuit as a consolidated putative class action, the proposed protective order should be entered by the Court. Magistrate Judge Grosjean granted the parties' joint request and entered the Protective Order. All documents and materials produced in the course of discovery of the case, including initial disclosures, responses to discovery requests, all deposition testimony and exhibits, and information derived directly therefrom, are subject to the Order concerning Confidential Information as set forth below. As there is a presumption in favor of open and public judicial proceedings in the federal courts, the Order will be strictly construed in favor of public disclosure and open proceedings wherever possible. Designated Confidential Information must be used or disclosed solely for purposes of prosecuting or defending the lawsuit, including any appeals. In the event that the counsel for a party receiving Confidential Information objects to such designation with respect to any or all of such items, said counsel will advise the counsel for the designating party the specific documents, testimony or information to which each objection pertains, and the specific reasons and support for such objections. The counsel for the designating party will have 15 days from receipt of such objections to agree to de-designate documents, testimony or information pursuant to any or all of the objections. The Order will take effect when entered and is binding upon all counsel of record and their law firms, the parties, and persons made subject to this Order by its terms. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 13, 2018 Protective Order is available at https://is.gd/5zVOW7 from Leagle.com. Elizabeth Wise, Plaintiff, represented by John Paul Briscoe , Mayall Hurley, PC, Nicholas John Scardigli -- sscardigli@mayallaw.com -- Mayall Hurley, PC, Robert Joshua Wasserman -- rwasserman@mayallaw.com -- Mayall Hurley, PC, William J. Gorham, III -- wgorham@mayallaw.com -- Mayall Hurley, PC & Vladimir Joseph Kozina -- jkozinaj@mayallaw.com -- Mayall Hurley P.C. Julie Zepeda, Plaintiff, represented by Dennis Hyun -- info@hyunlegal.com -- Hyun Legal, APC, Edward Wonkyu Choi -- dward.choi@choiandassociates.com -- Law Offices of Choi & Associates & William Lucas Marder -- bill@polarislawgroup.com -- Polaris Law Group, LLP. Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc., Defendant, represented by Courtney Marguerite Osborn -- cosborn@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson PC, John C. Kloosterman -- Jkloosterman@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C., Kai-Ching Cha -- kcha@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C., Alexis A. Sohrakoff -- asohra@uber.com -- Littler Mendelson PC, Julie A. Stockton -- jstockton@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson P.C. & Richard H. Rahm -- rrahm@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C.. UNIFIED CARING: Schick Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls --------------------------------------------------------- SYLVIA SCHICK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs UNIFIED CARING ASSOCIATION d/b/a PERENNIAL CARE UCA; PATRIOT HEALTH FLORIDA, INC.; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, the DefendantS, Case No. 4:18-cv-06889-KAW (N.D. Cal., Nov. 14, 2018), seeks damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendant, in negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy and causing him to incur unnecessary and unwanted expenses. According to the complaint, beginning in or around July 2018, the Defendant contacted Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in -0440, in an attempt to solicit Plaintiff to purchase Defendant's services. Patriot hired UCA to broker its services and place calls on Patriot's behalf. That is, Patriot hired UCA to place calls to telephone numbers of potential clients with whom Patriot and UCA might solicit services. Under this arrangement, UCA placed calls utilizing pre-recorded voice messages to Plaintiff and others similarly situated by using an "automatic telephone dialing system" as defined by 47 U.S.C. section 227(a)(1). UCA would call Plaintiff and others similarly situated and then, when someone such as Plaintiff answers, UCA would solicit its services, which included discount medical plans provided through Patriot. UCA's calls constituted calls that were not for emergency purposes as defined by 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1)(A). Defendant did not possess Plaintiff's "prior express consent" to receive calls using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice on her cellular telephone pursuant to 47 U.S.C. section 19 227(b)(1)(A). The Plaintiff is not a customer of Defendant's services and has never provided any personal information, including her cellular telephone number, to Defendant for any purpose whatsoever. Accordingly, Defendant never received Plaintiff's "prior express consent" to receive calls using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice on her cellular telephone pursuant to 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1)(A), the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. Tom E. Wheeler, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: 323-306-4234 Facsimile: 866-633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@ toddflaw.com abacon@ toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com twheeler@toddflaw.com UNITED STATES: 9th Cir. Won't Hear Immigration Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Karina Brown, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that toddlers will continue representing themselves in immigration court in the wake of a Ninth Circuit panel's refusal on Nov. 13 to revisit dismissal of a class action that claimed kids should have court-appointed attorneys in immigration proceedings -- a refusal that drew a blistering dissent from five circuit judges. The decision leaves in place a Ninth Circuit panel's 2016 finding that a federal judge in Seattle lacked jurisdiction to hear the due process claims of a class of thousands immigrant kids after the American Civil Liberties Union and immigrant rights groups sued, claiming the kids have a right to counsel. During oral arguments in the appeal, government attorneys told the panel that appointing representation for kids facing deportation would "destroy the framework of the immigration system." The ACLU, meanwhile, cited its deposition of Immigration Judge Jack Weil, who implied toddlers can master immigration law after all. "I've taught immigration law literally to 3-year-olds and 4-year-olds," Judge Weil said in his deposition. "It takes a lot of time. It takes a lot of patience. They get it." This past February, the kids petitioned for an en banc rehearing. On Nov. 13, however, the court said in a 5-sentence order that a majority of its judges voted to deny the request. A 15-page dissent written by U.S. Circuit Judge Marsha Berzon and joined by four of Judge Berzon's colleagues accompanied the order. Judge Berzon called the state of children's immigration proceedings "absurd," and accused the appellate panel of "running roughshod over the statutory language and structure, as well as binding law." She said nothing prevents the court from reviewing the case since immigration law, and precedent from both the Ninth Circuit and the Supreme Court, bar review of cases only where the petitioner wants a second look at an order of removal. Here, Judge Berzon noted, the proceedings have not reached that stage. Judge Berzon said the panel erred by basing its decision on a subsection of law while "entirely ignor(ing) the introductory language" that says that rule only applies to review of removal proceedings -- an interpretation that Judge Berzon says was affirmed by the Supreme Court. "The children in the case have not been ordered removed, so they cannot be, and are not, seeking review of a removal order," Judge Berzon wrote. Judge Berzon outlined the obstacles kids face in trying to navigate arcane immigration law in a language they often do not understand. She cited one case where lawyers described the three-year-old they represented crawling on the table during his removal hearing. "Absurdly," Judge Berzon wrote, "the only thing atypical about that case was that the child had a lawyer." Thousands of kids will continue to show up to such proceedings without a lawyer, Judge Berzon said. "The result is nearly preordained: deportation back to a country where they will face violence and persecution," she wrote. Judge Berzon and her colleagues in dissent -- U.S. Circuit Judges Kim McLane, William A. Fletcher, Richard A. Paez and Mary H. Murguia, said the court should have had the chance to enter a ruling reflective of those points. "We should have reheard this case en banc to correct the panel's errors and given these children -- and other potentially affected by the panel's rigid procedural ruling -- their day in court," Judge Berzon wrote. UNITED STATES: Faces Singh Suit in Oregon over Religious Freedom ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against the President of the United States. The case is captioned as PACHATTAR SINGH; and GURPREET SINGH, individually and and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States; KIRSTJEN MICHELLE NIELSEN, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; RONALD D. VITIELLO, Acting Director, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; RICHARD L. MILLER, Field Office Director, Portland Field Office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement; JEFFERSON BEAUREGARD SESSIONS III, Attorney General of the United States; HUGH J. HURWITZ, Acting Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons; RICHARD IVES, Warden, FCI Sheridan, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-01912-JR (D. Or., Nov. 1, 2018). The lawsuit alleges violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The case is assigned to Magistrate Judge Jolie A. Russo. The United States of America (USA), commonly known as the United States(U.S. or US) or America, is a country composed of 50 states, a federal district, five major self-governing territories, and various possessions. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew G. McHenry, Esq. LEVINE & MCHENRY LLC 1001 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 1414 Portland, OR 97204 Telephone: (503) 546-3927 Facsimile: (503) 224-3203 E-mail: matthew@levinemchenry.com - and - Tiffany A. Harris, Esq. TIFFANY A. HARRIS, ATTORNEY AT LAW 333 SW Taylor St., Suite 300 Portland, OR 97204 Telephone: (503) 782-4788 E-mail: tiff@harrisdefense.com UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Bid to Drop Teamsters Local Suit Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Universal Health Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 29, 2018, that the company's motion to dismiss the class action entitled, Teamsters Local 456 Pension Fund, et. al. v. Universal Health Services, Inc. et. al., is still pending. In December 2016 a purported shareholder class action lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against Universal Health Services, Inc. (UHS) and certain UHS officers alleging violations of the federal securities laws. The case was originally filed as Heed v. Universal Health Services, Inc. et. al. (Case No. 2:16-CV-09499-PSG-JC). The court subsequently appointed Teamsters Local 456 Pension Fund and Teamsters Local 456 Annuity Fund to serve as lead plaintiffs. The case has been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the style of the case has been changed to Teamsters Local 456 Pension Fund, et. al. v. Universal Health Services, Inc. et. al. (Case No. 2:17-CV-02817-LS). In September 2017, Teamsters Local 456 Pension Fund filed an amended complaint. The amended class action complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws relating to disclosures made in public filings associated with alleged practices and operations at our behavioral health facilities. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages for shareholders during the defined class period as a result of the decrease in share price following various public disclosures or reports. In December 2017, the company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Universal Health said, "We deny liability and intend to defend ourselves vigorously. At this time, we are uncertain as to potential liability or financial exposure, if any, which may be associated with this matter." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Universal Health Services, Inc., through its subsidiaries, owns and operates acute care hospitals, outpatient facilities, and behavioral health care facilities. The company operates through Acute Care Hospital Services, Behavioral Health Care Services, and Other segments. Universal Health Services, Inc. founded in 1978 and is headquartered in King Of Prussia, Pennsylvania. UTZ QUIALITY: Lepiane Files Fraud Class Suit in Calif. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against UTZ Quality Foods, LLC. The case is styled as Frank Lepiane, Jamillah Dunn individually, on behalf of all others similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiffs v. UTZ Quality Foods, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-02659-LAB-MDD (S.D. Cal., Nov. 20, 2018). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. UTZ Quality Foods, Inc. manufactures and markets snack foods in the United States and internationally. It offers potato chips, pretzels, cheese snacks, corn products, and popcorns. The company offers its products through grocery stores, mass-merchants, club stores, convenience stores, drug stores, and other channels.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ronald Marron, Esq. Law Office of Ronald Marron 651 Arroyo Drive San Diego, CA 92103 Phone: (619) 696-9006 Fax: (619) 564-6665 Email: ron@consumersadvocates.com VALEANT PHARMA: Timber's Bid for Relief from Consolidation Denied ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS INTERNATIONAL, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Civil Action No. 15-7658 (MAS) (LHG) (D. N.J.), Judge Michael A. Shipp of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (i) denied Timber Hill, LLC's Motion for Relief from Consolidation Order; (ii) deneied Timber Hill's Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff; and (iii) denied as moot Lead Plaintiff Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America ("TIAA") and named Plaintiff Tucson Supplemental Retirement System's Motion to Strike. On June 6, 2018, Timber Hill filed a two-count putative class action Complaint against the Defendants alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, Timber Hill seeks to represent a class of all persons or entities that purchased call options on Valeant common stock and/or sold put options on Valeant common stock during the Class Period, and were damaged thereby. Upon filing the complaint, Timber Hill joined 29 other actions filed in the Court against the Defendants and other persons and entities, alleging similar violations of the 1934 Act, and other causes of action. On June 8, 2018, the Lead Plaintiff notified the Court of the filing of Timber Hill's Complaint and requested that the Court consolidates the Timber Hill matter into the consolidated class action. the Lead Plaintiff's request was made pursuant to the Court's May 31, 2016 Order consolidating multiple actions into the action and appointing TIAA as the Lead Plaintiff. The Court's Order directed that all securities class actions subsequently filed in, or transferred to the District will be consolidated into the action, and applied to every such action, absent an order of the Court. Pursuant to the Order, any party who objected to such consolidation, or to any other provision of the Order, must file an application for relief from the Order within 10 days after the date on which a copy of the Order is mailed to the party's counsel. On June 18, 2018, Timber Hill timely sought relief from the Consolidation Order. The Lead Plaintiff opposed on July 2, 2018. The Defendants filed a response on the same day. Timber Hill replied on July 9, 2019. The Lead Plaintiff sought leave to file a Sur-Reply and filed a Sur-Reply on July 13, 2018. TIAA's Sur-Reply addresses (1) Timber Hill's argument that TIAA will not represent the entire class, and (2) Timber Hill's assertion that the "term equity security" does not include put and call options. Timber Hill objects to consolidation of its action with the matter because the Plaintiffs in the action have not sought to represent and protect the interests of investors who Timber Hill would like to represent. Timber Hill seeks to represent persons and entities that purchased call options on Valeant common stock and/or sold put options on Valeant common stock during the period Jan. 4, 2013 through Aug. 11, 2016. It asserts that the Lead Plaintiff and its counsel will not protect the interests of derivatives traders due to potentially conflicting positions regarding, among other things, the allocation of any recovery. Judge Shipp finds that Timber Hill may be correct, and the Defendants may oppose class certification on grounds that relate to the class excluding certain derivatives traders. Given that Timber Hill has raised this issue now, Timber Hill's motion has the salutary effect of putting the Lead Plaintiff and the Court on notice that this issue may arise in the future. The Lead Plaintiff is empowered to make decisions that may impact the rights of derivatives traders in the class. The class certification process, however, ensures that those rights are protected. Moreover, a failure to protect the rights of derivatives traders will likely impact the litigation at later stages. The Court will be able to better evaluate the impact of the putative class definition on derivatives traders when the Lead Plaintiff moves for class certification. Next, he finds that consolidation will not foreclose claims that Timber Hill sought to bring prior to the entry of the consolidation order because Timber Hill filed their Complaint over two years after the entry of the Consolidation Order. Moreover, unlike the lead plaintiff In re New Oriental Educ. & Tech. Grp. Secs. Litig., the Lead Plaintiff's representations and actions regarding the derivatives traders have not alternated between inclusion and exclusion of the derivatives traders in the class. The putative class of derivate traders and the Lead Plaintiff's putative class have stated similar claims and any recovery available to one group does not necessarily diminish the recovery available to the other. In Friedman v. Quest Energy Partners LP, recovery by the class seeking recession would have necessarily decreased the size of the proverbial "pie" available to the other class. Here, the Judge holds that the classes would be competing for the same pie. The Judge is aware that if these matters go to trial there is a risk of inconsistent adjudications and additional expense and burden on the parties. Looking to the future, if the matter goes to trial and it becomes clear that multiple or bifurcated trials are necessary, the Plaintiffs will get multiple bites at the apple and the Defendants will face potential prejudice, hardship, and expense. These issues, however, are not squarely before the Court because consolidation, at this point, is for pretrial purposes only. The Court will resolve the issues surrounding multiple trials if and when it becomes necessary to do so. Finally, Timber Hill asserts that calculation of the damages of the derivatives traders will require different experts than those experts relied upon by TIAA. Timber Hill, however, offers no direct support for this assertion. Through the course of discovery, TIAA may find that the evidence suggests something different and the derivatives traders who are part of the class may have damages. Even if this is not the case, if at a later stage of the litigation, Timber Hill's assertion of the need for different damages experts evolves into an obvious intra-class conflict, the Court will entertain a renewed motion for relief from consolidation. Judge Shipp concludes that Timber Hill has not sufficiently established that the prejudice, if any, that would result from consolidation is not outweighed by the efficiencies and cost savings of consolidation. Indeed, much of the prejudice Timber Hill alleges are future ills that may be resolved as this litigation progresses. Ultimately, there may be some merit to Timber Hill's concerns, but, they are not properly before the Court at this time. Accordingly, he denied Timber Hill's Motion for Relief from Consolidation. The Court will enter an Order consistent with his Memorandum Opinion. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 7, 2018 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://is.gd/4tLCAe from Leagle.com. TIAA-CREF, Lead Plaintiff, represented by CHRISTOPHER A. SEEGER -- intake@seegerweiss.com -- SEEGER WEISS LLP & DAVID R. BUCHANAN, SEEGER WEISS, LLP. LAURA POTTER, Plaintiff, represented by CHRISTOPHER A. SEEGER, SEEGER WEISS LLP, SHELLY L. FRIEDLAND -- sfriedland@triefandolk.com -- Trief & Olk & TED E. TRIEF, TRIEF & OLK. CITY OF TUCSON TOGETHER WITH AND ON BEHALF OF THE TUCSON SUPPLEMENTAL RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Plaintiff, represented by CHRISTOPHER A. SEEGER, SEEGER WEISS LLP & DAVID R. BUCHANAN, SEEGER WEISS, LLP. TIMBER HILL LLC, Plaintiff, represented by ROBERT N. CAPPUCCI, ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI. LIHAO CHEN, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff Consolidated, represented by LAURENCE M. ROSEN -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, PA. JUSAN YANG, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, FORSTA AP-FONDEN, STICHTING BEDRIJFSTAKPENSIOENFONDS voor het SCHILDERS, AFWERKINGSEN GLASZETBEDRIJF, STICHTING PGGM DEPOSITARY, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION, PACIFIC SELECT FUND & PACIFIC FUNDS SERIES TRUST, Plaintiff Consolidateds, represented by BRUCE DANIEL GREENBERG -- greenberg@litedepalma.com -- LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC. ARIEL FEIN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated & ALAN FEIN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff Consolidateds, represented by SETH PTASIEWICZ -- SPtasiewicz@krollfirm.com -- KROLL, HEINEMAN CARTON LLC. TIMBER HILL LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff Consolidated, represented by ANDREW J. ENTWISTLE -- aentwistle@entwistle-law.com -- ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP & CHRISTOPHER W. KINUM -- cwkinum@critchleylaw.com -- CRITCHLEY KINUM & VAZQUEZ. T. ROWE PRICE GROWTH STOCK FUND, INC., T. ROWE PRICE BLUE CHIP GROWTH FUND, INC., T. ROWE PRICE INSTITUTIONAL LARGE-CAP GROWTH FUND, A SERIES OF T. ROWE PRICE INSTITUTIONAL EQUITY FUNDS, INC., T. ROWE PRICE HEALTH SCIENCES FUND, INC., T. ROWE PRICE GROWTH STOCK TRUST, T. ROWE PRICE BLUE CHIP GROWTH TRUST, T. ROWE PRICE VALUE FUND, INC., T. ROWE PRICE INSTITUTIONAL LARGE-CAP CORE GROWTH FUND, A SERIES OF T. ROWE PRICE INSTITUTIONAL EQUITY FUNDS, INC., T. ROWE PRICE FUNDS SICAV ON BEHALF OF ITS SUBFUND, T. ROWE PRICE FUNDS SICAV-US LARGE CAP GROWTH EQUITY FUND, T. ROWE PRICE BLUE CHIP GROWTH PORTFOLIO, A SERIES OF T. ROWE PRICE EQUITY SERIES, INC., T. ROWE PRICE HEALTH SCIENCES PORTFOLIO, A SERIES OF T. ROWE PRICE EQUITY SERIES, INC., T. ROWE PRICE U.S. EQUITIES TRUST, T. ROWE PRICE NEW AMERICA GROWTH FUND, T. ROWE PRICE FUNDS SICAV ON BEHALF OF ITS SUBFUND, T. ROWE PRICE FUNDS SICAV-US BLUE CHIP EQUITY FUND, T. ROWE PRICE U.S. VALUE EQUITY TRUST, T. ROWE PRICE BALANCED FUND, INC., T. ROWE PRICE PERSONAL STRATEGY GROWTH FUND, A SERIES OF T. ROWE PRICE PERSONAL STRATEGY FUNDS, INC., T. ROWE PRICE PERSONAL STRATEGY BALANCED FUND, A SERIES OF T. ROWE PRICE STRATEGY FUNDS, INC., T. ROWE PRICE PERSONAL STRATEGY INCOME FUND, A SERIES OF T. ROWE PRICE PERSONAL STRATEGY FUNDS, INC., T. ROWE PRICE FUNDS SICAV ON BEHALF OF ITS SUBFUND, T. ROWE PRICE FUNDS SICAV-GLOBAL GROWTH EQUITY FUND, T. ROWE PRICE INSTITUTIONAL GLOBAL GROWTH EQUITY FUND, A SERIES OF T. ROWE PRICE INSTITUTIONAL INTERNATIONAL FUNDS, INC., T. ROWE PRICE U.S. LARGE-CAP CORE GROWTH EQUITY POOL, T. ROWE PRICE GLOBAL GROWTH STOCK FUND, A SERIES OF T. ROWE PRICE INTERNATIONAL FUNDS, INC., T. ROWE PRICE PERSONAL STRATEGY BALANCED PORTFOLIO, A SERIES OF T. ROWE PRICE EQUITY SERIES, INC., T. ROWE PRICE NEW AMERICA GROWTH PORTFOLIO, A SERIES OF T. ROWE PRICE EQUITY SERIES, INC., T. ROWE PRICE GLOBAL GROWTH EQUITY POOL, ALLEGHANY CORPORATION, ALLEGHANY INSURANCE HOLDINGS LLC, CAPITOL INDEMNITY CORPORATION, CAPITOL SPECIALTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, PACIFIC COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY, PLATTE RIVER INSURANCE COMPANY, RSUI INDEMNITY COMPANY, TRANSATLANTIC REINSURANCE COMPANY, EQUITY TRUSTEES LIMITED AS RESPONSIBLE ENTITY FOR T. ROWE PRICE GLOBAL EQUITY FUND, VOYA PARTNERS, INC., ON BEHALF OF VY T. ROWE PRICE GROWTH EQUITY PORTFOLIO, JNL SERIES TRUST, JNL STRATEGIC INCOME FUND LLC, JACKSON VARIABLE SERIES TRUST, DOW CORNING EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT PLAN MASTER TRUST, THE MILLIKEN RETIREMENT PLAN, PENN SERIES FUNDS, INC., FOREIGN & COLONIAL INVESTMENT TRUST PLC, MINNESOTA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, SECURIAN FUNDS TRUST, CONAGRA FOODS RETIREMENT INCOME SAVINGS PLAN, CITY OF TALLAHASSEE PENSION PLAN, TEACHER RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF TEXAS, PRINCIPAL FUNDS, INC., PRINCIPAL VARIABLE CONTRACTS FUNDS, INC., BLOOMBERGSEN PARTNERS FUND LP & BLOOMBERGSEN MASTER FUND LP, Plaintiff Consolidateds, represented by DONALD A. ECKLUND -- DEcklund@carellabyrne.com -- CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. & JAMES E. CECCHI -- JCecchi@carellabyrne.com -- CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. PENTWATER EQUITY OPPORTUNITIES MASTER FUND LTD., PENTWATER EVENT DRIVEN CAYMAN FUND LTD., PENTWATER MERGER ARBITRAGE MASTER FUND LTD., PWCM MASTER FUND LTD., OCEANA MASTER FUND LTD., LMA SPC FOR AND ON BEHALF OF MAP 98 SEGREGATED PORTFOLIO, STATE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF FLORIDA & THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff Consolidateds, represented by JAMES E. CECCHI, CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS INTERNATIONAL, INC. & ROBERT L ROSIELLO, Defendants, represented by ERIC T. VISSICHELLI , MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP, PAUL C. CURNIN , SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT, LLP, RICHARD HERNANDEZ -- rhernandez@mccarter.com -- MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP & ROBERT N. WARD -- rward@mccarter.com -- MACCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP. J MICHAEL PEARSON, Defendant, represented by HOLLY SUSANNE WINTERMUTE -- hswinter@debevoise.com -- DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP & PAUL C. CURNIN, SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT, LLP. HOWARD B SCHILLER, Defendant, represented by JAMES S. RICHTER -- jrichter@winston.com -- WINSTON & STRAWN, LLP. DEBORAH JORN, Defendant, represented by CARA JOY DAVID -- cara.david@srz.com -- SCHULTE ROTH & ZABEL. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Jacobs Files Class Suit in New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Verizon Communications, Inc. et al. The case is styled as Melina N Jacobs on behalf of herself and 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, PhD. Robert J. Barish, Donna C Chiffriller, Donna C. Hiffriller, Defendants, Rock Creek Group, LP, Rock Creek Group, LLC, Interested Parties, Case No. 1:18-mc-00537-PGG (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 20, 2018). The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions. Verizon Communications Inc., through its subsidiaries, offers communications, information, and entertainment products and services to consumers, businesses, and governmental agencies worldwide. Verizon Investment Management Corp. (VIMCO) operates as an asset management arm of Verizon Communications, Inc. with approximately $66.97 billion in assets under management. The firm primarily provides its services to pension and profit sharing plans and other employee benefit plans. The Rock Creek Group, LP is a privately owned investment manager which provides its services to institutions and pooled investment vehicles. It also caters to funds, endowments, sovereign wealth funds, Taft-Hartley plans, corporate, municipal, state and foreign pension plans.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Garrett W. Wotkyns, Esq. Schneider Wallace Cottrell Brayton Konecky, L.L.P. 8501 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 270 Scottsdale, AZ 85253 Phone: (480) 428-0142 Fax: (866) 505-8036 Email: gwotkyns@schneiderwallace.com - and - James A. Bloom, Esq. Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP 2000 Powell St., Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Phone: (415) 421-7100 Fax: (415) 421-7105 Email: jbloom@schneiderwallace.com The Interested Parties are represented by: Jeffrey F. Robertson, Esq. SCHULTE ROTH & ZABEL LLP 901 15th Street, NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 729-7478 Fax: (202) 730-4520 Email: jeffrey.robertson@srz.com VINEYARD VINES: Nixon Says Retailer Breached Disabilities Act ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vineyard Vines, LLC. The case is styled as Donald Nixon on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Vineyard Vines, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06632 (E.D. N.Y., Nov. 20, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Vineyard Vines is an American clothing and accessory retailer founded in 1998 in Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts, by brothers Shep and Ian Murray. The brand markets upper market ties, hats, belts, shirts, shorts, swimwear, bags for men, women, and children.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Shalom, Esq. 124-04 Metropolitan Avenue Kew Gardens, NY 11374 Phone: (718) 971-9474 Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com WEYERHAEUSER CO: Sued over Defective Joists Used in Construction ---------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL WALKER and COURTNEY WALKER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-01637 (W.D. Wash., Nov. 12, 2018), seeks to recover damages sustained by Plaintiffs and the Class members that were proximately caused by Weyerhaeuser's defective Joists used in the construction of Plaintiffs' and Class members' homes and other structures. The Plaintiffs brought this class action against Weyerhaeuser individually and on behalf of all persons and entities who own or who have signed contracts to purchase homes or other structures located in the State of Ohio and across the United States in which Weyerhaeuser's TJI Joists with Flak Jacket Protection are or were installed. According to the complaint, Weyerhaeuser manufactured the defective Joists, and since at least December 5, 2016, sold and distributed the Joists throughout Ohio and the United States for installation in homes and other structures. Weyerhaeuser marketed and represented, on its website and marketing materials, the Joists as possessing "all the quality and cost-efficiency you expect from Weyerhaeuser's Trus Joist engineered lumber products." Weyerhaeuser touted the Joists to be "extremely durable," "not requiring] special handling or storage." Weyerhaeuser sold the Joists with a fully transferable warranty that warranted against "manufacturing defects" and remained in effect for "the lifetime of the structure." The defective nature of the Joists is so severe, the lawsuit says, that Plaintiffs' and Class members' homes and other structures were rendered uninhabitable. Recognizing the serious, dangerous problems with the Joists, Weyerhaeuser "halted all production, sales and shipments of the product." Occupants of homes containing the Joists have been advised to vacate their residences, the lawsuit says. Weyerhaeuser Company, is one of the world's largest private owners of timberlands, owning or controlling nearly 12.4 million acres of timberlands in the U.S. and managing additional 14.0 million acres timberlands under long-term licenses in Canada. The company also manufactures wood products.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC 936 North 34th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103-8869 Telephone: 206 816 6603 Facsimile: 206 319 5450 E-mail: www.terrellmarshall.com WIDEOPENWEST INC: Continues to Defend Suits in New York over IPO ---------------------------------------------------------------- WideOpenWest, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company continues to defend itself from a putative class action lawsuit in New York involving the company's initial public offering. In June and July of 2018, putative class action complaints were filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York and Colorado State Court against WideOpenWest, Inc. and certain of the Company's current and former officers and directors, as well as Crestview Advisors, LLC ("Crestview"), Avista Capital Partners ("Avista"), and each of the underwriter banks involved with the Company's initial public offering (IPO). The complaints allege violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with the IPO. The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of stockholders who purchased stock pursuant to or traceable to the IPO. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief. WideOpenWest said, "The Company believes the complaint and allegations to be without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against these actions. The Company is unable at this time to determine whether the outcome of the litigation would have a material impact on our results of operations, financial condition, or cash flows." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. WideOpenWest, Inc. operates as a cable operator in the United States. It provides high-speed data, cable television, voice over IP-based telephony, and business-class services to residential and business services customers. The company was founded in 2001 and is based in Englewood, Colorado. WideOpenWest, Inc. is a subsidiary of WideOpenWest Holdings, LLC. WILLIAMS-SONOMA INC: Court Narrows Claims in Kutza Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Judge Richard Seeborg of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted in part and denied in part eh Defendant's motion to dismiss the case, BRIAN KUTZA, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAMS-SONOMA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-03534-RS (N.D. Cal.). In the putative class action, Kutza alleges that Williams-Sonoma misleads customers into believing that certain of its lotions, soaps, and cleaning products contain no ingredients that are "unnatural and/or synthetic." Williams-Sonoma is a San Francisco-based national retailer that specializes in upscale products for the kitchen and home. The action involves approximately 60 products, consisting of lotions, hand soaps, dish soaps, room sprays, countertop sprays, and all-purpose cleaners in a variety of scents. Kutza alleges he has purchased several of the products on numerous occasions from a Williams-Sonoma store in Los Angeles County. He specifically asserts he bought at least five of the products, including one in each category except room spray. Kutza contends he purchased the products because he saw the labeling, advertising, the Williams-Sonoma website, and read the packaging, which represented that the Products are 'natural' and contain 'Active Ingredients Derived from Natural Sources.' He asserts he understood this to mean that he was purchasing natural products that did not contain any unnatural and/or synthetic ingredients. Kutza further alleges that Williams-Sonoma's marketing materials are replete with statements that the Products are natural, naturally derived, or plant-based, and the labels of all of the Products state the products are naturally derived. According to Kutza, Williams-Sonoma cultivates its image as a natural, non-synthetic, health and eco-friendly brand. The complaint asserts the various representations regarding "natural" or "naturally-derived" ingredients are false or misleading because the products in fact contain unnatural, synthetic, and/or chemical ingredients. The complaint lists over 50 examples of such ingredients found in one or more of the products. Williams-Sonoma, in turn, insists that no reasonable consumer would be deceived as alleged in the complaint. It offers evidence, in the form of photographs of its product labels, showing that the only reference to "natural" appears in the "fine print" on the back or side labels of the products, where a statement appears; "Active Ingredients Derived from Natural Sources." The complaint sets out claims for relief under the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"); California's False Advertising Law ("FAL"); California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"); and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act; as well as common law claims for breach of express warranty, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, and fraud. The California statutory claims are advanced on behalf a putative California subclass only; the balance of the claims are pleaded on behalf of a putative nationwide class. Williams-Sonoma seeks dismissal of the complaint, or parts of it, on a variety of grounds. Among other things, it contends Kutza lacks standing to represent a nationwide class under the Magnuson-Moss and common law claims for relief. Judge Seeborg granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss. He dismissed with leave to amend the breach of warranty claims under state and federal law. He otherwise denied the motion to dismiss. Williams-Sonoma argues the Moss-Magnussen and state law warranty claims must be dismissed for failure to allege facts showing any "warranty," among other things. The Judge finds that while the allegations pass the threshold necessary for pleading that a consumer may have been misled as to the nature of the product ingredients, none of the express or implied representations in the complaint rises to the level of a warranty, breach of which would be actionable under state or federal law. Accordingly, these claims for relief are dismissed, with leave to amend. Any amended complaint, or a statement that the Plaintiff elects not to amend, will be filed within 20 days of the date of the Order. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 9, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/RKNddA from Leagle.com. Brian Kutza, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by James Arthur Morris, Jr. -- jmorris@jamlawyers.com -- Morris Law Firm, Adam Martin Goffstein -- adam@goffsteinlaw.com -- Goffstein Law, LLC, pro hac vice & Daniel John Orlowsky, Orlowsky Law, LLC, pro hac vice. William-Sonoma, Inc., Defendant, represented by P. Craig Cardon -- ccardon@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP, Alyssa Marie Shauer -- ashauer@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter Hampton LLP & Benjamin Okhaifo Aigboboh -- baigboboh@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter Hampton LLP. WINESHOP AT HOME: Diaz Suit Alleges ADA Violation -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 1-800 Wineshop.com, Inc. The case is styled as Edwin Diaz on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 1-800 Wineshop.com, Inc. doing business as: Wineshop At Home, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10926 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 21, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. 1-800-WINESHOP.COM, INC. operates as a direct seller of handcrafted artisan wines in the United States. It also operates a wine club. The company offers red, white, specialty, and personalized wines, as well as stemware and boxed gifts. In addition, it provides wine tasting services.[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 XO GROUP: Faces Driscoll Securities Suit Over WeddingWire Merger ---------------------------------------------------------------- Samantha Driscoll, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. XO Group Inc., Michael Zeisser, Michael Steib, Charles Baker, Marc Kozin, Jan Hier-King, Diane Irvine, Barbara Messing, Peter Sachse, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-10909 (S.D. N.Y., November 21, 2018) is a class action brought by Plaintiff on behalf of herself and the other shareholders of XO Group, Inc. except Defendants and their affiliates, against XO Group and the members of XO Group's board of directors for their violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule in connection with the proposed merger between XO Group and WeddingWire, Inc. On September 24, 2018, the Board caused the Company to enter into an agreement of plan of merger with the WeddingWire, pursuant to which, XO Group shareholders will receive $35.00 in cash for each share of XO Group stock they own. On November 13, 2018, the Board authorized the filing of a materially incomplete and misleading preliminary proxy statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission in violation of Sections the Exchange Act that recommends shareholders vote in favor of the Proposed Merger, says the complaint. The Defendants are touting the fairness of the Merger Consideration to the Company's shareholders in the Proxy, but have failed to disclose material information that is necessary for shareholders to properly assess the fairness of the Proposed Merger, thereby rendering certain statements in the Proxy incomplete and misleading, says the complaint. Plaintiff is, and has been at all relevant times, the owner of XO Group common Stock. XO Group is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive offices located at 195 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, NY 10007. The Company operates internet websites, publishes magazines and books, and produces television and video contents offering information, products, and advice concerning weddings and pregnancy. XO Group's common stock trades on the NYSE under the symbol "XOXO". Michael Zeisser is director of XO Group and Chairman of the Board. Michael Steib is a director of XO Group and the Chief Executive Officer of the Company. Charles Baker is, and has been at all relevant times, Lead Director of XO Group. Marc Kozin, Jan Hier-King, Diane Irvine, Barbara Messing and Peter Sachse are, and have been at all relevant times, directors of XO Group.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Miles D. Schreiner, Esq. Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405 New York, NY 10118 Phone: (212) 971-1341 Fax: (212) 202-7880 Email: mschreiner@monteverdelaw.com jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com YAHOO! INC: Lawyers Submit New Details of $85MM Data Breach Deal ---------------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that in what appears to be the first test case for the Northern District of California's new class settlement guidance, lawyers submitted new details about the $85M Yahoo data breach settlement in response to probing questions from a federal judge. Following lawyers' court papers to approve last month's settlement, one of the largest for a data breach, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh issued two orders for supplemental information that largely mimic the Northern District of California's new guidance for class action settlements, widely considered the strictest in the nation. In a Nov. 9 response, some of which was sealed, lawyers filled up 21 pages answering Judge Koh's nine questions, which included more information on the potential class recoveries had the case not settled and the lodestar, or the amount of hours billed by plaintiffs lawyers multiplied by their average hourly rates. Among other things, the guidance said lawyers should provide billing calculations in their fee request and estimate the recoveries had plaintiffs succeeded on their claims. In their response, lawyers attached an exhibit detailing a lodestar of $22 million for 32 law firms, including Morgan & Morgan, New York's Milberg Tadler Phillips Grossman and Casey Gerry Schenk Francavilla Blatt & Penfield in San Diego. Yet information regarding how much the class could have gotten if the case had not settled was largely sealed. "Disclosure of this information would reveal class counsels' work product and mental impressions of the case," wrote plaintiffs' lawyer John Yanchunis in a declaration. "Protection of attorneys work product in the form of mental impressions is sacrosanct." Neither Mr. Yanchunis, of Morgan & Morgan in Tampa, Florida, nor defense attorney Ann Marie Mortimer of Hunton Andrews Kurth in Los Angeles, responded to requests for comment. The defendants are Altaba Inc., the division of Verizon formerly known as Yahoo, and Oath Holdings Inc., which owns Yahoo's holding company. Judge Koh plans to hear oral arguments on preliminary approval of the settlement at a Nov. 29 hearing. In 2016, Yahoo announced that 500 million accounts had been hacked in 2014, compromising names, email addresses, phone numbers, birth dates and passwords. Months later, Yahoo disclosed another breach in 2013 that affected 1 billion accounts, a figure that Verizon increased to 3 billion last year. The settlement also involves a third breach in 2015 and 2016. The deal is one of the largest data breach settlements in U.S. history. It resolves cases in multidistrict litigation before Judge Koh, as well as those brought in California state court, later coordinated in Orange County Superior Court, and class actions brought in Israel. The settlement includes a $50 million fund from which consumers can make claims for cash reimbursements of out-of-pocket costs, such as fraud charges and professional fees, associated with the breaches. In addition, Yahoo has agreed to provide at least two years of credit monitoring and identity theft protection insurance to class members, and implement enhancements to its security programs. Lawyers filed a motion for preliminary approval on Oct. 22. Then, on Nov. 1, the Northern District of California published its new guidance on class action settlements. On Nov. 2, Judge Koh ordered the lawyers in the Yahoo settlement to provide more information. She also asked why the deal involved 200 million individuals with about 1 billion Yahoo accounts, when three breaches compromised more than 3 billion accounts. She also asked about how they selected the settlement administrator and the number of class members expected to submit claims—both aspects in the guidelines. In a Nov. 5 order, Judge Koh asked more questions about the calculation of the plaintiffs' fee request and the use and retention of class member data provided in the settlement. In their response, lawyers said they reached the 200 million figure by estimating that 80 percent of the U.S. population of adults living in the United States had Yahoo accounts during the class period. They noted that the number of accounts dropped after Judge Koh dismissed claims by account users in foreign countries, except Israel. Not to mention, they wrote, many individuals had more than one account. They estimated that between 1 percent and 3 percent of class members would submit claims, based on other breach cases. They also said that Yahoo is paying for and selected the settlement administrator, whose costs could be more than $5 million. As to the class member data, lawyers said it would be "stored in a climate-controlled data center, with security cameras and restricted key access," and transferred through a "secure web portal" and "encrypted file share." [GN] YIR, LLC: Vega Sues over Unsolicited Marketing Phone Calls ---------------------------------------------------------- TONY VEGA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. YIR, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-24736-FAM (S.D. Fla. Nov. 13, 2018), alleges violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant offers comprehensive buyer and seller real estate services. To promote its services, Defendant engages in unsolicited marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the process. Through this action, Plaintiff 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. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of himself and members of the class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, the lawsuit says.[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 Nov. 607 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: 305 975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com YUBA COUNTY, CA: Court OKs Amended Consent Decree in Hendrick Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, DERRIL HEDRICK, DALE ROBINSON, KATHY LINDSEY, MARTIN C. CANADA, DARRY TYRONE PARKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. JAMES GRANT, as Sheriff of Yuba County; Lieutenant FRED J. ASBY, as Yuba County Jailer; JAMES PHARRIS, ROY LANDERMAN, DOUG WALTZ, HAROLD J. "SAM" SPERBEK, JAMES MARTIN, as members of the YUBA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, Defendants, Case No. 2:76-CV-00162-EFB (E.D. Cal.), Chief Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division, granted the parties' Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Amended Consent Decree and Request for Expedited Hearing. The Magistrate named Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP as the co-counsel for the class. A hearing on the Motion was held on Oct. 24, 2018. The Magistrate finds that the Amended Consent Decree falls within the range of possible approval and is sufficiently fair to warrant the dissemination of notice to the class members apprising them of the Amended Consent Decree. A hearing is appropriate to consider whether the Court should grant final approval to the settlement, and to allow adequate time for the members of the class, or their counsel, to support or oppose this settlement. He granted the parties' request to expedite the hearing on the Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Amended Consent Decree for Oct. 24, 2018, at 10:00 a.m., and approved the Notice of Amended Consent Decree. Within seven days of the Order, the Defendants must post the Notice (1) on the County's official website (www.co.yuba.ca.us/); and (2) in all Jail facilities operated by Defendants, including, but not limited to, in all dayrooms, all medical clinic spaces, the visiting area, and the intake area in the Yuba County Jail. The copies of the Amended Consent Decree will be available in the Jail library and made available to Jail inmates upon request. The Magistrate authorized and approved the dissemination of the Notice as provided. No later than 10 days after the Order, the Defendants must file and serve on the Plaintiffs' counsel an affidavit affirming that they published notice as required in the Court's order. Any member of the class may write to the Court about whether the settlement is fair. The comments must be postmarked no later than 52 days after the issuance of the Order, and sent to the following address: Clerk of the Court United States District Court Eastern District of California 501 I Street Sacramento, CA 95814 The final approval hearing is set for Jan. 23, 2019. A joint memorandum of points and authorities in support of final approval will be filed on Jan. 9, 2019. The Plaintiffs filed a motion for reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses on Oct. 24, 2018. A hearing on the motion for attorneys' fees and expenses will be held on Jan. 23, 2019 at 10:00 a.m., the same date as the hearing on the motion for final approval. A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 7, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/XKJ3XB from Leagle.com. David Hedrick, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin Joseph Bien-Kahn -- bbien-kahn@rbgg.com -- Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP, Carter Capps White, King Hall Civil Rights Clinic UC Davis School of Law, Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld -- ggrunfeld@rbgg.com -- Rosen Bien Galvan and Grunfeld LLP, Michael Bien -- mbien@rbgg.com -- Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP, Devin W. Mauney -- dmauney@rbgg.com -- Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP, Fred H. Altshuler, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Ilene Janet Jacobs, California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc. & Michael Louis Freedman -- mfreedman@rbgg.com -- Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld, LLPO. Dale Robinson, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin Joseph Bien-Kahn, Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP, Carter Capps White, King Hall Civil Rights Clinic UC Davis School of Law, Fred H. Altshuler, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld, Rosen Bien Galvan and Grunfeld LLP, Michael Bien, Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP, Devin W. Mauney, Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP & Michael Louis Freedman, Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld, LLPO. James Grant & Yuba County, Defendants, represented by Carl L. Fessenden -- cfessenden@porterscott.com -- Porter Scott, PC, John Riley Vacek -- jvacek@co.yuba.ca.us -- County of Yuba County Counsel & John Robert Whitefleet -- jwhitefleet@porterscott.com -- Porter Scott, APC. Estate of Bertram Hiscock, Unknown, represented by Lori Rifkin -- lrifkin@hadsellstormer.com -- Hadsell Stormer & Renick LLP. ********* 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 ***